This case commentary has been written by Abhijit Mahadeo Chavan. Abhijit has completed  LL.M. in Constitutional Law, Department of Law, Savitribai Phule Pune University.He is currently serving as an Assistant Professor., New Law College, Mumbai.

ABSTRACT

The Supreme Court’s decision in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) emerged as a judicial response to legislative inaction, establishing interim guidelines for workplace sexual harassment while demonstrating how courts can integrate international human rights norms with constitutional interpretation. Sparked by a tragic incident that revealed deep systemic vulnerabilities, this Supreme Court decision boldly recognized that sexual harassment at work infringes upon a woman’s right to equality, dignity, and occupational freedom guaranteed by the Constitution. The Court took the unprecedented step of issuing binding Vishakha Guidelines, requiring all employers to implement preventive measures, establish complaint mechanisms led primarily by women, and foster transparency, safety, and victim protection until comprehensive legislation could be passed.

The judgment ingeniously harmonizes national constitutional values with India’s obligations under conventions like CEDAW and accords global standards legitimacy as interpretive tools for domestic law. It was not only a response to legislative inertia but an active push for social reform, affirming that women deserve not just access to workplaces but an empowering and secure environment free from discrimination and harassment. The Vishakha Guidelines, covering everything from workplace awareness to disciplinary action and annual reporting, immediately filled a legal void while recognizing that ongoing legislative enhancement such as the eventual POSH Act was essential for wide-reaching, nuanced protections.

In its critical analysis, the judgment highlighted both its strengths in judicial activism and its limitations, noting that effective enforcement, systemic awareness, and resource allocation require robust implementation. Cultural change and legislative evolution remain ongoing challenges, with the Vishakha case serving as both a beacon of constitutional progress and a call to vigilant reform. Ultimately, it is a testament to the power of law to transform workplaces into spaces of dignity, equality, and safety for all women, setting a framework that continues to shape legal, societal, and policy reforms in India.

KEYWORDS: Sexual harassment, Vishakha Guidelines, Workplace equality, Constitutional rights, Judicial activism, Women’s Rights

This Case Comment has been written by  Pranshutosh Kumar. He is a Law student at UPES, Dehradun.

ABSTRACT

The case has been a landmark decision in India on trademarks law and the interaction between the statutory remedies of trademark infringement of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 (infringement as a statutory remedy) and the common law action of passing off (infringement as a common law action). The respondent, who had been in business since 1926, the registered proprietor of the marks Navaratna and Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories filed an action, contending that the use by the appellant of the name Navaratna Kalpa in relation to Ayurvedic medicines amounted both to infringement and passing-off. The appellant argued that Navaratna was generic at Ayurvedic language, had a lack of distinguishability under section 6(1) and that packaging differences excluded confusion.

The passing-off claim of the District Court was rejected but the infringement in the supply of composite marks against Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories was seen as infringement since it was found to have acquired distinctiveness by the continued use of a mark since before the date of February 25, 1937, under Section 6(3). This was upheld by the High Court and the petition by the appellant seeking a rectification was rejected.

The Supreme Court, on appeal, made a clear distinction between passing off – a cause that needs to prove reputation, misrepresentation, and harm – and statutory infringement whose sole, deceptively similar mark is sufficient when the plaintiff has proven his or her mark indeed is registered and similar in terms of core elements. The Court also ruled that when considering claims of infringement of trademarks the distinction between packaging or labeling would not excuse liability where there was a deceptively similar core mark and proof of intent or actual confusion was not required. The claim of fair simultaneous use under Section 10(2) was abrogated because they failed to make it in lower courts.

The ruling supported the respondent of exclusively exercising his rights, emphasizing the importance of honoring the primacy of trademark registration, at the same time proving the ongoing validity of the common law remedies. It has continued to act as a guiding rule of harmony between the statutory protection and curbing the act of consumer deception in Indian trademarks law.

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.