S. Muralidhar

S. Muralidhar is an Indian Judge. Presently, he is Chief Justice of Orissa High Court. He is Former Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.[1] He was initially appointed as a Judge to the High Court of Delhi by the President of India in May 2006.[2] He assumed the office of Judge at the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 6 March 2020.[3]

Hon'ble Chief Justice

Dr. S. Muralidhar
Chief Justice of Orissa High Court
Assumed office
4 January 2021
Nominated bySharad Arvind Bobde
Appointed byRam Nath Kovind
Preceded byMohammad Rafiq
Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court
In office
6 March 2020 – 3 January 2021
Nominated bySharad Arvind Bobde
Appointed byRam Nath Kovind
Judge of Delhi High Court
In office
29 May 2006 – 5 March 2020
Nominated byYogesh Kumar Sabharwal
Appointed byA. P. J. Abdul Kalam
Personal details
Born (1961-08-08) 8 August 1961
Spouse(s)Usha Ramanathan
Alma materUniversity of Madras , Nagpur University, University of Delhi

Education

S. Muralidhar completed his Bachelor of Sciences (Chemistry) from the Vivekananda College, Chennai securing first class from the Madras University in 1981. He secured first rank in the Bachelor of Laws course ("BL") from the University of Madras and was awarded the Lakshminarasa Reddi, the L.C. Miller Medals and the Carmichael and Innes Prize, 1984. As a law student, he was a part of a two-member team of Madras Law College, that won the All India Moot Court Competition and consequently represented India at the 25th Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition held at Washington D.C. in April 1984. He completed his LL.M specializing in Constitutional and Administrative Law from Nagpur University in 1990, securing first rank. Dr. S. Muralidhar was awarded a Ph. D by the University of Delhi in February 2003 for a Doctoral Programme entitled "Legal Aid and the Criminal Justice System in India". He is also a Fellow of the Institute of Company Secretaries of India.[4]

Early career

Litigation and advocacy

S. Muralidhar began his law practice in Chennai in September 1984. He qualified as a Company Secretary in December 1985.[4] In July 1987 he shifted his practice to Delhi where he initially worked as a junior lawyer to the then Additional Solicitor General G Ramaswamy, who would later become the Attorney General for India.[5] Muralidhar primarily practiced in the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court. He qualified the Advocate-on-Record Examination in 1990 securing the first position in merit and was awarded the Mukesh Goswami Memorial Prize. He was also active as a lawyer for the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee and later was its member for two terms. His pro bono work included the cases for the victims of the Bhopal Gas Disaster, cases involving the deplorable conditions in which persons alleged to be mentally ill were locked up in Jail[6] and cases involving those displaced by the dams on the Narmada.[7] He was appointed amicus curiae by the Supreme Court in several Public Interest Litigation cases and in cases involving convicts on death row. Muralidhar was counsel for the National Human Rights Commission and the Election Commission of India and a part-time member of the Law Commission from December 2002 till May 2006.[2]

Judgeship

Appointment

Justice Muralidhar was appointed as a Judge of High Court of Delhi on 29 May 2006.[8] During his almost 14-year stint as a Judge of the High Court of Delhi, he pronounced various landmark judgments dealing with a variety of issues.[5][9][10][11][12] He was later transferred as a Judge to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana where he was sworn in on 6 March 2020.[3] As a judge he had deprecated the use of "my lord" and "your lordship" as a form of address in Court and had directed the Court's registry to append a note to the daily causelist for his Court requesting lawyers "to try and avoid addressing the judges as My Lord and Your Lordship”.[13]

Controversy surrounding "Transfer"

The Collegium of the Supreme Court of India headed by Chief Justice of India S. A. Bobde in its meeting held on 12 February 2020 recommended the transfer of Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar from the High Court of Delhi to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.[14] The President of India accepted the recommendation of the Collegium of the Supreme Court of India and the transfer was notified on the night of 26 February 2020.[15][16][17] The hurried "midnight" transfer of Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar was widely panned by lawyers, former judges, civil society members and the media across the country, and was considered to be a punitive measure by the government for the hearings conducted by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi headed by Justice Muralidhar into the inaction of police during the 2020 Delhi riots.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] During the Full Court Reference given by the High Court of Delhi on 5 March 2020 Justice Muralidhar spoke on the transfer giving details of the sequence of events.[4][26][27]

Elevation as Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court

On 15 December 2020, news reports broke about the Collegium of the Supreme Court of India headed by Chief Justice of India S. A. Bobde recommending Justice Muralidhar for elevation as the Chief Justice of Orissa High Court.[28] He was appointed as Chief Justice of Orissa High Court on 31 December 2020 and took oath on 4 January 2021.

