Constitutional law

Whenever there is a conflict between the lawyer’s duty to the court and their duty to the client, he has to give preference to his duty to the court over his duty to the client, the Supreme Court observed In Re: Peddi Raju and Others [Suo Moto Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2025].

In Vineeta Srinandan v. High Court of Judicature At Bombay On Its Own Motion [2025 INSC 1408], the Supreme Court reiterated that the power to punish for contempt is not a tool to silence critics or shield judges from scrutiny. It declared that contempt jurisdiction must never become a personal armour for the judiciary.

In Fathima Thasneem v. State of Kerala [2018: KER:65441], the Kerala High Court held that the collective right of an educational institution to enforce a uniform dress code for discipline and equality overrides a student's individual right to wear religious attire, such as a hijab (headscarf) and full-sleeved shirts.

In C. Selvarani vs. The Special Secretary Cum District Collector and Ors., the Supreme Court of India held that a person who converts to a religion with the sole intent of claiming reservation benefits is committing a fraud on the Constitution. Religious conversions undertaken for the purpose of gaining benefits of reservation compromise the integrity of the reservation system.

The distinction between reportable and non-reportable judicial decisions is based on their precedential value and legal significance.

In S. Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd., the Supreme Court of India clarified that a private financial institution, such as Muthoot Finance, is not automatically considered a "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution, even if it is regulated by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Consequently, it is generally not subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, unless it is performing a public function.

The conflict between the right of media to report criminal proceedings by pronouncing innocence or guilt of the parties, and its impact on the individual’s right to dignity, reputation and privacy, under the constitution was examined by a Five Judge Bench of the High Court of Kerala, in Dejo Kappan v Deccan Herald & Others [2024:KER:82715].

The Record of the Trial Court should not be referred to as Lower Court Record (LCR). Instead, it should be referred as the Trial Court Record (TCR), says the Supreme Court (SC) in Sakhawat & Another v State of Uttar Pradesh [2025 INSC 777].

A perverse verdict may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. Perverse can be defined as “turned the wrong way”; not right; distorted from the right; turned away or deviating from what is right, proper, correct, etc, says the SC in Ramakant Ambalal Choksi vs Harish Ambalal Choksi [2024 INSC 910].

In the Constitutional Bench decision in Supreme Court Bar Association vs Union of India & Another [AIR 1998 SC 1895], the Supreme Court (SC) held that wider the amplitude of the power of the SC under Article 142, the greater is the need for it to see that the power is used with restraint.

Every constitutional authority, howsoever high he or she remains, comes under the powers of judicial review of the constitutional courts. The scope of judicial review may vary, but no power is beyond the purview of the courts, says the Supreme Court (SC) in The State of Tamil Nadu v The Governor of Tamil Nadu [2025 INSC 481].

The Supreme Court (SC), in Canara Bank v Ajithkumar G K [2025 INSC 184], says indigence of the dependants of the deceased employee is the fundamental condition to be satisfied under any scheme for appointment on compassionate ground.