Dr. Balram Singh filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition on 31 January 2023, concerning the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act 1993 and the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act 2013 (the Acts).
Litigation
Filter by
By Categories
Ms. X v. State of Karnataka
CLPR, through this case, is challenging the legal provisions preventing voluntary name and gender corrections for transgender individuals in birth certificates, arguing constitutional and human rights violations.
D.L. Girisha v. State of Karnataka
CLPR successfully challenges appointments based on fraudulent disability certificates, leading to the cancellation of fake selections and appointment of the petitioner.
P. Sandosh Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India
A petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA) and the Citizenship Amendment Rules, 2024 was filed at the Supreme Court of India, arguing that the law discriminates based on religion rather than persecution.
Kokkanda Krishna Teja v. Telangana State Public Service Commission
A person with 90% disability petitioned against the Telengana State Public Service Commission for an inaccessible exam center, seeking reasonable accommodation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016. The Court disposed of the petition, directing the Commission to consider the petitioner’s request for a more accessible exam center in their district.
Association of Indian Schools v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
The Supreme Court dismissed an SLP filed by the Association of Indian Schools against the Bombay HC judgment which quashed the amendment notification exempting private unaided schools from the 25% reservation under the RTE Act, 2009.
Ms. Ashwini Kamble & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed at the Bombay High Court (HC) against the Maharashtra government’s amendment to the state’s Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules 2011, exempting private unaided schools in the vicinity of government-supported schools from having to reserve their 25% seats for economically weaker and disadvantaged children.
Dr. Beoncy Laishram v. The State of Manipur & Ors.
CLPR on behalf of Dr. Beoncy Laishram have filed a writ petition in the Manipur High Court to seek change of her name and gender in her educational documents.
Mr. Vaibhav Vyankatrao Kamble & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed at the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court (HC) against the Maharashtra government’s amendment to the state Right to Education (RTE) Rules exempting private unaided schools in the vicinity of government-supported schools from having to reserve their 25% seats for economically weaker and disadvantaged children.
Dr. Rajshree Nagaraju v. Union of India and Ors.
Ms. Rajshree Nagaraju’s petition in the Supreme Court calls for a palliative care framework and recognition of its right in India. The petition asserts the right to die with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, urging for clarity on palliative care rights.
Vihaan Peethambar v. Manipal University & Ors.
A writ petition was filed by CLPR on behalf of Vihaan Peethambar which sought direction for universities in Karnataka to update degree certificates of Transgender Persons to reflect the change in their name & gender identity based on applications made by them without having to approach the Courts.
Dr. Akkai Padmashali and Ors. v. Union of India
Petitioners being members of the transgender community have filed this Writ Petition seeking a declaration that all references to “husband” and “wife” and “male” and “female” in the Special Marriage Act, 1954 be read to include the words “spouse” to include all persons irrespective of their gender identity and sexual orientation.
The Karnataka Rajya SC/ST Guttigedarara Sangha v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
On behalf of Karnataka Rajya SC/ST Guttigedarara Sangha (Karnataka State Contractors Association), CLPR has filed…
Women’s Voice v. State of Karnataka & Ors
CLPR on behalf of Women’s Voice, an organization which works specifically for rights of marginalized women filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court challenging the order dated 15.03.2022 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 2347 of 2022. The Judgment not only held that the wearing of Hijab by Muslim women does not form a part of essential religious practice in Islamic faith, but also that the prescription of school uniforms which prohibit head scarves is a reasonable restriction and that it does not violate Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution of India, and that the Government Order dated 05.02.2022 which prohibits head scarves in universities is valid
National Federation Of The Blind v. State Government Of Karnataka & Anr.
CLPR on behalf of the National Federation of the Blind, filed a PIL – W.P. No. 20317/2021 before the Karnataka High Court to ensure that a comprehensive transfer policy is formulated by the government to enable people with disabilities to work without discrimination and to provide them reasonable accommodation as mandated under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 (“RPwD Act”).
