Legal Reference Library

An imprisoned developer wanted to sell property to the willing buyers by executing a registered sale deed. Several prayers were made before the jail authority regarding the same but it did not yield any result. The prisoner’s wife then approached the Calcutta High Court. On hearing the matter, Justice Joymalya Bagchi maintained – “Right to carry on trade and profession including right to convey property in course of such business is an essential fundamental right enshrined under Article 19(i)(g) of the Constitution of India and the same do not stand eclipsed by the continuing incarceration of a prisoner. Hence, I am of the opinion that incarceration of the husband of the petitioner shall not disentitle him from executing sale deeds to convey flats in favour of intending purchasers in accordance with law.” The judge further interpreted prison as being the temporary home of the inmate- “When a prisoner is incarcerated in a correctional home, it is to be deemed that the priso...

A Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in M/s Aditya Biotech Vs State of Madhya Pradesh has held the fundamental right of a firm to run a business cannot be taken away without following due process of law. The State Farmer Welfare and Agriculture Department cancelled a license of the petitioner firm based in Indore for violation of provisions of Seeds (Control) Order 1983.

Doctrine of sovereign immunity does not apply to cases of fundamental rights violation and hence cannot be used as a defence in public law. A distinguishing feature of any democracy is the space offered for legitimate dissent, said the Court. Supreme Court of India Today has held that the right to peaceful protest is a fundamental right guaranteed in the Constitution and the aforesaid right is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, as well as public order A two Judge Bench comprising Justices A.K.Sikri and R.K.Agrawal was hearing a writ petition filed by the petitioners who are migrants of the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The allegation in the Petition was that they had planned to take out a peaceful protest march up to Delhi for ventilating their grievances. However, when they reached near Katra in Jammu & Kashmir, the authorities through their police personnel had beaten up and manhandled these migrants in a most brutal and ...

The Gujarat High Court, observing that there is no fundamental right to consume intoxicants, has upheld the Resolution by Home Department of the state by which it had prohibited and discontinued the supply of Poppy Capsules by Government authorities. Justice N.V. Anjaria also observed that the ban amounts to redemption of the Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 47 of the Constitution. Six persons, claiming to be regular users of poppy capsules, had approached the High Court challenging the ban by the Government. According to them, it violated their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. BAN TO IMPROVE PUBLIC HEALTH Rejecting their contention, the court observed: “Article 47 which is Directive Principle of State Policy, enjoins a duty on the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public health. It is a constitutional mandate that all policy decisions and actions by the State has to be guided and beckoned b...

Kerala High Court: In a recent case where respondent authorities illegally seized the passport of the dependants (wife and children) of victim of human trafficking in USA and denied them to travel to America, a bench of A.V.R. Pillai J, held that the denial of the same is not only violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners but also detrimental to the very concept of right, duties and obligations in matrimonial living of spouses. The counsel for the petitioner M.P. Ramnath contended that when the petitioners are having due visas granted by the Government of USA and when there is nothing illegal about the petitioners duly traveling to USA to join their husband /father (victim of human trafficking in USA), it is absolutely illegal and baseless to restrain the petitioners to travel to USA. The counsel for the respondent N. Nagaresh contended that if the petitioners are permitted to go abroad, it would be against the provisions of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Prote...