COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT IS NOT A VESTED RIGHT: SUPREME COURT
Case Name: Tinku vs. State of Haryana
Recently in Tinku vs State Supreme Court upheld Haryana policy that provides immediate relief by compassionate appointment. The apex court ruled that compassionate appointment is not a vested right. The Court also mentioned that there should be strict scrutiny. This policy also imposes a three year limit from the employer’s death to apply for such appointments..
Legal Provisions and Framework: The Court’s decision is based on principles surrounding compassionate appointments, emphasizing their exceptional nature to assist families facing financial hardship upon an employee’s sudden demise.
Source: Supreme Court of India
RIGHT TO SHELTER IS A FACET OF ARTICLE 21; DEMOLITION MUST BE JUSTIFIED: SUPREME COURT
Case Name: In Re: Directions in the matter of Demolition of Structures v. and Ors.
The Supreme Court held that the right to shelter is part of the right to life under Article 21. It stated that the State must consider less intrusive alternatives before full demolition of unauthorised structures, underscoring the importance of shelter in upholding dignity and social rights.
Legal Provisions and Framework: Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which protects the right to life, was central in the Court’s analysis on the proportionality of demolition actions affecting the right to shelter.
Source: Supreme Court of India
SULEKHA.COM CHALLENGES MADRAS HIGH COURT ORDER AGAINST ONLINE LISTING OF ADVOCATES
Case Name: Sulekha.com New Media Private Limited v. PN Vignesh & Ors.
Sulekha.com filed a petition before the Supreme Court against a Madras High Court ruling restricting online listings of advocates, arguing it would cause economic disparity among lawyers. The petition claims that online listings support equitable access to legal services, especially for rural practitioners.
Legal Provisions and Framework: The case involves Rule 36 of the Bar Council of India Rules, which regulates advertisement restrictions for advocates and allows certain “Permitted Details” on websites, raising questions on free speech and equal access in legal advertising.
Source: Supreme Court of India
Also Read- ORAL MENTIONS ENDED BY SC UNDER NEW CJI SANJIV KHANNA
