• Services For Users/Clients
      • Business Registrations
      • GST Registration (Person)
      • GST Registration (Company)
      • Importer Exporter Code
      • Trade License
      • FSSAI Registration
      • Udyog Aadhaar/MSME Registration
      • Shops & Establishments Registration
      • Partnership Firm Registration
      • Private Limited Company Registration
      • Producer Company Registration
      • Instant Legal Advise
      • Instant Legal Research Advisory (By Video Meet - 30 Mins)
      • Instant Legal Research Advisory (By Phone - 30 Mins)
      • Instant Legal Research Advisory (By Email)
      • Case Status & Case Analysis (By Video Meet - 30 Mins)
      • Case Status & Case Analysis (By Phone - 30 Mins)
      • Case Status & Analysis (By Email)
      • Contracts & Agreements
      • Business Contracts & Agreements
      • Vetting Contracts & Agreements
      • Content Paraphrasing
      • Legal Translation/Transcription
      • Affidavits, Notary, Wills & POAs
      • Affidavit
      • Notary
      • Will
      • Codicil
      • General Power of Attorney
      • Special Power of Attorney
      • Attestation
      • Legal Research & Judgement Analysis
      • Judgments Search
      • Related Judgements Analysis
      • Laws/Reports/Acts Search
      • Judgment Summary
      • Pleadings & Petitions Analysis
      • Trial Courts & Dist Forums
      • High Courts & State Forums
      • Supreme Court & National Forums
      • Application Analysis
      • Exhibits Analysis
      • Evidence Analysis
  • Services For Lawyers
      • Online Office & Case Management
      • Assisted Online Case(s) & Calendar Management
      • Assisted Online Billing & Invoicing Assistance
      • Assistance in Recruiting Associates, Juniors, Staff
      • Assistance in Recruiting Interns
      • Translation, Transcription & Typing
      • Legal Translation/Transcription
      • On-call Typing
      • Typing
      • Trial Preparation
      • Opening & Closing Statements
      • Pointers & Charts
      • Drafting & Document Management
      • Drafting Contracts & Agreements
      • Vetting Contracts & Agreements
      • Document Conversion (Jpeg to Word/PDF, PDF to Word etc)
      • Content Paraphrasing
      • Drafting Wills/POAs/GPA/SPA/Affidavits
      • Legal Research
      • Judgment search
      • Laws, Acts & Reports Search
      • Judgment Summary
      • Related Judgments Search
      • Pleadings & Petitions Drafting
      • Petition/Plaint/Objections/Rejoinder drafting - Trial Courts & Dist Forums
      • Petition/Plaint/Objections/Rejoinder drafting - High Courts & State Forums
      • Petition/Plaint/Objections/Rejoinder drafting - Supreme Court & National Forums
      • Applications & Affidavits drafting
      • Petition/Plaint/Objections/Rejoinder Proof Reading
      • Indexing & Table of contents
      • Preparing & Marking Exhibits
      • E Filing
  • +91 9632247247
  • Sign In/Sign Up
Menu
  • +Users/Clients Back

    • Get Fee Legal Answers
    • Get Fee Estimates
    • Find Lawyers
    • Get A Dedicated Legal Assistant
  • +Lawyers

    • Display Boards
    • Case Diary & Office Manager
    • Petitions & Pleadings Templates
    • Post News & Artilces
    • Post Jobs & Internships
    • Get A Dedicated Legal Secretary
  • +Law Students

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

    • Post Admissions
    • Post Opportunities
    • Get Law School Rating

  • Home
  • Legal News
  • Even In A Pandemic, Constitution Cannot Be Put Away: US SC Restrains Enforcement Of Strict Restrictions On Religious Services

Latest News

Back

Even In A Pandemic, Constitution Cannot Be Put Away: US SC Restrains Enforcement Of Strict Restrictions On Religious Services

Courtesy/By: Sanjeev Sirohi  |  02 Dec 2020     Views:122

It is a matter of great solace that the US Supreme Court just recently on November 25, 2020, in a latest, landmark and laudable judgment titled Roman Catholic Diocese Of Brooklyn, New York v. Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor Of New York in 592 US _ (2020) has restrained the authorities from enforcing the severe restrictions imposed by the New York Governor on attendance at religious services in areas classified as “red” or “orange” zones.

