By Categories

Filter by Categories

Nausheen Bano v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

November 20, 2019 | Devi Jagani

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.

November 4, 2019 | Itla Ragiri Jayalakshmi

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.

CLPR files petitions before KAT seeking reservations for transgender persons in Division Assistant posts in Karnataka

October 21, 2019 | Devi Jagani

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.

Karnataka Rajya Vikalachetnara Rakshana Samiti v. Indian Oil Corporation & Ors.

November 16, 2018 | Deekshitha Ganesan

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.

November 16, 2018 | Deekshitha Ganesan

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

October 23, 2018 | Deekshitha Ganesan

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.

October 22, 2018 | Deekshitha Ganesan

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

October 9, 2018 |

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.

Dr. Akkai Padmashali & Ors vs. Union of India

August 21, 2018 | Jayna Kothari

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.

Independent Thought vs Union of India

September 21, 2017

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.