High Court jurisprudence

Sharing his views on "Judges" and "the act of judging" he had expressed that he doesn't subscribe to the view that "Judges perform a divine function" and that "jettisoning the prefix Lordship and even ‘Hon’ble’ is not a fetish. It is an acknowledgement of how mortal, temporal, and, if I may venture to add, fallible we are." He also has stated that he viewed the act of judging to take place in a "space that is both mediative and meditative" and that though there is a distinction between neutrality and impartiality, they are not antithetical. While he acknowledged that impartiality is an essential attribute and non-compromisable for a judge, he viewed neutrality, as per the Constitution, to require "the judge at all levels to be able to discern the weak from the strong litigant in terms of their capacities to access justice and lean on the side of the vulnerable in order to attempt to achieve equality of arms." He viewed Courts as "not merely places where law is practised and produced" but also as "spaces where the constitutional values are tested." [4][26][27]

Gender discrimination and reproductive Health

Justice Muralidhar authored the judgment in Rajendra Grover v. Air India Ltd. (2007)[29] which dealt with gender discrimination in service conditions of cabin crew, where he held that "this Court also finds nothing arbitrary, unreasonable or irrational in the pre-1997 male cabin crew being asked to serve on a flight which has their female colleague" as an In-Flight Supervisor and observed that this has "enabled its female cabin crew to break the 'glass ceiling'."[29] He also dealt with issue of reproductive health in Laxmi Mandal v. Deen Dayal Harinagar Hospital (2010)[30] which highlighted the deficiencies in the implementation of a cluster of schemes, funded by the Government of India, which were meant to reduce infant and maternal mortality, and the resultant systemic failure that lead to the denial of benefits to two mothers below the poverty line (BPL) during their pregnancy and immediately thereafter. In this judgement he deprecated the practice where "instead of making it easier for poor persons to avail of the benefits, the efforts at present seem to be to insist upon documentation to prove their status as 'poor' and 'disadvantaged'" and that "this onerous burden on them to prove that they are the persons in need of urgent medical assistance constitutes a major barrier to their availing of the services". He opined that "when it comes to the question of public health, no woman, more so a pregnant woman should be denied the facility of treatment at any stage irrespective of her social and economic background. This is the primary function in the public health services. This is where the inalienable right to health which is so inherent to the right to life gets enforced."[30]

Housing rights and urban planning

In Sudama Singh v. Government of Delhi (2010)[31] which dealt with resettlement of jhuggi (hutments) inhabitants, he was a part of the Division Bench which held that the decision of the government that jhuggi (hutments) inhabitants "are on the 'Right of Way' and are, therefore, not entitled to relocation" as "illegal and unconstitutional". The Court further directed that the "State agencies will ensure that basic civic amenities, consistent with the rights to life and dignity of each of the citizens in the jhuggies, are available at the site of relocation".[31] Similarly, in Ajay Maken & Ors. vs Union Of India (2019),[32] a PIL which dealt with the forced eviction of 5,000 jhuggi (hutments) dwellers in 2015, he authored the judgment on behalf of the Division Bench which held that "a Court approached by persons complaining against forced eviction" should not view them as "encroachers" and illegal occupants of land, but rather to "require the agencies to first determine if the dwellers are eligible for rehabilitation in terms of the extant law and policy. Forced eviction of jhuggi dwellers, unannounced, in co-ordination with the other agencies, and without compliance with the above steps, would be contrary to the law". It was also held that "the right to housing is a bundle of rights not limited to a bare shelter over one's head. It includes the right to livelihood, right to health, right to education and right to food, including right to clean drinking water, sewerage and transport facilities." The Court further acknowledged that "the right to adequate housing is a right to access several facets that preserve the capability of a person to enjoy the freedom to live in the city. They recognise such persons as rights bearers whose full panoply of constitutional guarantees require recognition, protection and enforcement."[32]