Dr. Trinetra Haldar Gummaraju v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
The Petitioner has filed the public interest litigation (PIL)- W.P No. 19706 of 2021 to address the lack of inclusive and safe accommodation for transgender students in higher educational institutions.
Women’s Voice Intervention in Resham and Anr v. the State of Karnataka
The Petitioners, pre-university Muslim students had filed W.P No. 2347/2022 challenging the Karnataka State Government’s Order dated 05.02.2022 which gave a directive that the uniform or dress code prescribed by the College Development Committees (CDCs) shall be mandatorily followed by the students.
Sangama by its Director & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
CLPR assisted Jeeva, an organization working extensively on the rights of transgender persons, in filing an application seeking horizontal reservations to be provided to transgender persons in public employment which led to Karnataka becoming the first Indian state to provide 1% horizontal reservation for transgender persons.
Nimmi Alphonsa Joseph v. State of Kerala
The petitioner, Nimmi Alphonsa Joseph is a person with visual disability, having low vision from the OBC category and is desirous of securing a medical seat. The writ petition was filed in the High Court of Kerala. This writ petition is filed by the Petitioner who is affected by the inaction of the Respondents, as they have not provided admission and reservation for persons with disabilities in Undergraduate Medical Courses.
M. Raghavendra v. Karnataka State Consumer Redressal Disputes Mechanism
The Petitioner, in this case, is M. Raghavendra, a visually impaired person with low vision and holding a post-graduate degree of M.A. in Political Science from the Karnataka State Open University. M. Raghavendra (‘Petitioner’) challenged the actions of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, as it did not provide reservation for persons with disability as mandated under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full protection) Act 1955 (‘PwD Act’) while filing up vacancies to the posts of President and Members of various District Consumer Disputes Redressal.
Murlidhara M. v. Karnataka Public Service Commission & Ors.
Mr. Muralidhar has filed this present Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the actions of the Karnataka Public Service Commission(KPSC) in violating provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995.
The Managing Director KSRTC & Anr. v. Sri. Ganapathi M Naika
This case is a service matter, filed by Karnataka State Road Transportation Corporation against Mr. Ganapathi M Naika, who was appointed by KSRTC as a driver-cum-conductor. While on duty, he met with an accident wherein he sustained injuries and was disabled with 55% locomotor disability.
Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Jeevan Santosh Martis
Jeevan Santosh Martis was working as a Conductor, with Karnataka State Road Transportation Corporation (KSRTC), when he suffered an accident, leaving him with 40% permanent locomotor disability. However, he was later asked to do much more difficult work. He made representations to higher authorities for the same. Despite these representations, the Respondent was suspended from service vide order dated 20.1.2018.
PSBB Learning Leadership Academy v. Barnali Rout
The Respondent, Barnali Rout is a person with 80% disability and was formerly a primary school teacher at the Petitioner institution since 2008. She filed a case against the Petitioner, PSBB Learning Leadership Another, in front of the Disability Commissioner.
All Assam Transgender Association v. Union of India
This Petition is filed in public interest on behalf of the transgender community in Assam and in India to protect their right to adequate representation in the National Council for Transgender Persons as provided under Section 16 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act 2019 (‘The Act’).
Re-Distribution of Essential Supplies and Services During the Pandemic
This is a suo motu public interest litigation taken up by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, to ensure that there is a proper and effective distribution of essential supplies and services during the pandemic to the people of India. In this PIL, CLPR has filed an Intervention application on behalf of Karnataka Rajya Vikalachethanara Rakshana Samithi (KRVRS), a charitable trust working toward the betterment of persons with disabilities.
Jaikiran v. State of Karnataka
The Petitioner is a person with blindness who faced a lot of challenges at her workplace. In December 2020, a colleague, in his role as Deputy Director (in-charge), Hassan District submitted a report to the CEO, Zilla Panchayat, Hassan making baseless allegations against the Petitioner. Based on this report, the CEO deemed it fit to pass an order wherein he transferred the Petitioner to Bangalore.
