By Categories

Filter by Categories

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

November 16, 2018

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.

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Corporation (“BMTC”), by which the facility of free passes for Vajra (Volvo) buses to persons with total blindness was withdrawn.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 | Disha Chaudhry

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.