• Sign In/Sign Up
  • Menu
  • +Clients Back

    • Get Free Legal Answers
    • Get Fee Estimates
    • Find Lawyers
  • +Lawyers

    • Case Diary & Office Manager
    • Post News & Artilces
    • Post Jobs & Internships
  • +Law Students

    • Campus Ambassadors
    • Find Jobs & Internships
    • Post News & Articles
    • Resource Sharing
  • +Law Schools

    • Post Admissions
    • Post Opportunities
    • Get Law School Rating

  • Home
  • Post Articles
  • Jammu and Kashmir HC Upholds PM’s Employment Package (2009) For Kashmiri Pandits Living In The Valley

Latest Articles

Back

Jammu and Kashmir HC Upholds PM’s Employment Package (2009) For Kashmiri Pandits Living In The Valley

Courtesy/By: Sanjeev Sirohi  |  19 Mar 2019     Views:2237

There can be no two views that in a landmark, latest and laudable judgment delivered by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Kashmiri Sikh Community and others v. State of J&K and others in OWP no. 2048/2017 just recently on February 14, 2019, it has very rightly upheld PM’s Employment Package (2009) for Kashmiri Pandits living in the Valley.  Every Indian must salute the heroic determination of all those Kashmiri Pandits who did not flee the Valley despite all round pressure on them and terrorists breathing down their neck since such a long time from 1990s onwards! No doubt, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has very rightly turned down the plea challenging special dispensation in the matter of employment given in favour of Kashmiri Pandits living in Kashmir Valley for which it must be applauded and appreciated in no uncertain terms.

                            First and foremost, this commendable and noteworthy judgment delivered by Justice Sanjeev Kumar of Jammu and Kashmir High Court sets the ball rolling in para 1 by bringing out that, “The petitioner no. 1 claims to be a body of Kashmiri Sikhs, represented by one Shri Santpal Singh, resident of Aloochi Bagh, Srinagar. The petitioners 2 & 3 claim to be the unemployed Kashmiri Sikh youth. The petitioners are aggrieved of special dispensation in the matter of employment given in favour of Kashmiri Pandits, living in Kashmir Valley, by amending J&K Migrants (Special Drive) Recruitment Rules 2009 (for short “Rules of 2009”) in terms of SRO 425 dated 10th October 2017. They are also aggrieved by the subsequent Government Order, issued by respondent no. 1, bearing no. 96-DMRR&R of 2017 dated 13th November 2017. It is asserted that SRO425 dated 10th October 2017, whereby the Rules of 2009 have been amended violates the equality clause, bedrock of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, by treating the Sikh Community staying in Kashmir Valley differently than the similarly placed Kashmiri Pandits, for the purposes of extending the Prime Minister’s Employment Package. In essence, the petitioners seek mandamus to respondents to treat them at par with Kashmiri Pandits, staying in Valley, for the purposes of providing the employment pursuant to the Prime Minister’s Package of Return and Rehabilitation.”

                                        Of course, it is then pointed out in para 2 that, “Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged in support of the claim made in the writ petition, it would be pertinent to briefly narrate the factual background leading to issuance of the impugned SRO.”

                  In hindsight, it is then brought out in para 3 that, “It is a historical known fact that during the year 1990, there was a sudden spurt of militancy and terrorism in Kashmir Valley. There were stray instances of target killings of minority community (Kashmiri Pandits) and political workers. This led to scare in the minds of such people who feared for their life and honour in the wake of happenings which were taking place at the relevant point of time. The happenings created a sort of fear of psychosis and instilled strong sense of insecurity in the mind of aforesaid community. In the result, the Nation witnessed large scale exodus of Kashmiri Pandits along with the political workers from Kashmir Valley. This was unprecedented situation witnessed by the Nation. The condition in the Valley at the relevant point was such that no authority of the State could prevent such mass exodus. There are different versions on the reasons for such mass exodus of a particular community. Different political parties hold different views. The Court may not be concerned as to what were actual reasons of the mass exodus of Kashmiri Pandits from Kashmir Valley but at the same time is not oblivious to the plight and miseries that befell on these migrants. They had to leave their home and hearth and settle in camps in Jammu, New Delhi and various other places of the country, where they felt sense of security.”

                                 It cannot be lost on us that it is then further noted in para 4 that, “There can be no dispute that sufferings of all these Kashmiri Migrants, who had to leave their home and hearth in peculiar law and order situation in the State, were of high magnitude. The Government of India as also the Governments of various States came up with different measures of rehabilitation and provided relief and succor to these families by all possible means. Despite all efforts made by the Government of India at its level, there was no discernible improvement in the living standard of this migrant community. This led the Government of India to come up with a comprehensive package and policy of relief and rehabilitation in the year 2008. This package/policy was first announced by the then Prime Minister during his visit to the State on April 25-26, 2008. The package was meant to ameliorate the lot of Kashmiri Pandit Community, who had been forced to migrate from Kashmir Valley and to facilitate their return and rehabilitation. Apart from other incentives contained in the package formally announced in June 2008, it was also decided to provide the jobs to the educated among migrant youth in the State Government services and financial assistance (grant of loans to unemployed to help them engage in self-employment through vocational training. Accordingly, 3000 supernumerary posts were created in various Departments for providing employment to migrant youth who were willing to return and serve in Kashmir Valley. With a view to filling up these posts and providing employment exclusively to the unemployed youth from amongst the migrants, the Government came up with the Rules of 2009, which were notified by the Government vide SRO 412 dated 30th December 2009. These Rules, as is apparent from their recital, are statutory rules framed by the Governor under proviso to Section 124 of the Constitution of J&K. The supernumerary posts created under the Prime Minister’s package were, accordingly, filled up under the aforesaid Rules and the employment to several migrant youth, came to be provided.”         

                                   Going ahead, it is then elaborated in detail in para 5 stating that, “It appears that despite all efforts made by the Central Government and issuance of the employment package under the name of the Prime Minister’s package for relief and rehabilitation of Kashmiri Migrants, the things did not improve at the desired pace. This led the Government of India to do rethinking on the matter. With a view to going deep into the living conditions of the Kashmiri Migrants and to suggest better means and ways to improve upon their living standards, a Joint Parliamentary Committee was constituted, which submitted its 137th report on the rehabilitation of J&K Migrants. Apart from the general suggestions, various measures for improving the pitiable condition of migrants were suggested. The Committee, in its observations/conclusions/recommendations at serial no. 4.2, expressed its deep concern over the pathetic condition of about 4000 Kashmiri Pandits, living in Kashmir Valley. The Committee felt that there should be special budgetary provision for Kashmiri Pandits left behind in the Valley for fulfilling their genuine needs of the housing, employment/self-employment, for improving their living conditions. Subsequently, the Parliamentary Standing Committee of Home Affairs submitted its 179th report on the action taken by the Government on the recommendations/observations contained in 137th Report on rehabilitation of the J&K Migrants. The report elaborately deals with the action on different aspects but with regard to the condition of Kashmiri Pandits living in the Valley. The Parliamentary Committee in paragraph 2.1.21 observed that a large number of Kashmiri Pandit families were living in Kashmir Valley in a pathetic condition. A  number of such families living in the Valley, was pegged at 600. The Committee, thus, recommended that courage of such Kashmiri Pandit families, who continued to reside in the Valley despite the adverse conditions, needed to be appreciated and they should be provided appropriate security and other facilities as may be required. It appears that in light of the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the rehabilitation of Kashmiri Migrants and also taking note of pathetic condition of Kashmir Pandit community, which had decided not to migrate because of many reasons as also to extend the Prime Minister’s Package of Return and Rehabilitation, the Government of India sanctioned additional 3000 government jobs for Kashmir Migrants vide its communication dated 4th December 2015. This package of employment was meant for all Kashmiri Migrants and the category of Kashmiri Pandits, who had not migrated from the Kashmir Valley during the terrorist violence, was first time included for the benefit of the aforesaid employment package. As is apparent from the aforesaid communication, the Government of India desired that while providing the jobs to the Kashmiri Pandit families under the package, preferably the formula of one job per family be adopted. This sanction of the additional package of employment prompted the Kashmiri Pandits residing in the Valley to approach this Court by way of OWP no. 1986/2013 titled Kashmiri Pandit Sangarsh Samiti and others v. Union of India and others. The petition was essentially filed to implement the package of incentive particularly in part pertaining to the benefit of jobs to be given to the Kashmiri Pandit families on the formula of one job per family. The petition was disposed of by this Court on 31st May 2016, with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners therein in accordance with the rules. The decision was directed to be taken within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. It appears that the State Government did not move in the matter, which made the petitioners in the aforesaid petition to file a contempt petition, seeking implementation of the directions passed on 31st May 2016. The notice in the contempt appears to have waken the State from its slumber, which immediately came up with Government Order no. 58-DMRR&R of 2017 dated 29th July 2017, and created 3000 supernumerary posts in different departments. Since in the revised package of the employment and rehabilitation issued by the Government of India, the Kashmiri Pandit families residing in the Valley who had not migrated in the wake of onslaught of militancy in 1990, had also been included for the benefits, it was necessary for the Government to amend the Rules of 2009. It may be noted that under the Rules of 2009, as they then stood, the employment package was meant for all migrants, who had fled from the Valley leaving their home and hearth for settlement in safer places irrespective of their caste, community or religion. These migrants include the internally displaced persons as well, but this package of employment under Rules of 2009 was not available to the Kashmiri Pandit community, which had decided to stay back in the Valley despite the prevailing adverse security scenario and despite the fact that there was large scale exodus of their community from the Valley in the year 1990. The State Government, after going through the formal procedure, ultimately amended the rules of 2009 vide SRO 425 of 2017 dated 10th October 2017 and included such Kashmiri Pandit families also for the benefit under the Rules of 2009. Since the Government of India, while sanctioning the additional 3000 supernumerary posts, had indicated that for the purposes of providing the employment to Kashmiri Pandit families, preferably the formula of one job per family, should be adopted, as such, the State Government decided to set apart 500 posts for Kashmiri Pandit families to be filled up by a different committee, constituted vide Government Order no. 96-DMRR&R of 2017 dated 13th November 2017. A separate committee was necessitated as these posts could not have been filled up through J&K Services Selection Board, which is enjoined to make the selection on the basis of merit. It is worthwhile to notice that the State Government, instead of effecting appropriate amendment in the Rules of 2009, did so by executive fiat.”     

