TIER-1

  Shubham Budhiraja [1] There was agitation against the vice-chancellor (VC) of  Manipur university by the teachers, students etc. and fact finding committee cum inquiry committee constituted who decided against the VC and thereafter University resolved to remove the VC from its post and that removal was challenged by VC in Writ Petition contending that Inquiry committee should have been as per Article 311 but HC Division bench refused it by holding that VC are not central post even though its employment is recommended by CG & the university is funded by the CG. These aspects will not make him as central post and full fledge enquiry safeguard under Article 311 is not available to him. (I)        Manipur University is a legal entity separate from the Union. Merely because Manipur University is financed by or there is an element of control with the Central Government, it cannot be said that the employees of Manipur University hold a ‘civil post’ under the Union and are entitled

Shubham Budhiraja [1] In present case, the HC confirmed the House arrest which came due to transit remand. The Supreme Court held that transit remand period will be calculated for purpose of period under Section 167 CRPC within which charge-sheet is too filed and it will certainly calculated for purpose of default bail. The Supreme Court further held that order allowing transit remand is a judicial but interlocutory order and the remedy cannot be Section 397 Revision but Bail application under Section 437/ Section 439 CRPC Bail. It was further held that the Writ of Habeas Corpus will be maintainable if it can be shown that order of transit remand was illegal or without application of mind . CONCLUSION (I)                  There are 2 ways to arrest – with and without warrant. CPC & CRPC both provides for arrest with warrant (II)                The arrest without warrant requires greater caution as it impacts the liberty. (III)              There are safeguards when a pe

    Shubham Budhiraja [1] Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. The Chief Minister, 05.05.2021, 5JJ Summary of Judgment The act of 2018 provided Maratha reservation which in aggregate exceeded 50%. The HC upheld the act holding that exceptional circumstances exist which justifies it. The Supreme Court firstly decided that there is no need to refer the judgment of Indra Sahwney to larger bench. Secondly , It was also observed that Maratha were never a backward community , Thirdly , Article 15(4) & Article 16(4) are facet of substantive equality, Fourthly, Constitutional 102 nd amendment is valid, Fifthly , no comment on constitutional 103 rd amendment as matter it sub-judice, sixthly , Article 338B, and Article 342A are to be read in context of Parliamentary debates and their intentions whereas S Ravindra Bhat, J hold that Article 342A to be read literally and that President alone is competent to decide SEBC list for all states and UT. At last, Supreme Court set aside the committe