Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Right to privacy of Aadhaar number holder preserves the autonomy of the individual’s right to privacy which has been conferred primacy and admits of no exception under the statutory scheme”.
“Thrusting upon a woman the guilt of having killed a child without any proper evidence, simply because she was living alone in the village, thereby connecting with one another two unrelated aspects; reinforces the cultural stereotypes and gendered identities which the Court has explicitly warned against.”
“The Family Court has committed an error of law in allowing the application under Section 311 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 along with the certificate issued under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.”
“The counsel for the respondent was directed to take all necessary measures to protect the identity and right to privacy of the girl child and that the media acts in compliance with Section 23 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.”
by Arjun Harkauli†
“The rights ventilated in the plaint, that is, the right to privacy, the right to publicity and the personality rights which vested in Sushant Singh Rajput, were not heritable. They died with his death. The said rights, therefore, did not survive for espousal by the plaintiff.”
“Constitutional morality impacts upon any law which deprives the LGBT individuals of their entitlement to a full and equal citizenship. LGBT individuals living under threats of conformity grounded in cultural morality have been denied basic human existence. Constitutional morality does not permit such discrimination and must supersede cultural morality.”
The right of privacy claimed by the husband vis-à-vis the prayer of the wife to seek assistance of the Court for production of records to substantiate her charge of adultery levelled against the husband in her petition seeking divorce was the question before the Delhi High Court.
The State Government intending to share data with the leaders of different parties of the State Assembly, the ruling party and opposition party was a matter of great concern as there arose a question of right to privacy, which the Supreme Court held to be a facet of right to life.
The Court of Special Judge under MCOC Act issued directions for conducting search of under-trial prisoners using scanner or electronic gadgets.
Madras High Court held that the right of privacy and reputation of the petitioner have been sullied by the act of the police officials for which the State is certainly responsible.
This roundup revisits the analyses of Supreme Court’s judgments/orders on validity of AIBE; ex-communication of Dawoodi Bohras; decriminalisation of adultery; permissibility of DNA test of children to prove allegations of adultery; and more. It also covers reports on the career trajectory & important decisions of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Dutta and the newly appointed 7 judges of the Supreme Court; Explainers on important law points; and Cases Reported in SCC Weekly in the month of February.
The Supreme Court held that merely because either of the parties have disputed a factum of paternity, it does not mean that the Court should direct DNA test or such other test to resolve the controversy. Only in exceptional and deserving cases, where such a test becomes indispensable to resolve the controversy the Court can direct such test.
About the Organization Amity Law School Lucknow Campus (ALS-L) is a constituent unit of Amity University, Uttar Pradesh & it was established
After an extensive tenure of 6 years, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer retires today. During this time, Justice Nazeer had been a part of some path-breaking decisions such as- Right to Privacy, Triple Talaq, Ayodhya verdict etc. Justice Nazeer has also been the part of the Constitution Bench which decided upon the validity of Central Govt’s 2016 Demonetisation Scheme.
Kerala High Court while dealing with the issue of deleting personal information from the Judgments, discussed the different facets of right to privacy of individuals and the interest of the public qua judicial institutions. The Court concluded that the right to be forgotten cannot be claimed in current proceedings, but in appropriate cases the Court has power to invoke this right.
Rouse Avenue District Courts, Delhi: In a case filed by Central Bureau of Investigation questioning the power of investigating agency
“If a man has been wronged, so long as the wrong lies within the human machinery of administration of justice, that wrong must be remedied.”
Kerala High Court: In a petition filed by a 21-year-old girl, seeking medical termination of her pregnancy, V.G. Arun, J.
Supreme Court: After the Technical Committee and the Overseeing Judge submitted their reports in the Pegasus Spyware case, the 3-judge bench of