                                        In essence, it is then aptly stated in para 6 that, “From the sequence of events given hereinabove, it is clear that the amendment impugned has enured to the benefit of a particular community, i.e. Kashmiri Pandit community, which stayed back in the Valley despite adverse conditions. It does not make any provision for the petitioners’ community, which claims to have suffered in the similar manner and which like the Kashmiri Pandit families also decided to stay back and did not migrate from the Valley. This deprivation appears to have led to heartburning in the petitioners’ community. The petitioners feel that the State has ventured into class legislation and has treated persons in the same class differently. They claim that the similar benefit needs to be extended to them and the Rules of 2009 as amended vide SRO impugned are ultra vires the Constitution. It is in this background that the instant petition has been filed by the members of the Sikh community living in the Valley.”  

                      As a consequence, it is then pointed out in para 7 that, “The respondents have filed their reply and have explained the reasons for coming up with the special package of employment in favour of Kashmiri Pandit families staying in the Valley. Referring to some empirical data which respondents claim was analysed before grant of the package of employment to Kashmiri Pandit families, it is pleaded that the two communities, i.e. Kashmiri Pandits and Sikhs living in the Valley do not form the same class and, therefore, classification made by the respondents for providing the benefit of employment to one person per family to the Kashmiri Pandits living in the Valley is a valid classification and meets the requirement of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.”

                             More importantly, it is then pointed out in para 8 that, “Kashmiri Pandits living in the Valley too have intervened in the matter and have filed a separate set of objections raising several issues with regard to maintainability of the petition. In short, they too have sought to justify the classification made by the respondents for the purposes of employment on the formula of one job per family to the Kashmiri Pandit families living in the Valley. In their objections they have relied upon the Parliamentary Standing Committee reports and other material to demonstrate that Kashmiri Pandit community which decided against migration and stayed back due to various reasons viz. economical, security or the assurances by the community in the neighbourhood etc, have suffered more than those who migrated from the Valley. The Parliamentary Standing Committee, which went deep into the matter has clearly highlighted the pitiable and pathetic condition of the Kashmiri Pandit community living in the Valley. It is, thus, pleaded that the decision to extend the special benefit of employment to the Kashmiri Pandit community was on the basis of the empirical data collected by the Government with regard to the living conditions of the Kashmiri Pandit community living in the Valley. It is, thus, pleaded that looking to the empirical data, it cannot be said that the Sikh Community, which stayed in the Valley and did not migrate, suffered in the same manner.”

                                        Having said this, let us now turn to para 23. It states that, “From reading of Rules of 2009, in their entirety, it is abundantly clear that the posts specially created from time to time in the Valley under the Prime Minister’s Special Package are meant to be filled up from ‘Migrants’ as defined in Rule 2(d). From the definition of migrant given in the Rules, it is evident that the benefit envisaged under the Rules is available to all migrants fulfilling the three conditions enumerated herein above irrespective of their caste, community or religion. The Rules of 2009 treats all migrants as a class and do not make any discrimination on any ground whatsoever.”

                                 Be it noted, what cannot be missed out here is that it is then added in para 24 stipulating that, “However, the amendment incorporated in the Rules of 2009, vide SRO 425 dated 10th October 2017, introduces a class of Kashmiri Pandits, who have not migrated from Kashmir Valley after 1st of November 1989, and are presently residing in Kashmir Valley. The Rules of 2009, which prior to amendment were called J&K Kashmiri Migrants (Special Drive) Recruitment Rules, 2009, now after amendment would be known as J&K Kashmiri Migrants or Kashmiri Pandits (Special Drive) Recruitment Rules 2009. The expression “Kashmiri Pandits” has been defined by inserting Clause (ca) after Clause © of Rule 2. Similarly, other necessary amendments have been made to give effect to the intendment of the amendment, which is to confer the similar benefit of the package of employment on Kashmiri Pandit community, who did not migrate during turmoil of 1989-90 and decided to stay back in the Valley. Interestingly, SRO 425 of 2017 does not make any amendment to the definition of post given in Rule 2 (c), which when read with Rule 3 would mean that amended Rules would apply to the posts which are sanctioned from time to time in the Valley under the Special Package for return and rehabilitation of Kashmiri Migrants to the Valley, issued by the Prime Minister. It would also mean that the posts becoming available on account of supernumerary creation under the Prime Minister’s Special Package cannot be filled up otherwise than in accordance with the Rules of 2009 as amended vide SRO 425 of 2017."    

                                Enumerating on the various reasons why Kashmiri Pandits who did not migrate from Kashmir were given reservation, para 25 then goes on to elaborate stating rightly that, “From careful reading of the Rules of 2009 and amendments carried thereto vide SRO impugned in this petition, it is abundantly clear that a class different from the migrants has been created for conferring the benefit of the Prime Minister’s Package for return and rehabilitation of Kashmiri Migrants. The class identified under the impugned SRO is a community of Kashmiri Pandits, who did not migrate in the wake of turmoil in the Valley and stayed back despite adverse conditions perceivably prevailing for their community. This classification has been necessitated pursuant to the several representations received for and on behalf of this community, which was living in a very pitiable and pathetic condition in the Valley. The Government of India also took note of the fact that these handful families had not migrated due to reasons of their poverty, economic conditions, a sense of security instilled in them by their supporting neighbourhood, etcetera, etcetera. They stayed back and braved the adverse conditions in the Valley, which seriously impacted growth of their families educationally and economically. Taking note of their plight and the persistent pitiable conditions, a policy decision was taken to confer the benefit of the Prime Minister’s Package of return and rehabilitation on this community as well. As noted above, this was not a hollow exercise by the Government of India. Not only it collected the relevant empirical data but also appointed a Standing Parliamentary Committee to go into all these aspects and make their recommendations. As is averred by the respondents in their affidavit that as per the records available with the Relief and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Migrant), Jammu, there are 15700 Hindu Relief families and 22062 Hindu Non-Relief families, consisting of 49859 souls and 82740 souls respectively. Besides there are 1336 Relief Sikh families and 353 Non-Relief Sikh families consisting of 5043 souls and 1502 souls respectively registered with the Relief Organisation. In the light of the aforesaid data placed on record, the respondents have pleaded that the effect of migration in the wake of turmoil in the Valley was more on the Kashmiri Pandit community than other communities. It is though conceded that handful of Sikh families too migrated from the Valley but majority decided to stay back and has been residing peacefully. It is on the basis of this empirical data and the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee constituted for the purpose that the Government appears to have taken a policy decision to extend some helping hand to this distressed Kashmiri Pandit community.”  