Aravind Sajjanar v. KPTCL & Ors.
This petition was filed on behalf of Aravind Sajjanar, a person with scoliosis, challenging his non-selection for the post of Assistant Engineer(Civil) at the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited(KPTCL).
Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
A Special Leave Petition was filed challenging the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka which failed to direct reservation of 3% posts for persons with disabilities in the identified posts in Group A and B, to be filled up by promotion, as required by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
National Federation of the Blind v. Registrar General and Secretary, Karnataka
This petition is filed as a public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution by the National Federation of the Blind, on behalf of all visually impaired persons in the State of Karnataka seeking reservations for the posts of civil judges in the lower judiciary.
National Federation of the Blind v. State of Karnataka
The National Federation of the Blind (NFB), an organization working for the rights of the visually impaired, through its state branch in Karnataka, has filed this public interest litigation in the Karnataka High Court. The Petitioner is challenging the validity of Government Order which decreased the percentage of reservation given to persons with blindness by the Department for Personnel and Administrative Reforms, State of Karnataka (DPAR).
Jaikiran v. State of Karnataka
The Petitioner, Mrs. Jaikiran, is a woman and a person with blindness. She cleared the Karnataka State Civil Services exam in 2019 and was appointed as the Child Development Project Officer, Hassan. Jaikiran filed a criminal complaint of sexual harassment against her male colleague. In retaliation, an associate of the aforementioned male colleague filed another criminal complaint against Jaikiran. The alleged offences were non-cognizable in nature however due procedure of investigation was not followed. Hence, the petitioner approached the High Court of Karnataka to quash the complaint.
High Court Legal Services Authority v. State of Karnataka
This is a Public Interest Litigation filed against the State Government for failing to implement the provisions of the Prohibition of Employment of Manual Scavengers and Rehabilitation Act, (PEMSRA), 2013.
Ondede v. Union of India
This is a public interest litigation filed by the Petitioners before the High Court of Karnataka challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 12(3), 18(a) and 18(d) of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. The petition has been filed stating that the impugned 2019 Act has been passed but the provisions are in violation of Articles, 14,15, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Thangjam Santa Singh v. State of Manipur & Ors
Santa Khurai, a well-known transgender activist from the State of Manipur has filed this Public Interest Litigation in the High Court of Manipur. The petition seeks various reliefs in matters associated with the Manipur State government’s management of COVID-19 pandemic.
Grace Banu v. The Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu
This is a Public Interest Litigation filed by a transgender activist, Grace Banu before the Madras High Court seeking various reliefs for Transgender Persons amid the second wave of Covid-19.
Radha M & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
This is a Public interest litigation filed on behalf of parents of children studying in government schools in Karnataka, challenging the continued closure of schools in the State due to the COVID pandemic, when many other economic activities have opened, for being unscientific, harmful and harming the education rights of learners.
Thangjam Santa Singh @Santa Khurai v. Union of India & Ors.
Santa Khurai, a well-known and prominent transgender rights activist from Manipur filed this Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of Clauses 12 and 51 of the Guidelines on Blood Donor Selection and Blood Donor Referral, 2017 issued by the National Transfusion Council and the National Aids Control Organization under the Ministry of Health and Welfare.
Kanika Gulati & Anr. v. State Government of Karnataka & Ors.
The Petitioners, Kanika Gulati and Sreekumar Gopinathan, have filed this Public Interest Litigation in the Karnataka High Court, challenging the validity of the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Ordinance, 2020. In particular, Sections 2(2), 4, 5, 6, 7 and 18(1)(d) are challenged on the ground that they violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution.
