LawLoveLegal

Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India, in a significant rights-based judgment, has categorically held that the right to menstrual hygiene forms an intrinsic part of the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution . The ruling was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan while deciding a writ petition seeking directions to the Union of India and States to ensure free sanitary pads and separate toilets for girl students (Classes 6 to 12) in government-aided schools. The Court expanded the scope of constitutional guarantees by linking menstrual health, dignity, equality, privacy, and access to education into a single enforceable rights framework. Core Constitutional Questions Before the Court The Bench framed and conclusively answered the following constitutional questions: Whether the absence of gender-segregated toilets violates Article 14 (Right to Equality) Whether denial of access to menstrual hygiene products v...

Introduction The Supreme Court of India has strongly reaffirmed the finality and binding nature of Constitution Bench judgments , rejecting a writ petition that sought to reopen the settled issue of minority educational institutions’ exemption from the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) . In a stern order, the Court not only dismissed the plea but also imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on the petitioner NGO , calling the petition a “gross abuse” of judicial process and a threat to the institutional integrity of the judiciary. Background of the Petition Petitioner and Relief Sought The petition was filed by an NGO, United Voice for Education Forum , invoking Article 32 of the Constitution , seeking: A declaration that the exemption granted to minority educational institutions from the RTE Act is unconstitutional Inclusion of minority schools— aided and unaided —within the ambit of Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act , which mandates 25% reservation at entry leve...

In a landmark ruling that addresses the mental health and academic rights of students, the Delhi High Court has held that no law student across India can be prevented from appearing for examinations on the ground of attendance shortage. The decision comes nearly nine years after the tragic death of Sushant Rohilla , a law student who died by suicide in 2016 after being barred from sitting for his semester exams due to insufficient attendance. Background: The Sushant Rohilla Case and Judicial Intervention In August 2016 , Sushant Rohilla , a third-year law student at Amity Law School, Delhi , took his own life after being denied permission to sit for his semester exams. His death raised serious questions about the rigidity of attendance norms and their impact on students’ mental health. Following the incident, a suo motu petition was initiated by the Supreme Court of India in September 2016 to examine the broader issue of attendance-related restrictions in law colleges. In March...

Supreme Court Judge Justice BV Nagarathna has voiced serious concern over the declining sex ratio in certain Indian states, warning that female infanticide and foeticide continue to threaten gender balance. Speaking at the National Annual Stakeholders Consultation on “Safeguarding the Girl Child: Towards a Safer and Enabling Environment for Her in India” , organized by the Juvenile Justice Committee (JJC) of the Supreme Court in collaboration with UNICEF India , she emphasized that girls must not only survive but thrive . Girls Deserve Equal Opportunity to Thrive Justice Nagarathna, addressing an audience that included Chief Justice of India BR Gavai , Union Minister for Women and Child Development Annapurna Devi , and other Supreme Court judges, highlighted that true equality is achieved only when girls have equal access to education, healthcare, nutrition, and opportunity . “A young girl in India can only be considered a truly equal citizen when she can freely aspire to ach...