                                    Needless to say, para 25 makes it abundantly clear why Kashmiri Pandits who did not migrate from Kashmir Valley were given reservations. It also specifies why Sikhs were not given reservation. This was because majority of them did not migrate from Kashmir as opposed to majority of Kashmiri Pandits who had migrated from the Kashmir Valley! The stand taken by the Government was a well thought out decision which has to be appreciated and applauded! No wonder that Jammu and Kashmir High Court too endorsed it!

                                        Viewed from this perspective, there can be no gainsaying that para 26 then further goes on to explain stating that, “From the aforesaid discussion and in view of the stand taken by the respondents, it cannot be said that the Sikh Community is similarly placed with the Kashmiri Pandits. There appears to be intelligible differentia, which distinguishes Kashmiri Pandits, who have stayed back in the Valley and did not migrate when lakhs of their community members left their home and hearth in view of the then prevailing security scenario in the Valley. The classification clearly distinguishes Kashmiri Pandit community from Sikh Community living in the Valley, which has been left out of group. The classification based on intelligible differentia has a definite nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Rules of 2009 as amended vide impugned SRO, and is meant to ameliorate the lot of Kashmiri Pandits who preferred to stay back and did not flee despite unsavoury security conditions in the Valley in the year 1989-90. The target killings of members of their community instilled sense of fear and insecurity in their minds, which made their living in the Valley possible only at the cost of their lives. This sense of insecurity was all pervasive. In the milieu, there were certain families who decided not to migrate either because they were poverty ridden or did not have resources to move out or that they were assured by the community in their neighbourhood not to be afraid of. Whatever be the reasons, they decided to stay back but suffered due to unsavoury and not too good conditions in the Valley for the community. As per 137th report of the Standing Parliamentary Committee, their condition continued to worsen. They lacked behind in education and fared very bad on the economic front. Taking into account all these factors and the historical background responsible for en masse exodus of the community, the Central Government decided to provide some relief and succor to these families of Kashmiri Pandits. It is in this background that a policy decision was taken by the Government to treat these families of Kashmiri Pandits, staying in the Valley, at par with the migrants for the purposes of providing the employment package. This necessitated the amendment in the Rules of 2009, so as to include Kashmiri Pandits, staying in the Valley, also as beneficiary of the Prime Minister’s Package for return and rehabilitation of Kashmiri Migrants, issued from time to time.”

                        It is then underscored in this same para 26 that, “Viewed thus, it cannot be said, by any stretch of imagination or reasoning, that the classification made by the impugned SRO is not based on intelligible differentia or that differentia has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. If the object of the Rules of 2009 is return and rehabilitation of migrants, it would make no sense if the same does not provide for rehabilitation of those who have not fled from the Valley despite adverse conditions and have stayed back.”

                                  Not stopping here, it is then held in para 27 that, “In view of the foregoing discussion, I find that the impugned SRO does not amount to class legislation but makes a valid classification which is permissible under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.”

                                      It would be imperative to mention here that para 33 then envisages that, “Going by the aforesaid considerations, the respondents have carved out the classification on the parameters of data as well as the recommendation of Parliamentary Standing Committee. Such a decision is based on policy considerations. It cannot be said that this decision is manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable. It is settled law that policy decisions of the Executive are best left to it and a court cannot be propelled into the unchartered ocean of Government policy. [See: Bennett Coleman & Co. v. Union of India, 1972 (2) SCC 788]. Public authorities must have liberty and freedom in framing the policies. It is well accepted principle that in complex social, economic and commercial matters, decisions have to be taken by governmental authorities keeping in view the several factors and it is not possible for the Courts to consider the competing claims and to conclude which way the balance tilts. The Courts are ill-equipped to substitute their decisions. It is not within the realm of the Courts to go into the issue as to whether there could have been a better policy and on that parameters direct the Executive to formulate, change, vary and/or modify the policy which appears better to the Court. Such an exercise is impermissible in policy matters. The scope of judicial review is very limited in such matters. It is only when a particular policy decision is found to be against a Statute or it offends any of the provisions of the Constitution or it is manifestly arbitrary, capricious or mala fide, the Court would interfere with such policy decisions. No such case is made out. On the contrary, views of the petitioners have not only been considered but accommodated to the extent possible and permissible.”

                                      What’s more, it is then clarified in para 34 that, “The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the Legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act. The Legislature and its delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should be pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act and there is no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal infirmity, in the sense of its being wholly beyond the scope of the regulation-making power or its being inconsistent with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the limitation imposed by this Constitution. Reference in this regard may be made to Maharashtra State Board of Writ Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, 1984 (4) SCC 27; and Federation Haj PTOs of India v. Union of India, 2019 SCC Online SC 119.”     

                                  To be sure, it is then reiterated in para 35 that, “I have already elaborately discussed all the aspects in detail herein above and reaffirm that the impugned SRO only makes a valid classification which falls within the scope and purview of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The impugned SRO is affirmative action and a policy decision on the part of the State to bring a particular community, staying in the Valley under peculiar circumstances, at par with their counterparts, so that they could compete and avail of the employment opportunities after they are brought in a position to compete with them. Having said that, I hold the amendment to the Rules of 2009 intra vires the Constitution.”

                                 Continuing in the same vein, it is then brought out in detail in para 36 that, “This brings me to the second question, which pertains to the competence of the Government to set apart 500 posts out of 3000 supernumerary posts created by the Government under the Prime Minister’s Package for return and rehabilitation of Kashmiri Migrants. Although the issue was not well articulated and debated by the parties before this Court, yet while going through the records and appreciating their contentions, I have reached a conclusion that filling up of the posts as defined in Rule 2 (e) of the Rules of 2009 as amended vide impugned SRO, which are sanctioned by the State from time to time under the Prime Minister’s package for return and rehabilitation of Kashmiri Migrants, is regulated by the Rules of 2009, which are statutory in character, having been issued by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Section 124 of the Constitution of J&K. The SRO, as amended, makes a provision for Kashmiri Pandit community by treating them at par with the migrants and, therefore, takes care of their rehabilitation. It is equally true that the implementation of the Rules of 2009 as amended would pose some difficulty in allocating one job per family for this community of Kashmiri Pandits, staying in the Valley. In this background, perhaps, it was advisable on the part of the Government to take out 500 posts out of the Package to be appropriated for achieving the aforesaid end but that could have been done by adopting proper process countenanced by law. Needless to say, that the Government Order can supplement, but cannot supplant the Statutory Rules and, therefore, without effecting appropriate amendment in the Rules and providing for a separate allocation of posts for Kashmiri Pandits, the respondents could not have set apart 500 posts to be filled up in the manner provided in the impugned Government order. If the Government Order impugned is allowed to stand, it would mean that not only Kashmiri Pandit community would be entitled to one job per family to be provided by the Government from out of 500 posts created under the Prime Minister’s Package and set apart for the purpose, but it would also entitle them to compete with other migrants for rest of 2500 posts under the Rules of 2009. I am sure this is not intended by the Government.”     

                                    Needless to add, it is then stated in para 37 that, “In view of the aforesaid, I do not find the impugned Government Order no. 96-DMRR&R of 2017 dated 13th November 2017 sustainable in law, for the same has the effect of modifying the Statutory Rules which is impermissible. All the posts created in pursuance to the Prime Minister’s Package for Return and Rehabilitation are required to be filled up as per the Rules of 2009 and in no other manner.”

                         Finally, it is then held in para 38 that, “In view of the aforesaid analysis, I find no merit in the petition so far as challenge to the vires of SRO 425 dated 10th October 2017 is concerned and the same is accordingly, rejected. However, the impugned Government Order no. 96-DMRR&R of 2017 dated 13th November 2017 is held unsustainable in law and is accordingly quashed. The respondents may proceed in the matter in accordance with law.”