Karnataka Federation of the Blind v. State of Karnataka
The Petitioner, the Karnataka Federation of the Blind (KFB), an organization working for the rights of the visually impaired and other persons with disabilities (PWD), has filed this Public Interest Litigation in the Karnataka High Court. The Petitioner is challenging the validity of Circular bearing No. DPAR 123 DBM 2020 (Section) issued on 18.05.2020 which mandated 100% attendance of every Government Employee.
Karnataka Rajya Vikalachetanara Rakshana Samiti v. The Union of India
The Petitioner, Karnataka Rajya Vikalachetanara Rakshana Samiti, a not-for-profit organization has filed this present Public Interest Litigation challenging the amendment notification which has made amendments to the GST Act and the order dated 24.10.2019 imposing guidelines for the issue of GST concession certificate of purchase of vehicles by the persons with Orthopedic Physical Disability.
National Federation of the Blind v. Karnataka Public Service Commission & Ors.
The Petitioner, which is a Federation formed to serve visually impaired and low vision people and works extensively towards securing equal opportunity in the field of education, training, and employment for such persons, filed the present Writ Petition No. W.P. (c) No. 9260 of 2020 in public interest on behalf of all visually impaired persons in the State of Karnataka to ensure their right to reasonable accommodation in the public examination announced for the appointment of Gazetted Probationer Officer.
Adhikesavan v. District Collector, Tiruvannamalai
On 23.07.2017, a gang of youths belonging to the MBC community attacked people from Scheduled…
Child Rights Trust v. Union of India
Child Rights Trust (a Bangalore based NGO working extensively in the area of Child Rights) and Ms. Neena Nayak (a child Rights advocate and activist) filed a Writ Petition seeking enforcement of Fundamental Rights, under Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 21A, 39 and 47 of the Constitution, of migrant children and children of migrant families during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Petition seeks to ensure that migrant children and children of migrant workers are provided with proper living conditions, nutrition, health care/immunization, access to education and their protection. The Petition highlights that the lack of present-day assessment of the number and essential needs of migrant children, infants and pregnant and lactating women of migrant families has aggravated their vulnerabilities during the lockdown.
Kabeer C alias Aneera v. State of Kerala & Ors.
A Public Interest Litigation was filed in the Kerala High Court by Aneera Kabeer, a transgender person involved in mobilising persons in the transgender community for the purpose of achieving equal opportunities for the community. The Petition seeks various reliefs relating to transgender people during period of COVID-19 threat. The writ petition sought for measures by the state government for “the distribution of food ration, medicines, access to medical treatment, etc. to the transgender community in Kerala.”
CMASK v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
This Writ Petition has been brought by the Petitioner – Parishista Jaathi/ Committee for Monitoring and Strengthening SCs/STs in Karnataka – CMASK, seeking certain reliefs for the proper implementation of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘PoA Act’) and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (‘PoA Rules’).
Grace Banu Ganeshan & Ors. v. Union of India & anr.
CLPR has filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court of India on behalf of Grace Banu, and others, who are members of the transgender community, and well-known transgender rights activists who have been working for the promotion of the rights and entitlements of transgender, intersex, and gender non-conforming persons in India for the last several years.
Vyjayanti Vasanta Mogli v. State of Telangana & Ors.
CLPR filed public interest litigation in the Telangana High Court on behalf of Vyjayanti Vasanta Mogli, a trans rights activist. The PIL is on relief measures during the lockdown ranging from access to food and essential items, access to medicines, and other welfare measures for the transgender community.
Mohammed Arif Jameel v. Union of India
The Karnataka High Court has taken up a public interest litigation on relief measures during the COVID lockdown, ranging from access to food and essential items, access to medicines, animal welfare and parole for prisoners. In these ongoing PILs, CLPR has filed an Intervention Application on behalf of Ondede, an organisation working for the rights of transgender persons, and the Centre for Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, which works closely with SC/ST communities especially manual scavenging groups, tribal and forest-dwelling communities, slum dweller and other vulnerable groups.
