In 2018, Ashira Law filed a Public Interest Litigation before the High Court of Telangana on behalf of transgender rights activists seeking implementation of the Supreme Court’s directions in NALSA v. Union of India.
Litigation
Karnataka Rajya Vikalachetnara Rakshana Samiti v. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors.
In January 2018, the present Public Interest Litigation was brought under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“RPD Act”) challenging the actions of the Respondent No. 1 in the appointment of LPG distributors vide Notification dated 17.08.2018. In its call for the selection of 238 LPG distributors in various districts of Karnataka, the Respondent No. 1 failed to reserve 5% of the distributorships, amounting to 11 spots, for persons with disabilities as mandated under section 37 of the RPD Act. Instead, only 6 positions were reserved which was less than even 3% of 238 distributorships.
Virupaksha & Anr. v. Karnataka State Public Services Commission & Ors.
This petition challenges the recruitment process of Karnataka Public Services Commission (Respondent No. 1) for the post of Inspector of Motor Vehicles and the provisional list of candidates released on 30.06.2017 selected for the said post, released by Respondent No. 1. The Petitioners are persons with hearing impairments who wished to apply for the said post.
Saraswati vs Lokesh
The present petition has been filed by Saraswati Kumar, a minor aged 15 years seeking…
National Federation of the Blind v. BMTC & Ors.
This Public Interest Litigation was filed by the National Federation of the Blind (Petitioner) in the interest of persons with blindness, under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (“RPD Act”). The petition challenged Circular No. 469/2018 dated 06.06.2018 (“Impugned Circular”) issued by the Respondent No. 1, Bangalore Municipal Transport Corporation (“BMTC”), by which the facility of free passes for Vajra (Volvo) buses to persons with total blindness was withdrawn.
Joseph Shine vs. Union of India
CLPR represented the intervenor Vimochana in the Supreme Court and challenged the constitutionality of the offence of adultery under Section 497 of the IPC. We argued against adultery as an offence by invoking the fundamental right to privacy and argued that the right to intimate association is a facet of privacy which is protected under the Constitution. The Supreme Court unanimously struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code as being violative of Articles 14. 15 & 21 of the Constitution.
PIL Challenging the Constitutionality of the Telangana Eunuchs Act, 1919
On behalf of three transgender activists, CLPR, represented by Jayna Kothari and Disha Chaudhari, filed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the constitutional validity of the Telangana Eunuchs Act, 1919 in the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad.
Dr. Akkai Padmashali & Ors vs. Union of India
CLPR represented Dr. Akkai Padmashali, Uma Umesh, and Suma M in the Supreme Court to challenge Section 377 of the IPC. The Supreme Court held Section 377 as unconstitutional to the extent that it criminalised consensual sexual activity of any kind between adults. It was further held that the provision was manifestly arbitrary and violative of an individuals right to autonomy.
Citizens Action Group vs State of Karnataka
The Citizens Action Group has filed the present petition by way of Public Interest Litigation…
Ms. Y vs. Karnataka Secondary Education Board & Ors.
The Petitioner, a transgender person, has challenged the inaction of the Respondent authorities in issuing to her new, rectified education certificates bearing her changed name and gender identity.
Ms. X vs. State of Karnataka
The Petitioner in the instant case has challenged Section 15 of the Registration of Births…
Reservation and Grant of Concessional Rates for Persons with Disabilities in allotment of land by the BDA
These petitions were filed against the Bangalore Development Authority (“BDA”) and the State of Karnataka…
Independent Thought vs Union of India
CLPR appeared on behalf of the Child Rights Trust before the Supreme Court challenging Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC to the extent of its applicability in case of minor girls. The court held that the exception violates Article 14, 15 and 21 and is inconsistent with POCSO. The court noted that child marriage is an abhorrent practice that severely impacts the health and well being of children.
Sumitra Hooda Pednekar & Ors. vs Life Insurance Corporation & Ors
This public interest litigation has been filed by Ms. Sumitra Hooda Pednekar and 6 other…
Karnataka Sexual Minorities Forum vs State of Karnataka & Ors.
This petition was filed by the Karnataka Sexual Minorities Forum challenging the constitutional validity of…
Brigade Enterprises Limited & Anr v State of Karnataka & Ors.
This is a petition in which CLPR is representing a wildlife conservationist Mr. D.V. Girish,…
Mrs. Anita Ravindra vs Sexual Harassment Complaints Committee and Ors.
The Petitioner, Mrs. Anita Ravindra G.R, is a woman with multiple disabilities. She is a…
D V Girish & Ors. vs State of Karnataka & Ors.
This is an Appeal filed by the 4 appellants who are wildlife conservationists, against the…
Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.
In 2014 there was a second constitutional challenge to the RTE Act before a 5-judge…
Shiv Kumar vs Union Of India
The right to seek a divorce by mutual consent is provided under the Hindu Marriage…
Ghodawat Pan Masala Products and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
In the interest of public health, and pursuant to the Regulations of 2011 issued by…
Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India and Anr.
Soon after the RTE Act was enacted, several private schools challenged its constitutional validity in…
Cancer Patients Aid Association vs State of Karnataka
This petition was filed by CLPR on behalf of the Cancer Patients Aid Association, seeking…