                                   All said and done, it is a comforting, commendable and courageous decision which clearly takes into account the unpardonable trauma and innumerable sufferings faced by those Kashmiri Pandits who inspite of being subjected to repeated harassment still refused to shun their homes and courageously face the situation! This alone explains why it upheld PM’s Employment Package (2009) for Kashmiri Pandits living in the Valley! Very rightly so! A majority of Sikhs preferred to stay back in Kashmir Valley in 1989-90 and therefore the Jammu and Kashmir High Court very rightly refused to accord them the same position which was accorded to those hapless Kashmiri Pandits who decided not to leave the Kashmir Valley even though a majority of them decided to shift to other places!  


Courtesy/By: Sanjeev Sirohi  |  19 Mar 2019     Views:2237

Articles Updates

Supreme Court Greenlights Sub-Classification of SC...
20 Sep 2024     Views:1342
Post-Merger Vision: HDFC Bank to Prioritize Profit...
01 Aug 2024     Views:1192
Budget 2024-25: Major Takeaways and Financial Proj...
01 Aug 2024     Views:1397
Budget 2024-25: Major Takeaways and Financial Proj...
01 Aug 2024     Views:1280
The Mandal Verdict: Indra Sawhney and Its Lasting ...
22 Jul 2024     Views:1974
Supreme Court Emphasizes Direct and a Specific Ple...
22 Jul 2024     Views:1294
Bail and Punishment Provisions of NDPS matters...
05 Apr 2023     Views:4739
The Legal Depth of Cryptocurrency....
14 May 2022     Views:5581
Have You Suffered Harm Due to a Cochlear Implant?...
13 May 2022     Views:5847
When is a Deposition Summary used?...
13 May 2022     Views:5949
Denied! 8 Most Common Reasons for Green Card Denia...
25 Feb 2022     Views:6004
International customary law – a study of the Ang...
20 Feb 2022     Views:10496
How to Have an Essay Written for Free?...
10 Feb 2022     Views:5468
How to maximise a law firm’s success with a virt...
28 Dec 2021     Views:5717
Helpful Math Website for Students - AssignMaths.co...
26 Nov 2021     Views:5895
The Upcoming Municipal Nominee Program of Canada...
29 Oct 2021     Views:5964
Assault with a Weapon: How To Get Your Charges Dro...
28 Oct 2021     Views:3255
Law School Personal Statement Tips for Winning Adm...
12 Oct 2021     Views:2860
Can an Employee on Maternity Leave be Terminated?...
05 Oct 2021     Views:2454
OLD STATUTES MAKING A COMEBACK AMID VIRUS OUTBREAK...
04 May 2020     Views:5361
ARTICLE 141: DOCTRINE OF PRECEDENT...
04 May 2020     Views:21796
Presumptions in Evidence Law...
04 May 2020     Views:8594
Unique use of Technology during covid-19 pandemic...
30 Apr 2020     Views:4949
45 days interim bail granted to under- trial priso...
29 Apr 2020     Views:4526
DOCTRINE OF RES GESTAE...
27 Apr 2020     Views:9250
Rights of the LGBTQI community- a long road ahead....
26 Apr 2020     Views:4286
Measures to protect women against domestic violenc...
26 Apr 2020     Views:4092
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)...
25 Apr 2020     Views:5181
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertificatio...
24 Apr 2020     Views:3926
Increase in Cyberbullying during COVID-19...
24 Apr 2020     Views:2184
DOCTRINE OF COLOURABLE LEGISLATIONS...
24 Apr 2020     Views:3000
Doctrine of lifting of corporate veil...
23 Apr 2020     Views:2546
Meaning of Legal Pluralism...
23 Apr 2020     Views:2233
Once a mortgage, always a mortgage...
23 Apr 2020     Views:56777
Euthanasia- Meaning and Legality in India...
23 Apr 2020     Views:2130
Judicial activism and Judicial restraint...
22 Apr 2020     Views:2272
Concept of Insider Trading under Investment Law...
22 Apr 2020     Views:2442
Need for Legal Awareness...
22 Apr 2020     Views:2421
Is Extradition a Legal Duty of State? ...
22 Apr 2020     Views:6735
The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Traff...
22 Apr 2020     Views:1902
Why Dependence On Criminal Law Is Not The Solution...
22 Apr 2020     Views:1913
Uniform Civil code...
22 Apr 2020     Views:1996
VETO POWER AND DOUBLE VETO POWER ...
20 Apr 2020     Views:32006
ABETMENT UNDER THE INDIAN PENAL CODE...
20 Apr 2020     Views:6731
Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 197...
20 Apr 2020     Views:3516
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL - CRITICAL ANALYSIS...
20 Apr 2020     Views:6281
LAWS AGAINST ACID ATTACK IN INDIA...
20 Apr 2020     Views:11129
Concept of conciliation...
19 Apr 2020     Views:3706
White collar crimes in India...
19 Apr 2020     Views:3066
No Law To Make Whatsapp Group Admins Liable For Me...
19 Apr 2020     Views:7876
Relationship between International Law and Municip...
18 Apr 2020     Views:55264
International Labour Organization (ILO)...
18 Apr 2020     Views:2208
How is the Law arena affected by COVID-19?...
18 Apr 2020     Views:1777
Motor Vehicle Insurance Law...
18 Apr 2020     Views:2062
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (CSR) AND ITS IMPO...
18 Apr 2020     Views:2236
ENVIRONMENTAL GAINS OF THE LOCKDOWN MUST BE PRESER...
18 Apr 2020     Views:2019
Difference between Kidnapping and Abduction...
17 Apr 2020     Views:3743
JUSTIFYING SC ORDER THAT MANDATES FREE COVID-19 TE...
17 Apr 2020     Views:1520
Evolution of the Nature and Scope of Article 12 of...
16 Apr 2020     Views:6734
Corruption laws in India ...
16 Apr 2020     Views:2143
ADVERTISING LAWS IN INDIA...
16 Apr 2020     Views:2490
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons...
15 Apr 2020     Views:2144
Business Laws in India...
15 Apr 2020     Views:3747
The Process of Passing an Ordinary Bill in the Par...
14 Apr 2020     Views:12813
International Committee of the Red Cross...
14 Apr 2020     Views:2049
National Company Law Tribunal...
14 Apr 2020     Views:2135
FOOD ADULTERATION...
13 Apr 2020     Views:3652
The United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juv...
13 Apr 2020     Views:4976
Environmental Protection Act, 1986...
12 Apr 2020     Views:2742
IMPORTANCE OF PRECEDENTS ...
12 Apr 2020     Views:11082
MoHFW and ICMR hold a conflicting statement over C...
11 Apr 2020     Views:1843
Introduction to Income Tax Act, 1961...
11 Apr 2020     Views:6684
DEMOCRACY IN INDIA...
10 Apr 2020     Views:2662
United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS)...
10 Apr 2020     Views:2697
An Overview of Juvenile Delinquency and the Juveni...
09 Apr 2020     Views:3024
How is Absolute Liability different from Strict Li...
09 Apr 2020     Views:26490
International Armed Conflict (IAC) and Non-Interna...
09 Apr 2020     Views:5356
The Concept of Bonded Labour under the Legal Syste...
09 Apr 2020     Views:2064
Why Indian Constitution is called Quasi-federal?...
08 Apr 2020     Views:33945
What should be given primary importance, Human Rig...
08 Apr 2020     Views:2054
Karl Marx: Debates on the Law on Thefts of Wood ...
08 Apr 2020     Views:7171
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Disc...
07 Apr 2020     Views:2081
Legal Rights of Students in India...
07 Apr 2020     Views:4142
International Covenant on Civil and Political...
06 Apr 2020     Views:2061
Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India)...
06 Apr 2020     Views:2991
The Hart-Fuller debate in a Nutshell ...
06 Apr 2020     Views:20238
Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Cri...
06 Apr 2020     Views:1945
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Child...
06 Apr 2020     Views:1911
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY DURING THE HEALTH CRI...
06 Apr 2020     Views:1557
Traditional Knowledge : The Convention on Biologic...
06 Apr 2020     Views:2217
Bailment...
05 Apr 2020     Views:2600
Monopolistic nature of Copyright Societies in Indi...
05 Apr 2020     Views:2226
Marital Rape...
05 Apr 2020     Views:1793
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Bill ...
05 Apr 2020     Views:1741
Manual Scavenging ...
05 Apr 2020     Views:1656
How serious can Online Abuse be?...
05 Apr 2020     Views:1736
Cognizable and non cognizable offences...
05 Apr 2020     Views:7440
Legal Aid In India ...
05 Apr 2020     Views:2096
Basic Structure Doctrine...
05 Apr 2020     Views:1942
Medical Negligence...
05 Apr 2020     Views:1659
Consumer Protection Act, 2019...
05 Apr 2020     Views:2044
Legality of Cryptocurrency in India...
05 Apr 2020     Views:2184
Intimate Partner Violence...
05 Apr 2020     Views:1829
CENTRE USES THE PRETENCE OF ‘FAKE NEWS’ TO SUP...
05 Apr 2020     Views:1654
International Humanitarian Law...