Criminal law

He also authored the Judgement in Kulwinder v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018),[33] where the High Court set aside the trial court verdict and held that the Mirchpur Dalit killng incident of 2010 was "an instance of caste based violence" where there was "deliberate targeting" of setting houses on fire in a "pre-planned and carefully orchestrated manner", and thus a case of murder.[33] In State v. Bharat Singh (2014)[34] which dealt with death penalty and in particular sentencing guidelines, he held that when the State has failed to place materials on the aspect of whether the accused is capable of being reformed and rehabilitated before it, the Courts can also call for a report from the Probation Officer and thereafter examine whether the accused is likely to indulge in criminal activity or whether there is any probability of the accused being reformed or rehabilitated. Thus he opined that "for the purposes of reference proceedings for confirmation of the death sentence under Section 366 of the CrPC, the criminal Court would include the High Courts as well". Consequently the High Court proceeded to direct the appointment of a Probation Officer with specific guidelines for inquiry.[34]

Constitutional law

In Naz Foundation v. NCT of Delhi (2009)[35] he was part of the Division Bench which held that "Section 377 IPC, insofar as it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution".[35] He was also part of the Full Bench in Secretary General, Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2010),[36] where the Court ruled in favour of an RTI activist who had sought supply of information concerning declaration of personal assets by the Judges of the Supreme Court by holding that such "information does not warrant the protection granted by Section 8(1)(j)" of the Right to Information Act.[36] He authored the judgment in Makemytrip (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India[37] which dealt with questions involving the powers of tax officials of arrest, investigation and assessment of service tax under the provisions of the Finance Act,1994, where he held that "the decision to arrest a person must not be taken on whimsical grounds; it must be based on 'credible material'." He also held that an officer whether of the Central Excise department or another agency like the DGCEI, authorised to exercise powers under the Central Excise Act and/or the Finance Act "will have to be conscious of the constitutional limitations on the exercise of such power."[37] He also authored the judgement on behalf of the Division Bench in Gautam Navlakha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018),[38] where the Court quashed the transit warrant issued by a Delhi Magistrate for the arrest of Gautam Navlakha by the Maharashtra police in relation to the Bhima Koregaon case. There the Court held that "requirement of Article 22 (1), Article 22 (2) of the Constitution and Section 167[39] read with Section 57[40] and 41 (1) (ba) of the CrPC" are mandatory.[38]

International law

During a discussion with Sandra Fredman on her book Comparative Human Rights Law, Justice Muralidhar expressed his views on the need for linkage of International Convenants, particularly those ratified by India, in the context of Indian cases and that he endeavored to express these linkages in his judgments.[41] While authoring the judgement on behalf of the Division Bench in Zulfikar Nasir v. State Of Uttar Pradesh (2018),[42] which dealt with the Hashimpura Massacre of 1987 where the High Court convicted 16 personnel of the PAC and sentenced them to life imprisonment by overturning the trial court verdict, he referred to the "General Comment on the Right to Truth in relation to enforced disappearances" put out by the "United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances" in relation to the "right of the victim to know the truth".[42] Simiarily in State through CBI v. Sajjan Kumar (2018),[43] he authored the Judgment on behalf of the Division Bench which reversed the acquittal of Sajjan Kumar for his role during the 1984 Sikh Massacre. The High Court went on to hold that the such cases were in fact "crimes against humanity" and require a different approach to be adopted by the Courts. Further the Court observed that this calls for "strengthening the legal system as neither 'crimes against humanity' nor 'genocide' is part of our domestic law of crime. This loophole needs to be addressed urgently".[43]

