LawLoveLegal

The Supreme Court of India has once again reaffirmed a core constitutional promise: governance must empower, not burden, citizens. In a landmark judgment led by Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar , the Court struck down an additional bureaucratic requirement imposed by the Jharkhand government, calling it illegal, superfluous, and contrary to principles of good governance. This article examines the statutory background, constitutional foundations, judicial reasoning, and broader relevance of this decision. 1. Constitutional Value of Simplicity and Good Governance The Supreme Court emphasised that simplicity in public transactions is a constitutional value . Procedural efficiency forms part of good governance , which flows from: Relevant Constitutional Provisions Article 14 – Mandates non-arbitrariness in State action; unnecessary procedural barriers violate the equality principle. Article 21 – Expands to include administrative fairness and efficiency; e...

The Allahabad High Court has strongly criticised the functioning of Uttar Pradesh’s birth certificate issuance system, describing it as a “mess” and reflective of dishonesty operating at multiple administrative levels. The court’s observations came during the hearing of a writ petition that exposed the ease with which multiple birth certificates with conflicting details can be obtained in the state. Case Background: Two Birth Certificates, Two Different Dates of Birth Facts of the Petition The issue surfaced during the hearing of a writ petition filed by an individual named Shivanki . The Deputy Director of UIDAI, Regional Office, Lucknow, submitted documents that revealed the petitioner possessed two separate birth certificates , both issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, but: from two different authorities, and with two different dates of birth. Details of the Conflicting Certificates Certificate 1: Issued by: Primary Health Centre, Manauta Date of bir...

Background of the Case A division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed the September 23, 2025 order passed by Justice Jagmohan Bansal concerning disciplinary action against police personnel sentenced to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month. The division bench, comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor, stayed the single judge’s ruling on November 13, 2025, during the hearing of an appeal filed by the state government. The stay has been confirmed by Haryana Additional Advocate General, Sanjeev Kaushik. The matter will next be taken up on January 28, 2026. Challenge to Interpretation of Rule 16.2(2) and Rule 16.28 of the Punjab Police Rules The Single Judge’s Findings Justice Jagmohan Bansal had held that: The government cannot impose any punishment other than dismissal where an enrolled police officer is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment exceeding one month, as per Rule 16.2(2) of the Punjab Police Rules (PPR), 1934 (applicable in...

Introduction: Judicial Scrutiny Over the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 The Supreme Court of India has raised serious concerns over the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 , questioning whether the reintroduction of previously struck-down provisions amounts to legislative overreach . The Court emphasized that while Parliament has the authority to enact reforms, such changes must respect prior judicial pronouncements. The case was heard by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran , who were responding to petitions challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions in the 2021 Act. Background: The Contested Provisions and Their History The Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 was enacted barely four months after the Supreme Court had struck down similar provisions in the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalization and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 . The main points of contention include: Tenure : The Act prescribes a four-year tenure ...

Introduction The abetment of suicide case registered by the Rohtak police following the death of Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) Sandeep Lathar has raised serious questions regarding the legal sustainability of the FIR, particularly against deceased Haryana IPS officer Y. Puran Kumar’s wife Amneet P. Kumar , an IAS officer, and her brother, Amit Rattan , an AAP MLA. The FIR also names two police personnel, Sushil Kumar and Sunil Kumar. Legal experts argue that the allegations, as recorded, may not satisfy the essential legal requirements for establishing abetment of suicide. Background of the Case The FIR was registered on October 15 based on a complaint by ASI Lathar’s wife, who alleged that administrative and political pressure exerted by Amneet P. Kumar and her brother contributed to her husband’s suicide on October 14 . These developments unfolded shortly after IPS officer Y. Puran Kumar himself died by suicide on October 7 , leading to intense scrutiny of internal departmenta...

The suspension of a government officer in Karnataka for participating in a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) march has sparked a statewide controversy that intertwines constitutional rights , civil service conduct norms , and political sensitivities . The issue has also reignited debate over the limits of state authority versus the fundamental rights of citizens and the neutrality expected of public servants. Background of the Case The controversy began when Praveen Kumar K.P. , a Panchayat Development Officer from Sirwar taluk in Raichur district , was suspended after being seen in RSS uniform during a route march at Lingsugur on October 12 , part of the organisation’s centenary celebrations . The suspension order, issued by IAS officer Arundhati Chandrashekar , cited violation of the Karnataka Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 2021 , which mandate political neutrality among public officials. The officer is to remain under suspension with a subsistence allowance pending a departmen...