05 Apr 2020     Views:1734
What rights do a disabled person in India have? ...
05 Apr 2020     Views:2167
Universal Declaration of Human Rights...
03 Apr 2020     Views:2036
What is the National Security Act being slapped on...
03 Apr 2020     Views:1755
False News- another epidemic?...
02 Apr 2020     Views:1885
Commercial laws in India a Bird's-eye view...
02 Apr 2020     Views:9345
All About Suo Moto Proceedings...
02 Apr 2020     Views:2140
Intellectual Property Rights...
02 Apr 2020     Views:1852
Alternate Dispute Resolution...
02 Apr 2020     Views:1840
Types of E-commerce Models ...
02 Apr 2020     Views:1830
'Intermeddler' as a Legal Representative under the...
01 Apr 2020     Views:10478
Right to health- A fundamental right...
31 Mar 2020     Views:1943
What is a Green Bond? ...
31 Mar 2020     Views:1754
Defamation...
31 Mar 2020     Views:1788
CONSTITUTIONALITY OF NATIONAL LOCKDOWN...
30 Mar 2020     Views:2000
Positive and Negative Impacts of the US-China Trad...
29 Mar 2020     Views:3735
Public Heath(Covid-19) Rules, 2020...
29 Mar 2020     Views:1708
Opinion | Migration and the Mockery of Lockdown- I...
29 Mar 2020     Views:1715
Female Genital Mutilation- Violation of Human Righ...
29 Mar 2020     Views:2056
Supreme Court’s judgement on Shreya Singhal v. U...
29 Mar 2020     Views:2831
International Court of Justice...
28 Mar 2020     Views:2129
Feminist Jurisprudence...
27 Mar 2020     Views:2270
IP Protection and Diffusion of Environmentally Sou...
27 Mar 2020     Views:2409
Covid-19 fostered Racism ...
26 Mar 2020     Views:1825
Mercy Petition: The Process ...
26 Mar 2020     Views:3123
WTO Work Programme on E-Commerce ...
26 Mar 2020     Views:1939
Comparison between Section 144 of CrPC, lockdown a...
26 Mar 2020     Views:2479
Prison reforms...
26 Mar 2020     Views:1765
How far has the LGBTQI community come?...
26 Mar 2020     Views:2019
Public Interest Litigation...
26 Mar 2020     Views:2043
The Right to information Act- Still a right or not...
25 Mar 2020     Views:2016
Legalization of Marijuana...
25 Mar 2020     Views:1870
Significance of AB PM-JAY in the light of COVID-19...
25 Mar 2020     Views:1762
The History of Magna Carta...
25 Mar 2020     Views:2879
Introduction to Child Rights in India...
25 Mar 2020     Views:6555
CENTRE CANNOT DECLARE AN ORGANISATION POLITICAL: ...
06 Mar 2020     Views:4299
A DECISION MADE BY SC ON AYODHYA VERDICT...
29 Jan 2020     Views:2235
RIGHTS OF TRANSGENDER IN INDIA...
29 Jan 2020     Views:2464
MARITAL RAPE - A NON CRIMINALIZED CRIME IN INDIA...
24 Jan 2020     Views:2510
MISCONCEPTION ABOUT CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT ...
22 Jan 2020     Views:2402
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE...
21 Jan 2020     Views:2494
Hyderabad Encounter- Human Rights Violation or Jus...
18 Jan 2020     Views:3020
NOTE ON NIRBHAY CASE CONVICTS...
17 Jan 2020     Views:2432
NOTE ON ARTICLE 370...
17 Jan 2020     Views:2372
Rape and Indian laws ...
13 Jan 2020     Views:3018
An overview on Drugs Law...
13 Jan 2020     Views:2546
Mob Lynching: Role of Politics and approach of Jud...
08 Jan 2020     Views:5530
Trademarks: Spectrum of Distinctiveness and Indian...
06 Jan 2020     Views:6273
Women Prisoners ...
23 Dec 2019     Views:2592
Child Care Institutions and its Judicial Interpret...
23 Dec 2019     Views:2698
Smart Contracts and Their Relevance in The Legal P...
19 Dec 2019     Views:2313
Government Vs Opposition on the Citizenship Amendm...
12 Dec 2019     Views:2613
Condition Of Lady Advocates Vulnerable: Lawyer App...
11 Dec 2019     Views:3165
Montesquieu’s Theory of Separation of Powers: Ho...
10 Dec 2019     Views:35909
JUDICIAL REVIEW AND JUDICIAL OVER-REACH: TRANSITIO...
10 Dec 2019     Views:4522
Due Process Of Law For Rapists Must Speed Up Now...
10 Dec 2019     Views:2261
Human Rights Of Women Must Also Be Respected...
09 Dec 2019     Views:2281
Speedy Capital Punishment For Rapists Must Be Ensu...
08 Dec 2019     Views:2373
Why Only One Dhananjoy Chatterjee Hanged Till Now?...
07 Dec 2019     Views:3005
Why No Death Penalty For Gang Rape In India?...
07 Dec 2019     Views:1977
Rape Convicts Must Be Hanged At The Earliest From ...
05 Dec 2019     Views:2047
No Mercy Petition And No Life Term Ever For Gang R...
02 Dec 2019     Views:2354
Section 207 CrPC: Magistrate Cannot Withhold Any D...
02 Dec 2019     Views:3523
UP Bar Council Chairman Harishankar Singh Openly C...
17 Nov 2019     Views:2622
AN UNDERSTANDING OF PRESIDENT’S RULE UNDER ART 3...
13 Nov 2019     Views:4472
COOKING UP A LEGALLY PROTECTED MEAL: A study on IP...
13 Nov 2019     Views:2410
Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde To Be The New CJI From...
31 Oct 2019     Views:2687
UK Supreme Court Declares Prorogation Of Parliamen...
29 Sep 2019     Views:2116
Right To Access Internet Is Part Of Right To Priva...
23 Sep 2019     Views:1886
No Attempt Made To Frame Uniform Civil Code Despit...
19 Sep 2019     Views:2046
A Legal Giant Named Ram Jethmalani Finally Passes ...
09 Sep 2019     Views:1948
Judicial Service – HC Can’t Modify/Relax Instr...
02 Sep 2019     Views:1724
Government Notifies Strict Provisions Of Motor Veh...
31 Aug 2019     Views:1823
NDPS: Reverse Burden Of Proof Does Not Absolve Pro...
30 Aug 2019     Views:2686
Institutional Independence, Financial Autonomy Int...
28 Aug 2019     Views:1757
A Legal Luminary And A Political Stalwart Passes A...
25 Aug 2019     Views:2000
Allahabad HC Bans DJs And Passes Directions For Re...
24 Aug 2019     Views:1754
Delhi HC Refuses Anticipatory Bail To P Chidambara...
23 Aug 2019     Views:1985
Chidambaram Getting No Respite From Courts...
23 Aug 2019     Views:1648
Domestic Violence And Dowry Accused Set Free By Th...
22 Aug 2019     Views:5129
Bombsy HC: Treat every citizen with dignity...
20 Aug 2019     Views:5332
Integration Of J&K With India Is Now Full And Fina...
20 Aug 2019     Views:2812
Second Appeal Not To Be Dismissed Merely On The Gr...
18 Aug 2019     Views:1843
Judge Can Recuse From A Case At His Own Volition, ...
17 Aug 2019     Views:1952
Don't politicize demolition of temples: SC...
16 Aug 2019     Views:5392
Madras Christian College - female students sexuall...
16 Aug 2019     Views:4968
Charged for employing triple talaq...
16 Aug 2019     Views:2680
Earlier Convicted now Acquitted - Lack of Conclusi...
15 Aug 2019     Views:2625
MACAD Scheme to be enforced in Tamil Nadu - 1st Oc...
15 Aug 2019     Views:2540
Filing Of Criminal Complaint For Settling Civil Di...
15 Aug 2019     Views:1956
End Discrimination: Equalize legal age of Marriage...
14 Aug 2019     Views:1828
Madras HC issues directions upon Officers to check...
14 Aug 2019     Views:2359
BOMBAY HC to Civic Bodies: "Own up to your respons...
14 Aug 2019     Views:1880
Infringement of Registered TM "Vistara" - Threat t...
13 Aug 2019     Views:2179
US Citizen approaches Bombay High Court After Bein...
13 Aug 2019     Views:2059
Normalcy need not be restored in J&K instantly : S...
13 Aug 2019     Views:1953
Prohibitory Steps taken against Students for Consu...
13 Aug 2019     Views:1975
Basic Amenities to Traffic Personnel ...
12 Aug 2019     Views:1785
Madras HC upholds the appointment notification of ...
12 Aug 2019     Views:1885
Plea against E-pharmacies struck down by Bombay HC...
12 Aug 2019     Views:1900
Parliament Rightly Makes Triple Talaq Criminal But...
12 Aug 2019     Views:1857
No Tax Deduction from Motor Accident Compensation ...
11 Aug 2019     Views:1986
Delhi HC: Plant 50 Trees, Quash Criminal Proceedin...
11 Aug 2019     Views:1823
Iyal Isai Nataka Mandram should abide by the time ...
11 Aug 2019     Views:2073
Transitory Committee to be formed for Indian Arche...
11 Aug 2019     Views:1868
Outlawing Of Triple Talaq Is Highly Commendable...
11 Aug 2019     Views:1807
Daring Resolve Taken By Centre On Jammu And Kashmi...
10 Aug 2019     Views:1777
M Kavitha’s suspension to be reviewed...
09 Aug 2019     Views:2496
SC: Adverse Possession owing to Title over Propert...
09 Aug 2019     Views:1937
Regulation of Online streaming contents out of the...
09 Aug 2019     Views:1874
Constitution Cannot Be Above Country Come What May...
09 Aug 2019     Views:1858
Ocean waves to be our new energy source...
08 Aug 2019     Views:2271
Delhi HC: Simple language to be incorporated in FI...
08 Aug 2019     Views:2181
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ASKED THE GOVERNMENT T...
08 Aug 2019     Views:1451
Victim Has A Right To Assist The Court In A Trial ...