To start with, it is first and foremost pointed out that, “The application for injunctive relief presented to JUSTICE BREYER and by him referred to the Court is granted. Respondent is enjoined from enforcing Executive Order 202.68’s 10- and 25-person occupancy limits on applicant pending disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this order shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.”

To be sure, it is then pointed out that, “This emergency application and another, Agudath Israel of America, et al. v. Cuomo, No. 20A90, present the same issue, and this opinion addresses both cases. Both applications seek relief from an Executive Order issued by the Governor of New York that imposes very severe restrictions on attendance at religious services in areas classified as “red” or “orange” zones. In red zones, no more than 10 persons may attend each religious service, and in orange zones, attendance is capped at 25. The two applications, one filed by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and the other by Agudath Israel of America and affiliated entities, contend that these restrictions violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and they ask us to enjoin enforcement of the restrictions while they pursue the appellate review. Citing a variety of remarks made by the Governor, Agudath Israel argues that the Governor specifically targeted the Orthodox Jewish community and gerrymandered the boundaries of red and orange zones to ensure that heavily Orthodox areas were included. Both the Diocese and Agudath Israel maintain that the regulations treat houses of worship much more harshly than comparable secular facilities. And they tell us without contradiction that they have complied with all public health guidance, have implemented additional precautionary measures, and have operated at 25% or 33% capacity for months without a single outbreak.”

Needless to say, it is then pointed out that, “The applicants have clearly established their entitlement to relief pending appellate review. They have shown that their First Amendment claims are likely to prevail, that denying them relief would lead to irreparable injury, and that granting relief would not harm the public interest. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U. S. 7, 20 (2008). Because of the need to issue an order promptly, we provide only a brief summary of the reasons why immediate relief is essential.”

Be it noted, it is then pointed out that, “Likelihood of success on the merits. The applicants have made a strong showing that the challenged restrictions violate “the minimum requirement of neutrality” to religion. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520, 533 (1993). As noted by the dissent in the court below, statements made in connection with the challenged rules can be viewed as targeting the “ ‘ultra-Orthodox [Jewish] community.’ ” ___ F. 3d ___, ___, 2020 WL 6750495, *5 (CA2, Nov. 9, 2020) (Park, J., dissenting). But even if we put those comments aside, the regulations cannot be viewed as neutral because they single out houses of worship for, especially harsh treatment. Compare Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 29) (directive “neutral on its face”).”

What is more striking is that it is then mentioned that, “In a red zone, while a synagogue or church may not admit more than 10 persons, businesses categorized as “essential” may admit as many people as they wish. And the list of “essential” businesses includes things such as acupuncture facilities, campgrounds, garages, as well as many whose services are not limited to those that can be regarded as essential, such as all plants manufacturing chemicals and microelectronics and all transportation facilities. See New York State, Empire State Development, Guidance for Determining Whether a Business Enterprise is Subject to a Workforce Reduction Under Recent Executive Orders, https://esd.ny.gov/guidance-executive-order-2026. The disparate treatment is even more striking in an orange zone. While attendance at houses of worship is limited to 25 persons, even non-essential businesses may decide for themselves how many persons to admit.”

More damningly, it is then pointed out that, “These categorizations lead to troubling results. At the hearing in the District Court, a health department official testified about a large store in Brooklyn that could “literally have hundreds of people shopping there on any given day.” App. to Application in No. 20A87, Exh. D, p. 83. Yet a nearby church or synagogue would be prohibited from allowing more than 10 or 25 people inside for a worship service. And the Governor has stated that factories and schools have contributed to the spread of COVID–19, id., Exh. H, at 3; App. to Application in No. 20A90, pp. 98, 100, but they are treated less harshly than the Diocese’s churches and Agudath Israel’s synagogues, which have admirable safety records.”