Arbitration
  • Intertoll ICS Cecons O & M Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India (2013)[44]
  • M/S. Lanco-Rani (JV) v. NHAI (2016)[45]
  • Gulshan Khatri v. Google Inc.(2017)[46]
Administrative law
  • Prakash Atlanta JV v. NHAI (2010)[47]
  • CCI v. Grasim Industries (2019)[48]
Intellectual property law
  • Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy (2009)[49]
  • F. Hoffmann-LA Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd. (2009)[50]
  • Bayer Corporation v. Union of India (2010)[51]
  • Nippon Steel Corporation v. Union of India (2011)[52]
Service and labour law
  • Builders Association of India v. Union of India (2007)[53]
  • National Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied Workers v. MCD (2008)[54]
  • Dev Sharma v. Union of India (2019)[55]
  • Shambhu Sharma v. High Court of Delhi (2019)[56]
Taxation
  • CIT v. Kabul Chawla (2015)[57]
  • Carlsberg India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2016)[58]
  • CIT v. Janata Party (2016)[59]
  • CIT v. Indian National Congress (2016)[60]
  • DIT (Exemptions) v. Vishwa Hindu Parishad (2017)[61]
  • On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. Ltd. v. GNCTD (2017) [62]

Personal life

S. Muralidhar is married to Usha Ramanathan, an independent law researcher.[5]

Publications
  1. Law, Poverty and Legal Aid: Access to Criminal Justice, a book published by LexisNexis Butterworths in August 2004.[63]
  2. The Case of Agra Protective Home. Amita Dhanda & Archana Parasher (eds), Engendering Law: Essays in Honour of Lotika Sarkar, 1999, Eastern Book Company, pp 291–320.
  3. Justice to Scavengers. Labour File, Vol 3/6, November–December 2005, pp 25–28.
  4. The Right to Water: An Overview of Indian Legal Regime. Eibe Riedel & Peter Rothen (eds), The Human Right to Water, Berliner WissenschaftsVerlag, 2006, pp 65–81.
  5. Implementation of Court orders in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: An overview of the experience of the Indian Judiciary. Delhi Law Review, Vol XXIV, 2002, pp 113–122.
  6. Economic, Social & Cultural Rights: An Indian Response to the Justiciability Debate. Yash Ghai & Jill Cottrell (eds), Economic, Social & Cultural Rights in Practice: The Role of Judges in Implementing Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Interights, 2004, pp 23–32.
  7. Unsettling Truths, Untold tales the Bhopal Gas Disaster Victims 'Twenty years' of Courtroom Struggles for Justice. International Environmental Law Research Centre Working Paper, 2004/5.[64]
  8. Judicial Enforcement of Economic and Social Rights:The Indian Scenario. Fons Coomans (ed), Justiciability of Economic and Social Rights: Experiences from Domestic Systems, Intersentia, 2006, pp 237–267.
  9. India: The Expectations and Challenges of Judicial Enforcement of Social Rights. Malcolm Langford (ed), Social Rights Jurisprudence: Emerging Trends in International and Comparative Law,Cambridge University Press, 2008, pp 102–124.
  10. Public Interest Litigation: Prospects and Problems (with Ashok Desai). BN Kirpal et al. (eds), Supreme But Not Infallible : Essays in Honour of the Supreme Court of India, OUP, 2000, pp 159–192.
  11. Trials, Errors and Hope: Indian Experiments with Access to Justice. Journal of National Judicial Academy, Vol 1:2005, pp 350–389.
  12. Access to Criminal Justice: Challenges and Prospects. Kamala Sankaran & Uljwal Kumar Singh (eds), Towards Legal Literacy: An Introduction to Law in India, OUP, 2008, pp 45–60.
  13. Hang Them Now, Hang Them Not: lndia's Travails with Death Penalty. Journal of the Indian Law Institute, Vol 40, 1998, pp 143–173.
  14. Rights of victims in the Indian Criminal Justice system. Journal of the NHRC, Vol. 2, 2003, pp 88–104.
  15. Legal vs. Commercial Liability - Motor lnsurance and the Law. IRDA Journal, Vol. II, No.3, February 2004, pp 22–24.
  16. Jurisdictional Issues in Cyberspace. Indian Journal of Law and Technology, Vol 6, 2010, pp 1–42.
  17. Crime, Punishment and Justice in India: The Trajectories of Criminal Law. Annual Lecture Series in Criminal Law, 2018, Project 39A, National Law University Delhi.[65]

