Rekha Bansal investigates judicial appointment processes and their consequences. Combining Rachel Aviv's primary-document precision with Arthur Conan Doyle's deductive investigative method, she reveals how judicial appointments either ensure diverse perspectives or concentrate legal power. Her work documents specific appointments and their outcomes, asking how selection processes shape what kind of law gets made. Bansal demonstrates that understanding legal doctrine requires understanding who interprets it—and that judicial selection is fundamentally about democratic power.
Merges Rachel's breathtaking compassionate primary-document analytically-precise approach with Doyle's deductive methodical observant skill to investigate how judges get selected and what that reveals.
Supreme Court settles property dispute in Chougule v. Chougala (2019). Single-judge bench clarifies ownership and succession principles in June 2019 judgment.
Supreme Court1956 Supreme Court judgment in Abdul Jabar Butt v. State of Jammu & Kashmir. Single-judge bench decision cited as foundational precedent in criminal and constitutional law.
Supreme CourtSupreme Court judgment in CCI v. SAIL examines competition law enforcement. Single-judge bench decision from September 2010 addresses Competition Commission authority.
Supreme CourtSupreme Court judgment in Director, General of Ordnance Services v. P.N. Malhotra (1995) 1 S.C.R. 676 clarifies government service disputes and administrative law principles.
Supreme Court1983 Supreme Court judgment in Krishnabai Anaji Ghule v. Nivrutti Ramchandra Raykar addresses property rights dispute. Single-judge bench decision on May 8, 1983 cited in 3 S.C.R. 822.
Supreme CourtSupreme Court judgment in Sirsilk Ltd v Government of Andhra Pradesh (1963) establishes key precedent on administrative law. Single-judge bench decision reverberates through judicial appointments and state liability cases.
Supreme CourtSingle-judge Supreme Court bench rules in State of Bihar v. M. Homi (1955). A foundational judgment on state power and individual rights from India's early constitutional period.
Supreme CourtSupreme Court judgment in Pramod Kumar v. State (GNCT) Delhi addresses key legal issues. Single-judge bench decision from January 2013 with implications for Delhi administrative law.
Supreme CourtSingle-judge Supreme Court bench rules in Vishalakshi Amma v. State of Kerala. March 2023 decision sets precedent on judicial authority and state power.
Supreme CourtSupreme Court's 1987 judgment in Central Bank of India v. State of Gujarat clarifies state liability and banking regulation. A 2-judge bench decision with lasting implications for RBI oversight.
Supreme CourtSupreme Court judgment in Tata Motors Ltd. v. Pharmaceutical Products of India Ltd. decided May 16, 2008. Single-judge bench decision with implications for corporate law.
Supreme CourtA single-judge Supreme Court bench decided Dewan Singh v. Champat Singh on October 17, 1969. The case, reported in [1970] 2 S.C.R. 903, addresses property rights disputes in Indian law.
Supreme CourtSupreme Court judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mam Chand settles insurance liability questions. 2007 decision clarifies insurer obligations and policyholder claims framework.
Supreme CourtSupreme Court judgment in Krishna Gyanoday Sugar Ltd v State of Bihar [2003] 2 S.C.R. 75 establishes key precedent on state regulatory authority and commercial enterprise rights.
Supreme CourtSupreme Court judgment from 1976 in Union of India v. Sita Ram Jaiswal sets precedent on government administrative powers. Single-judge bench decision reported at [1977] 1 S.C.R. 979.
Supreme CourtSupreme Court decision in Margaret Almeida case addresses housing society disputes. Single-judge bench ruling from March 2013 clarifies legal obligations in cooperative housing matters.
Supreme CourtSupreme Court judgment in Rajesh K. Gupta v. Ram Gopal Agarwala (2005) 3 S.C.R. 946. Single-judge bench decision from April 2005. Full ratio decidendi analysis pending.
Family LawSupreme Court's 1968 landmark judgment establishes that joint family members can sever HUF status through unilateral declaration alone, without consent from other coparceners.