Truth be told, it is then conceded that, “Because the challenged restrictions are not “neutral” and of “general applicability,” they must satisfy “strict scrutiny,” and this means that they must be “narrowly tailored” to serve a “compelling” state interest. Church of Lukumi, 508 U. S., at 546. Stemming the spread of COVID–19 is unquestionably a compelling interest, but it is hard to see how the challenged regulations can be regarded as “narrowly tailored.” They are far more restrictive than any COVID–related regulations that have previously come before the Court, (See Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, 591 U. S. ___ (2020) (directive limiting in-person worship services to 50 people); South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 U. S. ___ (2020) (Executive Order limiting in-person worship to 25% capacity or 100 people, whichever was lower), much tighter than those adopted by many other jurisdictions hard-hit by the pandemic, and far more severe than has been shown to be required to prevent the spread of the virus at the applicants’ services. The District Court noted that “there ha[d] not been any COVID–19 outbreak in any of the Diocese’s churches since they reopened,” and it praised the Diocese’s record in combatting the spread of the disease. ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___, 2020 WL 6120167, *2 (EDNY, Oct. 16, 2020). It found that the Diocese had been constantly “ahead of the curve, enforcing stricter safety protocols than the State required.” Ibid. Similarly, Agudath Israel notes that “[t]he Governor does not dispute that [it] ha[s] rigorously implemented and adhered to all health protocols and that there has been no outbreak of COVID–19 in [its] congregations.” Application in No. 20A90, at 36.”     

More significantly, it is then pointed out in this judgment that, “Not only is there no evidence that the applicants have contributed to the spread of COVID–19 but there are many other less restrictive rules that could be adopted to minimize the risk to those attending religious services. Among other things, the maximum attendance at a religious service could be tied to the size of the church or synagogue. Almost all of the 26 Diocese churches immediately affected by the Executive Order can seat at least 500 people, about 14 can accommodate at least 700, and 2 can seat over 1,000. Similarly, Agudath Israel of Kew Garden Hills can seat up to 400. It is hard to believe that admitting more than 10 people to a 1,000–seat church or 400–seat synagogue would create a more serious health risk than the many other activities that the State allows.”

Interestingly enough, it is then observed about irreparable harm that, “There can be no question that the challenged restrictions if enforced, will cause irreparable harm. “The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U. S. 347, 373 (1976) (plurality opinion). If only 10 people are admitted to each service, the great majority of those who wish to attend Mass on Sunday or services in a synagogue on Shabbat will be barred. And while those who are shut out may in some instances be able to watch services on television, such remote viewing is not the same as personal attendance. Catholics who watch a Mass at home cannot receive communion, and there are important religious traditions in the Orthodox Jewish faith that require personal attendance. App. to Application in No. 20A90, at 26–27.”

While then dwelling on the public interest, it is then elucidated that, “Finally, it has not been shown that granting the applications will harm the public. As noted, the State has not claimed that attendance at the applicants’ services has resulted in the spread of the disease. And the State has not shown that public health would be imperilled if less restrictive measures were imposed.”

To be very frank, it is then held that, “Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area. But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten. The restrictions at issue here, by effectively barring many from attending religious services, strike at the very heart of the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty. Before allowing this to occur, we have a duty to conduct a serious examination of the need for such a drastic measure.”

While dwelling on the dissenting opinions, it is then held that, “There is no justification for that proposed course of action. It is clear that this matter is not moot. See Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449, 462 (2007); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U. S. 167, 189 (2000). And injunctive relief is still called for because the applicants remain under a constant threat that the area in question will be reclassified as red or orange. See, e.g., Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U. S. 149, 158 (2014). The Governor regularly changes the classification of particular areas without prior notice. Recent changes were made on the following dates: Monday, November 23; Thursday, November 19; Wednesday, November 18; Wednesday, November 11; Monday, November 9; Friday, November 6; Wednesday, October 28; Wednesday, October 21. If that occurs again, the reclassification will almost certainly bar individuals in the affected area from attending services before judicial relief can be obtained. At most Catholic churches, Mass is celebrated daily, and “Orthodox Jews pray in [Agudath Israel’s] synagogues every day.” Application in No. 20A90, at 4. Moreover, if reclassification occurs late in a week, as has happened in the past, there may not be time for applicants to seek and obtain relief from this Court before another Sabbath passes. Thirteen days have gone by since the Diocese filed its application, and Agudath Israel’s application was filed over a week ago. While we could presumably act more swiftly in the future, there is no guarantee that we could provide relief before another weekend passes. The applicants have made the showing needed to obtain relief, and there is no reason why they should bear the risk of suffering further irreparable harm in the event of another reclassification. For these reasons, we hold that enforcement of the Governor’s severe restrictions on the applicants’ religious services must be enjoined. It is so ordered.”