08 Aug 2019     Views:3336
Study of Lakes to be Conducted by NEERI...
07 Aug 2019     Views:2129
SC Denies Permission to Conduct DNA Tests...
07 Aug 2019     Views:2045
Whatsapp's fight against interference with User-Pr...
07 Aug 2019     Views:1581
Evidence Of A Solitary Witness In A Criminal Trial...
07 Aug 2019     Views:1891
High Court of Karnataka set aside the retirement o...
07 Aug 2019     Views:2085
Study of Lakes to be Conducted by NEERI...
06 Aug 2019     Views:2002
History-sheeter kidnaps and rapes a College Studen...
06 Aug 2019     Views:2079
No Room For Sympathy While Sentencing Terror Convi...
06 Aug 2019     Views:2022
Rejected Plea: Declaration of Vande Mataram as Nat...
05 Aug 2019     Views:2267
Madras HC corrects the computation error of Motor ...
05 Aug 2019     Views:1833
Fundamental Right To Privacy Not Absolute And Must...
05 Aug 2019     Views:1864
Diocese of Tanjore Society School gets relief from...
04 Aug 2019     Views:2025
THE TEMPLES IN KARNATAKA NO MORE BE GOVERNED UNDER...
03 Aug 2019     Views:1845
Triple Talaq legislation is challenged in the Delh...
03 Aug 2019     Views:1807
Special Olympics International Football Championsh...
03 Aug 2019     Views:1745
Concession to be given to disabled persons appeari...
03 Aug 2019     Views:2401
Bombay High Court Hears Dowry Case Involving A Civ...
03 Aug 2019     Views:2169
Karnataka High Court on the condition of Roads...
02 Aug 2019     Views:2393
SC ORDERS DEATH PENALTY IN COIMBATORE GANG-RAPE CA...
02 Aug 2019     Views:1665
RBI Changes Features Of New Currency Notes. Bombay...
02 Aug 2019     Views:1773
Interest Of Victim And Society At Large Must Also ...
02 Aug 2019     Views:1834
Abolition of Colonial Decorum in Courts...
01 Aug 2019     Views:6107
Punjab & Haryana HC Bans Use Of Loudspeakers Witho...
31 Jul 2019     Views:2666
ICJ Has Rightly Called Pakistan’s Bluff In Jadha...
26 Jul 2019     Views:1840
Review And Reconsider Conviction And Sentencing Of...
22 Jul 2019     Views:1864
Plaintiff Cannot Be Forced To Add Parties Against ...
21 Jul 2019     Views:2121
Biggest Slap By ICJ Directly Right On The Face Of ...
19 Jul 2019     Views:1821
Delhi HC Imposes Rs. 50,000 Cost On Woman For Fals...
17 Jul 2019     Views:1837
Non-Appointment Of Judges Affects Speedy Justice: ...
16 Jul 2019     Views:1739
Right To Get Anticipatory Bail Is Not Any Fundamen...
14 Jul 2019     Views:2103
Plea For Anticipatory Bail Not Maintainable Before...
13 Jul 2019     Views:2287
Divorce Cannot Be Granted Only On Ground Of Irretr...
11 Jul 2019     Views:1759
Right To Shelter A Fundamental Right; State Has Co...
08 Jul 2019     Views:1884
HC Cannot Reverse Acquittal Without Affording Oppo...
06 Jul 2019     Views:1654
Centre Is Legally Empowered To Create A High Court...
05 Jul 2019     Views:2353
Centre Must Now Immediately Order Creation Of HC B...
03 Jul 2019     Views:1448
UAPA: SC Dismisses PFI Leader’s Plea Seeking Dis...
02 Jul 2019     Views:1897
How To Record The Evidence Of Deaf And Dumb Rape V...
01 Jul 2019     Views:2758
Ban Advocates From Carrying Weapons Inside Court P...
26 Jun 2019     Views:3096
Enact Strict Law To Ensure Personal Safety Of Doct...
26 Jun 2019     Views:3096
Mere Aggressive Behaviour Of Wife Not A Ground Of ...
26 Jun 2019     Views:3226
Court Cannot Destroy Faith & Beliefs Of People: Ma...
07 Jun 2019     Views:1719
Insult Of Soldier In Name Of Law Is Most Disgracef...
07 Jun 2019     Views:1998
Courts Cannot Decide Eligibility And Essential Qua...
20 May 2019     Views:5460
SC Upholds Constitutionality Of Section 23 Of PCPN...
20 May 2019     Views:3099
My Unflinching Faith In CJI Stands Fully Vindicate...
20 May 2019     Views:2239
Solitary Confinement Of Death Convict Prior To Rej...
20 May 2019     Views:2572
Section 498A & 306 IPC: Incidents Which Happened M...
20 May 2019     Views:6055
Why Should UP Have Least High Court Benches In Ind...
20 May 2019     Views:1983
Successive Bail Applications Should Be Placed Befo...
20 May 2019     Views:9411
“Drop This Episode From Your Minds And Gossips...
20 May 2019     Views:1596
Is The Criticism Of In-House Procedure Justified?...
20 May 2019     Views:2058
Mere Pendency Of Civil Case Between Complainant An...
20 May 2019     Views:1781
Section 482 CrPC: HC Should Assign Reasons As To W...
20 May 2019     Views:3534
Delhi High Court Directs Government To Set Up 18 F...
20 May 2019     Views:1622
No New Appointments To Be Made From In-Service Can...
18 May 2019     Views:1702
Only Advocates Can Plead And Argue On Behalf Of Li...
09 Apr 2019     Views:3857
Nations Must Make Gun Laws More Stricter...
04 Apr 2019     Views:4727
SC Designates 37 Lawyers As Senior Advocates...
04 Apr 2019     Views:8760
Adding Additional Accused: To Invoke Section 319 C...
04 Apr 2019     Views:7159
SC Sets Aside Life Ban Imposed On Cricketer Sreesa...
04 Apr 2019     Views:2135
P&H HC Directs Protection Of Honest Officers While...
04 Apr 2019     Views:1906
Death Sentence Can Be Imposed Only When Life Impri...
19 Mar 2019     Views:2475
Islamabad High Court Rejects Plea Against Release ...
19 Mar 2019     Views:2640
Lawyers Resort To Seek Unnecessary Adjournments Am...
19 Mar 2019     Views:2460
Even Poem Can Help Save A Death Convict From Gallo...
19 Mar 2019     Views:2486
Educated Woman Supposed To Be Fully Aware Of Conse...
19 Mar 2019     Views:1768
Jammu and Kashmir HC Upholds PM’s Employment Pac...
19 Mar 2019     Views:2237
Magistrate Shall Specify Whether Sentences Awarded...
23 Feb 2019     Views:2673
Mere Inability To Repay Loan Does Not Constitute C...
23 Feb 2019     Views:3456
Inability To Establish Motive In A Case Of Circums...
23 Feb 2019     Views:3194
Punjab & Haryana HC Issues Slew Of Directions To C...
23 Feb 2019     Views:3486
Court Has to Confine Itself To The Four Corners Of...
23 Feb 2019     Views:1648
Long Pendency Amounts To A Special Reason For Impo...
23 Feb 2019     Views:1968
Successive Applications For Recalling Witnesses Sh...
23 Feb 2019     Views:3603
Lieutenant General (Rtd) Cannot Be Tried In A Gene...
06 Feb 2019     Views:2902
Autonomy Of the Bar Cannot Be Taken Over By The Co...
05 Feb 2019     Views:3560
Casual Act Of Possession Over Property Does Not Co...
04 Feb 2019     Views:2792
No Authority Can Claim Privilege Not To Comply Wit...
04 Feb 2019     Views:2781
Death Sentence Only When The Alternative Option Is...
04 Feb 2019     Views:3126
SC Imposes Rs 5 Crore Penalty On A Medical College...
28 Jan 2019     Views:2121
A Judicial Officer Is Not An Ordinary Government S...
25 Jan 2019     Views:2502
Rape And Murder Of 8 Year Old Girl: SC Commutes De...
23 Jan 2019     Views:2549
Mere Allegations Of Harassment Without Proximate P...
23 Jan 2019     Views:3141
Legal Article Why Should They Speak Lies: Decease...
23 Jan 2019     Views:2074
Can a Economic offender can escape by surrendering...
22 Jan 2019     Views:1954
NCW is a Lame Duck or Legal Guardian for women...
22 Jan 2019     Views:1826
Mutual Consent Divorce Procedure in Chennai Family...
21 Jan 2019     Views:7087
Quick Divorce in India...
21 Jan 2019     Views:1962
4 Important things to file Divorce in Chennai...
21 Jan 2019     Views:2156
How to get Divorce for Muslim Men ...
21 Jan 2019     Views:12361
Offences Under Section 307 IPC Can’t Be Quashed ...
17 Jan 2019     Views:4197
Suspicion, Howsoever Grave, Can’t Substitute Pro...
17 Jan 2019     Views:1922
Delhi HC Rejects AJL's Plea Against Centre's Order...
03 Jan 2019     Views:2661
1984 Anti-Sikh Riots: Delhi HC Awards Life Term To...
03 Jan 2019     Views:2610
SC Dismisses Petitions Seeking Probe Into Rafale D...
20 Dec 2018     Views:3001
Executive Magistrate Cannot Direct Police To Regis...
20 Dec 2018     Views:3349
Why Lawyers Of West UP Are Compelled To Strike Fre...
20 Dec 2018     Views:2200
recheck...
19 Dec 2018     Views:2736
1984 Anti-Sikh Riots – Delhi HC Upholds Convicti...
12 Dec 2018     Views:2354
Why Lawless West UP Has No High Court Bench?...
11 Dec 2018     Views:2641
Bombay HC Quashes Government Resolution Making It ...
26 Nov 2018     Views:2782
SLP Against Death Sentence Shall Not Be Dismissed ...
26 Nov 2018     Views:2814
SC Allows Live-Streaming Of Public Proceedings In ...
26 Nov 2018     Views:2686
Sexual Offenders Registry For Law Enforcement Agen...
26 Nov 2018     Views:4965
Delhi HC Sentences 16 Policemen To Life Imprisonme...
26 Nov 2018     Views:1940
Men Too Have Right Not To Be Defamed And Denounced...
26 Nov 2018     Views:2029
