LawLoveLegal

Introduction A senior Haryana fisheries department official has approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging proceedings initiated against him under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). The petition also challenges the withdrawal of his promotion, alleging violations of statutory procedure, constitutional safeguards, and principles of natural justice. The case raises critical questions on jurisdiction under the POSH framework, procedural fairness in sexual harassment inquiries, and constitutional protections available to civil servants . Factual Background The petitioner, Shripal , was promoted and appointed as Director of Fisheries, Haryana, in 2024. As Joint Director, he functioned as the appointing and disciplinary authority for Group ‘C’ employees , thereby falling within the statutory definition of an “employer” under Section 2(g) of the POSH Act, 2013. In January 2026 , he was informed that two compl...

Introduction In a significant intervention touching the core of press freedom, open justice, and the limits of privacy , the Supreme Court of India has cautioned that judicial directions mandating the removal of news reports and online articles could have serious and troubling implications for democracy . The observation came while staying a Delhi High Court order that permitted invocation of the “right to be forgotten” to compel the takedown of digital news content relating to concluded criminal proceedings. The ruling signals judicial unease with courts assuming the role of editors and rewriting historical records in the digital age. Background of the Case The matter arose from a petition filed by IE Online Media Services Private Limited , challenging a December 18, 2025 order of the Delhi High Court . The High Court had upheld an interim injunction directing the removal of online news reports that linked banker Nitin Bhatnagar to criminal allegations, despite his subsequent disch...

On 20 November, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling clarifying the constitutional functions of Governors under Article 200 and the President under Article 201 . The judgment addressed multiple questions referred by the President concerning delays in granting assent to state legislation and the extent of judicial oversight in such matters. This decision is critical for understanding the federal framework, the balance of powers, and the constitutional mechanisms governing state legislation. Powers of the Governor Under Article 200 Constitutional Options Before a Governor When a Bill is presented to the Governor under Article 200 , the Governor has three constitutional options: Grant assent to the Bill. Withhold assent and return the Bill (with recommendations) to the Legislature. Reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President. The power to return a Bill with comments does not apply to Money Bills. Whether Governor Is Bound by Council of ...