Justice Gorsuch in his concurring opinion underscores that, “As almost everyone on the Court today recognizes, squaring the Governor’s edicts with our traditional First Amendment rules is no easy task. People may gather inside for extended periods in bus stations and airports, in laundromats and banks, in hardware stores and liquor shops. No apparent reason exists why people may not gather, subject to identical restrictions, in churches or synagogues, especially when religious institutions have made plain that they stand ready, able, and willing to follow all the safety precautions required of “essential” businesses and perhaps more besides. The only explanation for treating religious places differently seems to be a judgment that what happens there just isn’t as “essential” as what happens in secular spaces. Indeed, the Governor is remarkably frank about this: In his judgment laundry and liquor, travel and tools, are all “essential” while traditional religious exercises are not. That is exactly the kind of discrimination the First Amendment forbids. Nor is the problem an isolated one. In recent months, certain other Governors have issued similar edicts. At the flick of a pen, they have asserted the right to privilege restaurants, marijuana dispensaries, and casinos over churches, mosques, and temples. See Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak, 591 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (GORSUCH, J., dissenting). In far too many places, for far too long, our first freedom has fallen on deaf ears. It is time—past time—to make plain that, while the pandemic poses many grave challenges, there is no world in which the Constitution tolerates colour-coded executive edicts that reopen liquor stores and bike shops but shutter churches, synagogues, and mosques.”

Justice Kavanaugh also in his concurring opinion strongly rules that, “There also is no good reason to delay issuance of the injunctions, as I see it. If no houses of worship end up in red or orange zones, then the Court’s injunctions today will impose no harm on the State and have no effect on the State’s response to COVID–19. And if houses of worship end up in red or orange zones, as is likely, then today’s injunctions will ensure that religious organizations are not subjected to the unconstitutional 10-person and 25-person caps. Moreover, issuing the injunctions now rather than a few days from now not only will ensure that the applicants’ constitutional rights are protected, but also will provide some needed clarity for the State and religious organizations. On this record, the applicants have shown: a likelihood that the Court would grant certiorari and reverse; irreparable harm; and that the equities favour injunctive relief. I, therefore, vote to grant the applications for temporary injunctive relief until the Court of Appeals in December, and then this Court as appropriate, can more fully consider the merits.”

But Chief Justice Roberts dissents. He says that, “To be clear, I do not regard my dissenting colleagues as “cutting the Constitution loose during a pandemic,” yielding to “a particular judicial impulse to stay out of the way in times of crisis,” or “shelter[ing] in place when the Constitution is under attack.” Ante, at 3, 5–6 (opinion of GORSUCH, J.). They simply view the matter differently after careful study and analysis reflecting their best efforts to fulfil their responsibility under the Constitution.”

To sum up, this judgment minces no words to make it clear that when business as usual can go on in other places then why should religious places alone be made to face the brunt? The point is absolutely valid! Why can’t religious places be allowed to function after imposing some reasonable restrictions like wearing masks, wearing hand gloves, maintaining distance etc? It is most refreshing, most rejuvenating and most relaxing to see that the US Supreme Court has ruled rightly on this even though the US Chief Justice Roberts dissented on it! Very rightly so!