References
  1. "Hon'ble Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana". highcourtchd.gov.in. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
  2. "Former Judges". www.delhihighcourt.nic.in. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
  3. Bench, Bar &. "Justice S Muralidhar takes oath as judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court". Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
  4. "Video of Full Court Reference of Justice Muralidhar at High Court of Delhi". www.delhihighcourt.nic.in. Archived from the original on 25 March 2020. Retrieved 25 March 2020.
  5. "Justice league". The Indian Express. 1 March 2020. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
  6. "Sheela Barse vs Union Bank Of India And Ors on 5 September, 1995". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 4 May 2020.
  7. "Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union Of India And Ors on 15 March, 2005". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 5 May 2020.
  8. "Delhi High Court Bar protests transfer of Justice Muralidhar". The Indian Express. 20 February 2020. Retrieved 11 March 2020.
  9. "As His Transfer Sparks A Political Row, A Look at Past Verdicts of Justice Muralidhar". News18. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
  10. NETWORK, LIVELAW NEWS (6 March 2020). "Landmark Judgments Of Justice Muralidhar In Delhi High Court". www.livelaw.in. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
  11. "Attempts To Transfer Justice Muralidhar? Here's a List of Cases Decided by Him Which May Tell You Why". NewsCentral24x7. 29 January 2019. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
  12. Staff Reporter (19 March 2019). "Unannounced, forced eviction of jhuggi dwellers contrary to law: HC". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 11 March 2020.
  13. "Justice Muralidhar asks lawyers not to address him as 'my lord' or 'your lordship'". The Indian Express. 15 March 2020. Retrieved 4 May 2020.
  14. "Resolution by the Collegium of the Supreme Court of India recommending Transfer of Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar" (PDF). Supreme Court of India. 19 February 2020. Archived (PDF) from the original on 28 February 2020. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
  15. "Government of India Notification of the Transfer of Justice Dr. S. Muralidhar" (PDF). Department of Justice, Government of India. Archived (PDF) from the original on 10 March 2020. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
  16. NETWORK, LIVELAW NEWS (26 February 2020). "[Breaking] Centre Notifies Transfer Of Justice Muralidhar From Delhi HC To P&H HC [Read Notification]". www.livelaw.in. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
  17. Bench, Bar &. "Breaking: Centre notifies transfer of Justice S Muralidhar to Punjab & Haryana High Court". Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
  18. Correspondent, Legal (27 February 2020). "Justice Muralidhar's 'midnight transfer' condemned by NGO on judicial reform". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
  19. Dhavan, Senior Advocate Rajeev (2 March 2020). "Midnight Transfer of Justice Muralidhar". www.livelaw.in. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
  20. Feb 27, PTI |; 2020; Ist, 18:49. "NGO condemns midnight transfer of Justice S Muralidhar | India News - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 10 March 2020.CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  21. Sharma, Japnam Bindra,Prathma (28 February 2020). "Row erupts over transfer of judge hours after he pulls up Delhi cops". Livemint. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
  22. "High Court Judge Who Criticised Cops Over Delhi Violence Transferred". NDTV.com. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
  23. "Explained | The curious case of Justice Muralidhar's transfer from Delhi High Court". Moneycontrol. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
  24. Acharyulu, Prof Madabhushi Sridhar (5 March 2020). "SC Violates It's [sic] Own Resolution In Transfer Of Justice Muralidhar". www.livelaw.in. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
  25. Lokur, Chetan. "Justice Muralidhar transfer: Lack of reasons for a transfer order in trying times". Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
  26. "Justice Muralidhar on the Distinction Between Neutrality and Impartiality". The Wire. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
  27. Speech of Justice Muralidhar at his Full Court Farewell Reference by the High Court of Delhi., retrieved 4 May 2020
  28. "Amid row over CM Jagan's charges, SC moots transfer of AP Chief Justice". The Hindu. Special Correspondent. 15 December 2020. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 16 December 2020.CS1 maint: others (link)
  29. "Rajendra Grover And Ors. vs Air India Ltd. And Ors. on 8 October, 2007". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
  30. "Laxmi Mandal vs Deen Dayal Harinagar Hospital & ... on 4 June, 2010". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 4 May 2020.
  31. "Sudama Singh & Others vs Government Of Delhi & Anr. on 11 February, 2010". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