Courts Have To Adequately Consider Defence Of The ...
26 Nov 2018     Views:1906
CJI Ranjan Gogoi Demonstrates His Firm Resolve And...
26 Nov 2018     Views:1838
SC Issues Directions On Examination Of Witnesses I...
26 Nov 2018     Views:3532
Aadhaar Held Mandatory For Government Subsidies An...
26 Nov 2018     Views:2299
Legal Article Now Bar Council ID Card Is Valid Id...
01 Nov 2018     Views:3078
SC Sets Deadline On Sale Of BS-IV Vehicles; Says H...
01 Nov 2018     Views:2866
Devotion Cannot Be Subjected To Gender Discriminat...
23 Oct 2018     Views:4156
There Cannot Be Any Mechanical Denial Of Appointme...
23 Oct 2018     Views:3191
Rights Of Accused Far Outweigh That Of Victims, Ne...
23 Oct 2018     Views:2075
SC Strikes Down 158 Year Old Adultery Law Under Se...
23 Oct 2018     Views:3187
Extra-Judicial Confession Of Accused Need Not In A...
23 Oct 2018     Views:2331
Leaders Of Outfits Calling For Mob Violence Liable...
23 Oct 2018     Views:2069
Section 377 IPC Decriminalised Partially By Supre...
23 Oct 2018     Views:2608
New CJI Ranjan Gogoi Is Determined To Ensure Sweep...
23 Oct 2018     Views:2460
Court Must Not Go Deep Into The Matter While Consi...
26 Sep 2018     Views:2773
Reputation Of An Individual Is An Insegregable Fac...
26 Sep 2018     Views:3580
Sec. 498A IPC: Only HC Can Quash Cases On Settleme...
18 Sep 2018     Views:4542
Punjab & Haryana HC Orders Rape Convict, Mother To...
17 Sep 2018     Views:2577
Bombay HC Imposes Cost Of Rs 50K On Petitioner Fir...
17 Sep 2018     Views:2102
Uttarakhand HC Dismisses “Contempt Petition” A...
14 Sep 2018     Views:2183
SC Stresses On Need To Develop And Recognize ‘De...
08 Sep 2018     Views:2138
Mirchpur Dalit Killings: “Atrocities Against SCs...
08 Sep 2018     Views:2290
SC Upholds Pan India Reservation Rule in Delhi; Bu...
03 Sep 2018     Views:2633
NDPS Bail Conditions Discriminatory, Irrational An...
31 Aug 2018     Views:3479
People Without A Degree Performing Surgeries: Utta...
28 Aug 2018     Views:2196
Uttarakhand HC Issues Directions For Conserving ...
28 Aug 2018     Views:2682
12 Year Old Girl’s Rape And Murder: Constitute P...
28 Aug 2018     Views:2444
MP HC To Debar Members/Office Bearers Of Bar Counc...
22 Aug 2018     Views:2127
Special Squad, Police Patrolling Every 24 Hours To...
20 Aug 2018     Views:2294
NRC Being Prepared Under Supreme Court’s Watch I...
20 Aug 2018     Views:2299
Victims Of Crime Can Seek Cancellation Of Bail: MP...
20 Aug 2018     Views:2423
Delhi HC Strikes Down Provisions In Law That Crimi...
13 Aug 2018     Views:2475
Delhi HC Quashes Govt Notification Revising Minimu...
09 Aug 2018     Views:2455
Poorest Of Poor Cannot Go To Private Hospitals: Ut...
07 Aug 2018     Views:2760
How Long Will Lawyers Of West UP Just Keep Strikin...
04 Aug 2018     Views:2726
Courts Must See That The Public Doesn’t Lose Con...
04 Aug 2018     Views:2255
UK Tier 1 Entrepreneur Visa: Overview from Experts...
31 Jul 2018     Views:2383
Enact Law For Safety Of Soldiers Of Jammu And Kash...
23 Jul 2018     Views:2204
SC Advocates Creating A Special Law Against Lynchi...
23 Jul 2018     Views:3583
Matrimonial Discord Can’t Be Considered As Reaso...
23 Jul 2018     Views:3547
Uttarakhand HC Recommends Govt To Enact Legislatio...
23 Jul 2018     Views:3420
High Court Priests Cannot Refuse To Perform Religi...
23 Jul 2018     Views:2693
Uttarakhand High Court Passes String Of Directions...
23 Jul 2018     Views:2034
SC Finally Decides Master Of Roster Case...
23 Jul 2018     Views:1978
Stone Pelters And Terrorists Have No Right To Life...
23 Jul 2018     Views:2539
Remove Designations Like Police, HC, Journalist, A...
23 Jul 2018     Views:2508
Why Centre is Providing Security For Separatists B...
23 Jul 2018     Views:2255
Farmer Suicide Due To Bankruptcy Or Indebtedness: ...
05 Jul 2018     Views:4877
Every Indian Should Salute Brave Soldier Aurangzeb...
05 Jul 2018     Views:3704
Uttarakhand HC Issues Directions To Curb Drug Pedd...
05 Jul 2018     Views:2985
Have A Functional National Law University Within 3...
05 Jul 2018     Views:2562
Establish Regional Bench Of AFT In The State Withi...
05 Jul 2018     Views:1971
Cancel Licences of Drivers Using Cell Phones; Helm...
05 Jul 2018     Views:1853
Uttarakhand High Court Puts Restrictions On Noise ...
05 Jul 2018     Views:2040
Supreme Court To Look Into Validity Of Amended Law...
05 Jul 2018     Views:1869
Mysterious Deaths, Rapes, Malnutrition, Unsanitary...
29 Jun 2018     Views:3054
No Politics Please Over Plan To Assassinate PM Mod...
11 Jun 2018     Views:2461
Free Mentally Ill Children And Formulate Policies ...
11 Jun 2018     Views:2850
Landmark Ruling By Uttarakhand HC On Solitary Conf...
07 Jun 2018     Views:3495
Right Of Adult Couple To Live Together Without Mar...
06 Jun 2018     Views:2586
Why BJP Will Be Wiped Out In West UP And UP?...
06 Jun 2018     Views:2602
Why UP Has Just One High Court Bench And West UP N...
05 Jun 2018     Views:2167
Women Governed By Muslim Personal Law Can Invoke P...
04 Jun 2018     Views:1895
Why Is BJP Not Creating More Benches In UP?...
01 Jun 2018     Views:2080
Probation Period To Count For New Civil Servants B...
01 Jun 2018     Views:3908
SC Women Lawyers Association Seeks Chemical Castra...
01 Jun 2018     Views:1910
SC Finally Steps In To Expedite POCSO Cases...
01 Jun 2018     Views:3342
UP Former CMs Can’t Stay In Govt Bungalows: SC...
01 Jun 2018     Views:1837
Make BCCI A Public Body: Law Panel...
01 Jun 2018     Views:2203
Self-Styled Godman Asaram Awarded Life Until Death...
01 Jun 2018     Views:2113
Why Cases Withdrawn Against Stone Pelters In Kashm...
01 Jun 2018     Views:2280
A High Court Bench For West UP In Meerut Is Impera...
01 Jun 2018     Views:2462
People Of Karnataka Should Worship Congress...
01 Jun 2018     Views:2292
Delhi HC Upholds Life Term To Seven Policemen...
19 Mar 2018     Views:1984
Finance Act-2018 And Customs Act-1962 (Amendments)...
28 Feb 2018     Views:2125
Why No Death Or Life Term For Corruption?...
19 Feb 2018     Views:1912
Will Electoral Bonds Usher In Transparency?...
19 Feb 2018     Views:1851
How Long Will Lawyers Of West UP Keep Striking?...
19 Feb 2018     Views:1986
Finance Act 2018 and Customs Act 1962...
18 Feb 2018     Views:2508
Why Has Stone Pelting Been Legalised In Kashmir?...
12 Feb 2018     Views:2016
Shopian Firing: Major's Dad Moving SC For Quashing...
12 Feb 2018     Views:1922
Soldiers Have Every Legal Right To Kill Stone Pelt...
12 Feb 2018     Views:3363
Attack On Lawyers: Delhi HC Issues Notice To Delhi...
10 Feb 2018     Views:1912
Female Foeticide Must Be Punished Most Strictly...
10 Feb 2018     Views:2153
Soldiers Have Every Legal Right To Act In Self Def...
10 Feb 2018     Views:1892
New Consumer Protection Bill 2018 Will Entail More...
10 Feb 2018     Views:1919
CJI Brings Out A Roster To Allot Cases...
10 Feb 2018     Views:2500
Five Year Jail Term For Lalu In Third Fodder Scam ...
10 Feb 2018     Views:2019
SC Quashes All The 88 Mining Leases In Goa...
10 Feb 2018     Views:2009
Prevention Of Money Laundering Act -2002 (PMLA-20...
07 Feb 2018     Views:2071
Prevention Of Money Laundering Act-2002 Amended ...
04 Feb 2018     Views:2633
Prevention Of Money Laundering Act -2002 --U/S 45(...
03 Feb 2018     Views:2458
Prevention Of Money Laundering Act-2002 (P...
16 Jan 2018     Views:2094
humanity...
13 Jan 2018     Views:1842
Prevention Of Money Laundering Act-2002 PMLA...
13 Jan 2018     Views:1913
Right to Know...
05 Jan 2018     Views:2378
A STUDY OF CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS ON INCOME TAX RELATI...
29 Dec 2017     Views:2600
Enviornment protection is for saving universe...
28 Dec 2017     Views:1870
RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND STATUS OF SECTION 377, IPC, 1...
26 Dec 2017     Views:1851
PROBLEMS WITHIN THE EXISTING POLICE SYSTEM...
26 Dec 2017     Views:1953
LEGALITY : LEGALITY OF MARITAL RAPE...
26 Dec 2017     Views:2887
RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND DIRECTION FOR MANDATORY AADHA...
26 Dec 2017     Views:1794
THE PARADOX OF PLEA BARGAINING...
26 Dec 2017     Views:2915
JOURNEY OF EVMs AMIDST CONTROVERSIES ...
26 Dec 2017     Views:1981
UIDAI suspends Airtel, Airtel Payments and Banks e...
26 Dec 2017     Views:2202
2G Scam : The 2G Scam and much more...
26 Dec 2017     Views:2720
Kerala teen surveillance case: Invasion of Privacy...
26 Dec 2017     Views:1872
Motherhood or Employment- the judicial perspective...
26 Dec 2017     Views:2168