Courtesy/By: Sanjeev Sirohi  |  02 Dec 2020     Views:122

News Updates

Delhi HC issues notice on petition challenging Ins...
18 Jan 2021     Views:47
Petition before the Supreme Court challenges All-I...
18 Jan 2021     Views:71
Person unable to find a surety can take benefit of...
18 Jan 2021     Views:45
Delhi High Court Stays Mohit Saraf's Termination F...
18 Jan 2021     Views:44
If The Parties Agrees To Admit To Talaq Without An...
18 Jan 2021     Views:43
Patients cannot be deprived of treatment due to ex...
18 Jan 2021     Views:64
Seventeen Sub Judges Appointed as District Judges ...
18 Jan 2021     Views:43
State of Gujarat liable to pay Rs.25,000 for its i...
17 Jan 2021     Views:47
A Person Can Be Discharged on Bail Under Sec. 445 ...
17 Jan 2021     Views:68
MP High Court Adjourns Hearing In Comedian Munawar...
17 Jan 2021     Views:53
Notice Issued By Delhi High Court To The Center In...
17 Jan 2021     Views:49
Calcutta High Court Issues Contempt Notice To The ...
17 Jan 2021     Views:169
Delhi High Court Allows Reopening of Spas, Wellnes...
17 Jan 2021     Views:41
WhatsApp messages to hold evidentiary value only u...
17 Jan 2021     Views:66
FIR Registered Against Over 10 People For Compromi...
17 Jan 2021     Views:59
Delhi HC hikes amount of compensation to parents o...
17 Jan 2021     Views:59
BSES-RPL liable for damages not on basis of proof ...
16 Jan 2021     Views:68
Reconsider decision to physical hearing: Letter to...
16 Jan 2021     Views:55
Disclosure of interest in the information sought u...
16 Jan 2021     Views:78
Stay Order Issued Against GST Notice Served on Adv...
16 Jan 2021     Views:62
Karnataka Government directed to reconsider circul...
15 Jan 2021     Views:57
Karnataka District Courts to resume normal functio...
15 Jan 2021     Views:49
Constitutional Rights is at Stake: Kerala HC on De...
15 Jan 2021     Views:51
Same gender sexual harassment cases maintainable u...
15 Jan 2021     Views:79
The Delhi High Court issues notice in petition reg...
15 Jan 2021     Views:66
The state is not ready to deal with the demographi...
15 Jan 2021     Views:64
Mandatory investigation of all custodial deaths: N...
15 Jan 2021     Views:60
Accused should be subjected to blood test or breat...
15 Jan 2021     Views:73
Order Terminating Arbitration Proceedings Under Se...
15 Jan 2021     Views:83
Allahabad High Court tells UP government to come u...
15 Jan 2021     Views:88
Cannot Maintain Writ Petition Against Purely Priva...
14 Jan 2021     Views:54
Plea seeking live streaming of open court proceedi...
14 Jan 2021     Views:40
Calcutta High Court : Have the power to set aside ...
14 Jan 2021     Views:58
11 Benches of the Delhi High Court to resume physi...
14 Jan 2021     Views:48
The prudent citizen should abide by the order of t...
14 Jan 2021     Views:45
Parking facilities in malls liable to pay service ...
14 Jan 2021     Views:112
Madras High Court indicates close nexus between ri...
14 Jan 2021     Views:62
SEBI Boycotts Anchor Hemant Gahi, His Wife And His...
14 Jan 2021     Views:141
Supreme Court registers Suo moto case on “Remed...
14 Jan 2021     Views:246
Mandatory publication of notice inviting objection...
14 Jan 2021     Views:59
Directions issued towards timely service of notic...
13 Jan 2021     Views:50
Delhi HC allows termination of pregnancy after 20 ...
13 Jan 2021     Views:44
Andhra Pradesh High Court Suspends Schedule For Lo...
13 Jan 2021     Views:50
Delhi High Court Upholds The Constitutionality Of...
13 Jan 2021     Views:46
Progress in Sonu Sood's Plea Against BMC Notice: B...
13 Jan 2021     Views:45
Supreme Court Dismisses The Plea Against The High ...
13 Jan 2021     Views:57
Central Government notifies establishment of Natio...
13 Jan 2021     Views:79
Criminal liability of non-political executives can...
13 Jan 2021     Views:55
Rs. 20,000 Costs Imposed on Defendant who Cited th...
13 Jan 2021     Views:58
Notice issued to centre by Karnataka HC on plea ch...
13 Jan 2021     Views:173
Supreme Court refuses to entertain special leave p...
13 Jan 2021     Views:62
Sexual harassment on digital platform constitutes ...
13 Jan 2021     Views:65
SC refuses to set aside conviction, life term of 7...
13 Jan 2021     Views:51
SC directs demolition of a hotel-cum-restaurant in...
12 Jan 2021     Views:58
Delhi HC quashes GST order to attach bank account ...
12 Jan 2021     Views:46
CBDT declines extension of due dates for filing re...
12 Jan 2021     Views:48
Calcutta High Court imposes cost on defendant for ...
