Search Results

The Court noted that PILs cannot be triggered merely by news reports and must be rooted in real public interest.

The PIL, conceived as an exceptional remedy for exceptional wrongs, has too often become a stage for political theatre or a shortcut to publicity.

Justice Subramonium Prasad criticised the petitioner, former AAP MLA Sandeep Kumar, for filing the plea though two similar petitions filed by others had already been rejected by the High Court earlier ...

The Court cautioned the petitioners against pursuing such issues by way of PIL. However, it refrained from imposing costs on the four petitioners.

Justice Ramana highlighted that there is growing tendency among lawyers to go for headline hunting by filing publicity interest litigation.

The Court noted that the lawyer, in his affidavit of service, claimed to have served notice (of the hearing) to all the respondents. However, the documents on record contradicted his claims.

The concept of right to privacy incorporates the right to be forgotten, the Court said.

The Court permitted Dr Reddy’s to sell its existing stock of semaglutide injections for a period of 30 days and directed that any remaining stock thereafter be donated to a government hospital.

However, such exemptions can only be withdrawn after a reasonable notice period, so that the affected industries can adjust to the changed framework, the Court held.

"Only sun and moon is left to promise; these are corrupt practices," the petitioner told the Court.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath gave liberty to the petitioners to approach the High Court for appropriate relief.

Calling for a balance, the Court said that the "mere fact that the injuncted product is a life saving drug is no absolute armour against injunction".

The Court concluded that the State's move to shut down such Kendras went against public interest.

The apex court held that government departments cannot rely on “public interest” as an excuse to justify its negligence and delay.

Academic records of any individual, even if that individual is a holder of public office, is personal information, the Court held.

"ERCs are not competent to entertain a matter on the singular ground of public interest," the Court said.