This Case Comment has been written by Sneha Awasthi, a third Year law student from Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur. She has prior experience in research, drafting, and published legal writing.

ABSTRACT

The Delhi High Court in Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Moviestrunk.com & Ors . tackled digital piracy head-on after Star India’s film Mission Mangal was leaked online by 67 rogue websites. With no response to takedown notices and release at risk, the court swiftly issued an ex parte injunction, blocking the sites and directing ISPs, registrars, and government bodies to act. The case sets a strong precedent for urgent copyright protection in the digital era.

This Case Comment has been written by Navya Madhunala. She is a fifth-year BBA LL.B. (Hons.) student at ICFAI Law School. She is an enthusiastic and curious law student who enjoys exploring diverse areas of law through research and legal writing, with a strong commitment to continuous learning and academic growth.

ABSTRACT

The Supreme Court’s decision in Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1963 SC 1295) marks a foundational moment in the evolution of personal liberty under the Indian Constitution. The petitioner, subjected to prolonged police surveillance under Regulation 236 of the U.P. Police Regulations, despite no formal charges, challenged the legality of intrusive measures such as night-time domiciliary visits. The Court struck down the clause permitting such visits, holding it violative of Article 21, as it infringed upon an individual’s dignity and peaceful existence within their home. However, it upheld the remaining surveillance provisions, reasoning that mere observation or inquiries, without physical restraint, did not violate the rights to movement or association under Article 19.

Crucially, the majority declined to recognize privacy as a constitutionally protected right, citing its absence from the express language of Part III. In contrast, Justice Subba Rao’s dissent asserted that personal liberty under Article21 necessarily includes the right to privacy and freedom from unwarranted surveillance. Though not accepted at the time, his interpretation laid the intellectual groundwork for the later recognition of privacy as a fundamental right in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). Kharak Singh thus remains a pivotal case in India’s constitutional journey toward safeguarding individual autonomy and dignity.

This Article has been written by Sneha Awasthi, a third year law student from Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University, Kanpur. She has prior experience in research, drafting, and published legal writing. 

ABSTRACT

In the case of Govind Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), the Supreme Court dealt with concerns over the selection of district judges, highlighting potential procedural flaws and undue executive influence. The raised issues under Article 233 of the Constitution, pointing to a lack of transparency in the recruitment process emphasize the need for judicial independence and adherence to constitutional norms. The Court instructed state to re-examine the appointments, underscoring the vital role of fairness and integrity in judicial selections.

This Case Comment has been Written by Navya Madhunala. She is a fifth-year BBA LL.B. (Hons.) student at ICFAI Law School. She is an enthusiastic and curious law student who enjoys exploring diverse areas of law through research and legal writing, with a strong commitment to continuous learning and academic growth.

ABSTARCT

This case commentary examines a landmark Bombay High Court decision in International Society for Krishna Consciousness vs. ISKCON Apparel Pvt. Ltd. & Anr affirming that religious and charitable organizations can enforce trademark rights over coined and distinctive marks. The International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) successfully secured interim relief against a private company misusing its invented term to suggest a false association. By recognizing ISKCON’s exclusive rights and the risk of consumer deception, the Court highlighted that even spiritual institutions build protectable goodwill. The ruling strengthens the position that trademark protection under Indian law extends beyond commercial businesses to non-profits whose unique identities hold significant public trust. This decision sets an important precedent against the unauthorized commercial exploitation of religious and institutional names.