Madhavan & Others v. The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai & Others
The present case relates to a claim for rehabilitation and compensation on the death of a person in an act of caste-based violence.
Chandran U v. the Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (TANUVAS) & Others
This case deals with the admission of a student who completed the Vocational Stream in Class 12 to Respondent No. 1 TANUVAS. The Prospectus of TANUVAS for the academic year 2019-20 distinguished between students from Academic and Vocational Streams. Academic Stream students could apply for 4 of the courses offered by TANUVAS (B.Tech (Food Technology), B.Tech (Poultry), B.Tech (Dairy Technology) and B.V. Sc. & A.H.) while Vocational Stream students could only apply for the B.V. Sc. & A.H. course. Further, out of the 360 seats available for the B.V. Sc. & A.H. course, 5% of seats were reserved for vocational stream students and 95% were reserved for Academic Stream students.
Nausheen Bano v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
This Writ Petition was filed by a 24 years old married woman seeking permission of the High Court to terminate her pregnancy of over 30 weeks as the fetus suffered from multiple abnormalities. By order dated 31.10.2019, the Hon’ble High Court permitted the Petitioner to seek termination of her pregnancy, in recognition of her rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and the mental trauma that is likely to be caused to her on account of the fetal abnormalities, if the termination is not permitted.
Bhavika Pore v. Union of India & Anr.
The Centre for Law and Policy Research recently filed an intervening application on behalf of Swati Bidhan Baruah, lawyer and transgender activist, in a case titled Bhavika Pore v. Union of India. The Petitioner through this Petition is invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India to direct the concerned authorities to fulfil their statutory obligations with regard to setting up/specifying special Human Right Courts in each district for the better protection of Human Rights and also to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor for the same, vis-à-vis section 30 and 31 of the Human Rights Act, 1993.
Suman & Anr. v. Secretary, KPSC
The Petition was filed challenging the Notification No. E(2) 7271/2018-19/PSC dated 11.02.2019 (hereinafter the Impugned Notification) calling for applications from eligible candidates to fill up posts of First Division Assistant (FDA) and posts of Second Division Assistant (SDA) of the Bangalore City Civil Court and the different District and Sessions Courts across the State, issued by the Respondent No. 1, seeking that separate reservations be provided for transgender persons.
Sai Rahul Vijayakumar v. The Registrar, Bharatiyar University & Anr.
The Hon’ble Madras High Court held, with respect to a petition for change of name and gender of a transgender person in educational documents, that on receipt of the application along with the fee of Rs.500, the Respondent No. 1 University should carry out the necessary change within a period of three weeks.
Anupama D. v. The Office of the Directorate of the Disabled and Senior Citizens Empowerment
The Petitioner has filed the present Petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to appoint her as an Assistant Teacher in the Blind Children’s Residential School, Chitradurga.
Deepika & Ors. v. Chairman, TNUSRB & Ors.
CLPR represented three transgender persons in appealing to the Madras High Court for the relaxation of the age bar for the post of grade II police constable.
Jeeva M. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
CLPR represented a transgender person seeking change of name and gender in school certificates and pre-university records before the Karnataka High Court.
Grace Banu Ganesan v. State of Tamil Nadu
This Public Interest Litigation filed by Grace Banu, a transgender rights activist, seeks the implementation of horizontal reservations for transgender and intersex persons in admission into educational institutions and public appointment in the State of Tamil Nadu.
KMV Monalisa & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Ors.
In 2018, CLPR 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.
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 Kumar v. Lokesh Kumar
The present petition has been filed by Saraswati Kumar, a minor aged 15 years seeking annulment of her marriage under Section 3 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 (PCMA) as it was solemnized when she was a minor and she was forcefully taken away from the custody of her parents.
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 v. 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.
