Search Results

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.

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

A bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh said that the plea, an appeal against an order of the Allahabad High Court, was a 'publicity interest litigation' and dismissed the petition.

A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Hima Kohli said that the plea was a publicity interest litigation and such petitions need to be nipped in the bud since they waste the time of the courts.

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.

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh also took exception to the petitioner filing repeated PILs.

An overview and analysis of the Delhi High Court's judgment in the patent infringement case of Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. NATCO Pharma Limited.

The Court held that the public good outweighs the profits of a company, considering that the drug is not available at an affordable price in India.

The CJI was speaking at a joint conference of Chief Ministers (CM) and Chief Justices (CJ) of High Courts held at Vigyan Bhavan in New Delhi.

Justice Sachin Datta posed the question after Delhi University (DU) opposed the order passed by Central Information Commission in 2017 directing DU to furnish the information requested by Sharma.