  32. "Ajay Maken & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 18 March, 2019". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 11 March 2020.
  33. "High Court Judgment on Mirchpur Dalit Killings of 2010" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 26 October 2019. Retrieved 11 March 2020.
  34. "State vs Bharat Singh on 17 April, 2014". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 4 May 2020.
  35. "Naz Foundation vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi And ... on 2 July, 2009". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
  36. "Secretary General, Supreme Court ... vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal on 12 January, 2010". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 11 March 2020.
  37. "Makemytrip (India) Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 September, 2016". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 4 May 2020.
  38. "Gautam Navlakha vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors on 1 October, 2018". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
  39. "Section 167 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 11 March 2020.
  40. "Section 57 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 11 March 2020.
  41. "Comparative Human Rights Law Book Launch: Sandy Fredman in Conversation with Justice S. Muralidhar". OHRH. 13 December 2019. Retrieved 4 May 2020.
  42. "Zulfikar Nasir & Ors. vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. on 31 October, 2018". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
  43. "State Through Cbi vs Sajjan Kumar & Ors on 17 December, 2018". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
  44. "Intertoll Ics Cecons. O & M Co. Pvt. ... vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 4 February, 2013". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 4 May 2020.
  45. "M/S. Lanco-Rani (Jv) vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 6 December, 2016". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 4 May 2020.
  46. "Gulshan Khatri vs Google Inc. on 20 March, 2017". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 4 May 2020.
  47. "Prakash Atlanta Jv & Ors. vs National Highways Authority Of ... on 5 February, 2010". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 4 May 2020.
  48. "Competition Commission Of India vs M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd. on 12 September, 2019". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 4 May 2020.
  49. "Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited vs A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr. on 23 November, 2009". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 4 May 2020.
  50. "F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. & Anr. vs Cipla Ltd. on 24 April, 2009". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 4 May 2020.
  51. "Bayer Corporation & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 February, 2010". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 4 May 2020.
  52. "Nippon Steel Corporation vs Union Of India on 8 February, 2011". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 4 May 2020.
  53. "Builders Association Of India And ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. Etc. ... on 28 February, 2007". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 4 May 2020.
  54. Bhoi, Sarita. "Dignity and Rights of the Sewerage and Allied Workers" (PDF). HRLN. pp. 48–106. Archived (PDF) from the original on 4 May 2020. Retrieved 4 May 2020.
  55. "Dev Sharma vs Indo Tibetan Border Police & Anr. on 31 January, 2019". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 4 May 2020.
  56. "Shambhu Sharma And Ors. vs High Court Of Delhi Thr. Its ... on 29 November, 2019". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 4 May 2020.
  57. "Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs Kabul Chawla on 28 August, 2015". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 4 May 2020.
  58. "Carlsberg India Private Limited vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 August, 2016". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 4 May 2020.
  59. "Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Janata Party on 23 March, 2016". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 4 May 2020.
  60. "Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-XI vs Indian National Congress (I) / All India Congress Committee". Retrieved 16 December 2020.
  61. "Director Of Income Tax ... vs Vishwa Hindu Parishad on 8 May, 2017". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 4 May 2020.
  62. "On Quest Merchandising India Pvt. ... vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 26 October, 2017". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 4 May 2020.
  63. Muralidhar, S. (2004). Law, Poverty, and Legal Aid: Access to Criminal Justice. LexisNexis Butterworth. ISBN 978-81-8038-062-4.
  64. "Unsettling Truths, Untold tales the Bhopal Gas Disaster Victims 'Twenty years' of Courtroom Struggles for Justice" (PDF). India Environment Portal. Archived (PDF) from the original on 25 March 2020. Retrieved 25 March 2020.
  65. Inaugural Annual Lecture: Crime, Punishment and Justice in India (2018), retrieved 25 March 2020
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.