Case Archive

State of Uttar Pradesh v Jai Bir Singh

A nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in 5:4 majority held that the triple test laid down in Bangalore Water Supply v R Rajappa (1978) needs to be reformulated. All pending disputes will be decided on the basis of the triple test laid down in 1978

Arvind Ganpat Sawant v Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha

The Supreme Court will decide whether Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla had the authority to recognise the merger of Shiv Sena UBT legislators with Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena

Laxmi Narayan Tripathi v Union of India

The Supreme Court will decide whether provisions mandating certificates and removal of the right to self-perceived gender identity violates right to autonomy, dignity and privacy

N. Ravi v Speaker, Legislative Assembly Chennai

The Supreme Court will decide if the immunities enjoyed by law makers under Article 194 overrides the fundamental right to freedom of speech under Article 19

Arjun Flour Mills v State of Orissa

The Supreme Court will decide whether state governments are constitutionally permitted to collect sales tax based on annual turnover.

Venkatesh Nayak v Union of India

The Court will decide the constitutionality of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, including the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005.

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v Union of India

The Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which prevents the conversion of the religious character of places of worship.

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v Union of India

The Supreme Court refused to entertain petitions under Article 32 which sought that the laws on divorce, maintenance and alimony be uniform, disregarding the religion or gender of persons involved.

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v Union of India

The Supreme Court refused to entertain petitions under Article 32 which sought that the laws on adoption and guardianship be uniform, disregarding the religion or gender of persons involved.

Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v Union of India

The Supreme Court refused to entertain petitions under Article 32 which sought that the laws on succession and inheritance be uniform, disregarding the religion or gender of persons involved.