12 Jan 2021     Views:52
The Counter Affidavit Filed In The Supreme Court B...
12 Jan 2021     Views:53
Allahabad High Court to Decide on Plea for Relaxat...
12 Jan 2021     Views:46
Stay on Kerala HC’s order of setting aside the a...
12 Jan 2021     Views:48
High Court arrest should be the last option and sh...
12 Jan 2021     Views:75
Delhi HC issues notice on plea seeking child marri...
12 Jan 2021     Views:57
India proposes a Pre-packaged Insolvency Resolutio...
12 Jan 2021     Views:83
NCLT allows Josco to reduce share capital structur...
12 Jan 2021     Views:67
Kerala High Court Unhappy With DOC's Enquiry Into ...
12 Jan 2021     Views:67
Supreme Court acquits accused on death row, deems ...
12 Jan 2021     Views:70
Non-payment of Stamp duty on commercial contract d...
12 Jan 2021     Views:74
Supreme Court to stay on implementation of Farm la...
12 Jan 2021     Views:60
Karkardooma Court denies bail to woman accused of ...
12 Jan 2021     Views:62
Right to have access to drinking water cannot be d...
12 Jan 2021     Views:136
Ordinance for Religious Conversions Passed by Madh...
11 Jan 2021     Views:63
Death row of Balwant Singh Rajoana will be decided...
11 Jan 2021     Views:54
There Should Be No Criminal Contempt - Justice Mad...
11 Jan 2021     Views:60
Supreme Court examines whether it is necessary to ...
11 Jan 2021     Views:59
Force Majeure Clause Allowed to Suspend Payments M...
11 Jan 2021     Views:67
Scope for Interpretation of Covid-19 Duty Insuranc...
11 Jan 2021     Views:61
Exercising PT Order to keep prisoners in detention...
11 Jan 2021     Views:63
Plea in Delhi HC seeking directions for exempting ...
11 Jan 2021     Views:130
The Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Ordinance, ...
11 Jan 2021     Views:76
Sonu Sood Moves Bombay High Court Against BMC Noti...
10 Jan 2021     Views:71
Blocking of Public High Ways and Roads Caused by F...
10 Jan 2021     Views:48
Victims Of 1975 Emergency Move Supreme Court Seeki...
10 Jan 2021     Views:97
Trials delayed endlessly due to deliberate absence...
10 Jan 2021     Views:69
Review petitions against the Aadhar Project to be ...
10 Jan 2021     Views:67
Gujarat HC directs CBDT to take decision to extend...
10 Jan 2021     Views:78
Madras High Court permits conduct of Kanuparivetta...
10 Jan 2021     Views:92
Review petition filed in the Supreme Court against...
10 Jan 2021     Views:69
All the subordinate courts shall start functionin...
10 Jan 2021     Views:66
Arrest Only the Last Resort: Allahabad High Court...
10 Jan 2021     Views:93
A Division Bench of Justices K Vinod Chandran and ...
10 Jan 2021     Views:58
Patna High Court suspends Chief Judicial Magistrat...
10 Jan 2021     Views:111
Karnataka High Court strikes down rules of KMMCR a...
10 Jan 2021     Views:63
Bar Council of Delhi increases enrolment fee effec...
10 Jan 2021     Views:68
Tamil Nadu Government Withdraws January 4 GO: Iss...
09 Jan 2021     Views:60
Ebrahim Kunju Gets Bail from Kerala High Court in ...
09 Jan 2021     Views:57
Have not issued guidelines directing people to wea...
09 Jan 2021     Views:61
Bombay High Court shows concern over difficulty to...
09 Jan 2021     Views:70
Calcutta High Court to allow home imprisonment of ...
09 Jan 2021     Views:60
Amicable Settlement can be a factor for reducing t...
09 Jan 2021     Views:60
Bail Granted After Injuries Were Caused by Jail Au...
09 Jan 2021     Views:55
FIND A LAWYER




FIND A LAW SCHOOL



Most Read News Articles

  • Misusing Religion for Electoral Gains: PIL in SC for Action against Parties, Candidates
    On 31 May 2018    Views:11965
  • Bci Directs To Supply Of The Details Of Every Practising Advocate As Per The Format Required By The E-committee Of The Supreme Court Of India.
    On 01 Aug 2020    Views:11220
  • DOCTRINE OF ELECTION UNDER TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882
    On 08 Jul 2020    Views:10501
  • Lalman Shukla v Gauri Dutt
    On 22 Jul 2020    Views:10067
  • Sabrimala Verdict (28 sept 2018) - A End of Taboo.
    On 07 Oct 2020    Views:7758
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
  • Demo My Legal Assistant
  • Demo My Legal Secretary

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
  • Campus Ambassadors
  • Student Journalists

    HELP & SUPPORT

  • Contact Us
  • Grievances
  • Test

News

  • Legal News
  • Post Article
  • Post Interview

Legal Library

  • Central Acts
  • Deeds Drafts [1122 ]
  • Legal Maxims

Connect

 

  •  
  •  
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.