Most Read Articles

  • Once a mortgage, always a mortgage
    On 23 Apr 2020    Views:56777
  • Relationship between International Law and Municipal Law
    On 18 Apr 2020    Views:55264
  • Montesquieu’s Theory of Separation of Powers: How it has been adopted in India
    On 10 Dec 2019    Views:35909
  • Why Indian Constitution is called Quasi-federal?
    On 08 Apr 2020    Views:33945
  • VETO POWER AND DOUBLE VETO POWER
    On 20 Apr 2020    Views:32006
View all >>

Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified Propertified

86540

Lawyers Network

103860

Users

630

Cities Serving

114

Law Schools Network

59824

Law Students Network

About us

  • Company Profile

Indian Major Laws

  • Indian Constitution
  • IPC
  • CrPC
  • CPC
  • Companies Act
  • Indian Evidence Act
  • CGST Act
  • Limitation Act

Policies

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Refund & Cancellation

    Ads & Media

  • Resource Sharing
  • Advertiser(Sign Up/Login)
  • Media

    Careers

  • Internships
  • Jobs
  • Student Journalists

    HELP & SUPPORT

  • Contact Us
  • Grievances
  • Test

News

  • Legal News
  • Post Article
  • Post Interview

Legal Library

  • Central Acts
  • Deeds Drafts [1128 ]
  • Legal Maxims
Lawsisto Direct

 

  •  
  •  
DISCLAIMER
Copyright © Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved.
Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Lawsisto Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may
be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.