Vyjayanti Vasanta Mogli & Ors. v. State of Telangana
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 v. State of Karnataka
The Citizens Action Group has filed the present petition by way of Public Interest Litigation in order to draw attention to the deteriorating conditions of the water bodies in the city. Due to unchecked discharge of sewage, encroachment and consequent clogging, the drains are in dismal condition and are a serious health hazard for the citizens of Bangalore, depriving them of the right to a clean and healthy environment guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
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 v. State of Karnataka
The Petitioner in the instant case has challenged Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and Rule 11 of the Karnaraka Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999, as they only allow alteration of the Birth Certificate in instances of error, and not in cases of voluntary change in name or gender.
KRVRS & Ors v. BDA & Ors.
These petitions were filed against the Bangalore Development Authority (“BDA”) and the State of Karnataka through the Department of Urban Development, for failing to provide reservation in allotment of sites and the grant of sites at concessional rates to persons with disabilities.
Independent Thought v. 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. v. Life Insurance Corporation & Ors
In this petition, CLPR is representing the Indian Medical Association, Karnataka State Branch (IMA-KSB) which was impleaded as a party. CLPR had initially filed an application to implead the IMA – KSB and also the Consortium for Tobacco Free Karnataka. While the application for the former was accepted by the Court on 23rd June 2017, the impleading application of the latter was rejected because it is an unregistered collective. The application has been filed in support of the Petitioners, advocating the public’s the right to health and life.
Karnataka Sexual Minorities Forum v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
This petition was filed by the Karnataka Sexual Minorities Forum challenging the constitutional validity of Section 36A in the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. This provision was inserted with effect from 26th April, 2011.
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 v. Sexual Harassment Complaints Committee and Ors.
The Petitioner, Mrs. Anita Ravindra G.R, is a woman with multiple disabilities. She is a senior teacher at the Demonstration Multipurpose School, Regional Institute of Education, Mysore. Since 2012 she had been facing sexual harassment as well as harassment due to her disability at the hands of two male colleagues (Respondent No. 7 and 8) and the principal (Respondent No.2).
D V Girish & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
This is an Appeal filed by wildlife conservationists, against the Judgment and Decree of their suit that was dismissed by the District Judge of Chikmagalur in RA No. 32/2013. The appellants are concerned with the construction work of a tourist camp called Muthodi Nature Camp on the Property which is in the core of the Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary in the Western Ghats and has been declared as reserve forest.
Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
In 2014 there was a second constitutional challenge to the RTE Act before a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the Pramati case again by private schools. CLPR represented the Azim Premji Foundation as an intervenor in this matter.
Shiv Kumar v. Union Of India
Mr. Shiv Kumar challenged the constitutionality of Section 10A of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 alleging that this provision amounted to discrimination based on religion and violated the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14. CLPR represented Vimochana and supported the petition and argued additionally that in cases where women are facing domestic violence and harassment at the hands of the husband, in many instances they opt for a quick separation.
Ghodawat Pan Masala Products and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
The Government of Karnataka issued a notification on 30th May, 2013, banning the manufacture, sale and storage of gutka within the entire state of Karnataka. Ghodawat Pan Masala (I) Pvt. Ltd., filed a Writ Petition before the Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka HC on the ground that this notification was an impediment to its fundamental right of freedom of trade and profession guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. CLPR, on behalf of Cancer Patients Aid Association, sought to implead itself in the Petition before the Dharwad Bench.
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 the Supreme Court. The main challenge was against its provision that mandated private schools to fill 25% of the seats in Class I with children from weaker and disadvantaged groups. Petitioners argued that this imposition was an unreasonable restriction on their right to carry on a trade or business under Article 19(1)(g). In these petitions, CLPR represented the Azim Premji Foundation as an intervenor to not only support the RTE Act but seek for a broader interpretation to include children between 0-6 years.
Cancer Patients Aid Association v. State of Karnataka
This petition was filed by CLPR on behalf of the Cancer Patients Aid Association, seeking enforcement of Section 6 of the COTPA and the prohibition on the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products within 100 yards of educational institutions, and requiring the installation of signboards that proclaim the same.