Start page India

India

Basic information Substance of the ruling  Accessibility of the case and further relevant links
Date Name of the case (or case number)   The body delivering the decision  Keywords, topic Executive part Brief summary Full text Page at the website of the issuing court Page in other databases Unofficial materials, press communications 
December 23. 2022. No. 665 (in SMW(C) No. 3) Supreme Court of India Right to access courts In the light of the global pandemic, the Supreme Court of India ordered to extend the deadlines before all courts of India until further notice. The Supreme Court of India acknowledged the additional difficulties caused by the global pandemic for litigants in all procedures, therefore, it ordered to extend the deadlines in all judicial proceedings around the whole country until further notice to avoid unfair disadvantages for certain stakeholders, and to maintain the integrity of on-going legal controversies. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/871/871_2022_31_301_32501_Order_10-Jan-2022.pdf   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-no-665-smwc-no-3-2021-12-23  
May 2. 2022. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 607 of 2021 Supreme Court of India Mandatory vaccination The Supreme Court of India confirmed, that noone should be forced to be vaccinated. The ruling also called for the publication of all vaccination trial information to provide additional knowledge from the efficiency of each type of vaccines. The Supreme Court  of India heard a petition against the vaccination policy of the country and made more important conclusions. Firstly, it confirmed the union's vaccination policy, but rejected the vaccination rules of several member states as disproportionate. The Supreme Court argued, that Covid-related restrictions should meet with necessity and proportionality, and member states failed to demonstrate, that differentiation between vaccinated and non-vaccinated people are based on objective scientific grounds, therefore, the different ability to mitigate the virus amongst vaccinated and non-vaccinated people are not justified, so additional restrictions imposed on non-vaccinated people should not be maintained. Secondly, the Supreme Court ruled, that forced vaccination is unconstitutional. The Government may have the power to rule on bodily integrity and autonomy, however, vaccination mandate without alternative possibilites constitute a too far-reaching interference to bodily autonomy and integrity. Thirdly, the Supreme Court called for the publication of all vaccination trial information to enhance the public knowledge from different types of vaccines. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/12077/12077_2021_5_1502_35439_Judgement_02-May-2022.pdf    

https://www.indiatoday.in//india/story/covid-no-individual-can-be-forced-to-take-vaccination-supreme-court-1944356-2022-05-02?onetap=true;

https://www.covid19litigation.org/news/2022/05/india-supreme-court-requires-state-governments-review-vaccine-mandates;

https://www.covid19litigation.org/news/2022/05/india-supreme-court-requires-state-governments-review-vaccine-mandates
April 29. 2022. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2788 OF 2022 Supreme Court of India Virtual hearing; access to justice The Supreme Court rejected a petition as unfounded to return to court hearings in physical presence without a hybrid option. The Supreme Court of India held, that once public health circumstances would be more favourable, virtual court hearings shall not be provided. This form of judicial work was implemented during the worst vawes of the pandemic as a necessary adaptation of the judicial framework to the very demanding public health concerns. However, when the petition concerned has been submitted against a lower court ruling denying the holding of a virtual hearing, the intensity of the epidemy decreased significantly, therefore, virtual hearing shall not amount to a necessity any more. Virtual hearing option was tested during the pandemic and several short-comings were identified, consequently, this is an alternative to be used only in extremely justified cases. However, the claimant failed to demonstrate such a compelling urgency to hold online trial, therefore, his petition was rejected as unfounded. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/24259/24259_2021_11_1501_35406_Judgement_29-Apr-2022.pdf   https://www.covid19litigation.org/news/2022/05/india-supreme-court-rejects-petition-virtual-hearings  
April 4. 2022. SMW(C) No(s).6 OF 2021 Supreme Court of India Rights of children; right to property The Supreme Court of India called the districts courts and childcare authorities to make necessary steps for protecting right to property of those children, who lost both of their parents in the Covid-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court of India dealt with the situation of children lost both of their parents during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court should be dully protected, but not all necessary measures have been implemented for safeguarding their interests. The Supreme Court ordered, that the district courts and childcare authorities should ensure the education of orphan children, and should also take necessary steps for protecting the right to property of these minors during the public health emergency. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/28793/28793_2021_5_7_34639_Order_04-Apr-2022.pdf   https://www.covid19litigation.org/news/2022/04/india-supreme-court-guarantees-protection-orphans-covid-19  
March 31. 2022. WP(C) No. 92/2022 Supreme Court of India Right to education The Supreme Court held, that those who could not take their final exam before the Union Public Service Commission should approach the competent parliamentary committee to ask permission for delaying their exams. The claimants challenged the decision of the Union Public Service Commission to reject the reschedule of their exams at which they were unable to show up due to their contamination with Covid-19. The Supreme Court held, that the competent parliamentary committee is the eligible body to handle such requests, and this authority decided earlier in favour of persons in similar situation. Therefore, claimants should approach the parliamentary committee for receiving effective remedy.     https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-wpc-no-922022-2022-03-31  
March 24. 2022. No. 1805/2021 In WP (C) 539/2021. Supreme Court of India Right to access to justice The Supreme Court rendered, that member states should provide full particulars of persons death in  Covid-19 for the Union's Ministry of Home Affairs to ensure the effective scrutinization of these cases. The case was initiated by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which argued, that member states should be obliged to provide all necessary information from the persons died in Covid-19 to the Ministry rather than just producing statistical data in this regard. The Ministry held, that the effective scrutinization of these cases, especially to decide, who will be entitled to receive compensation as the closest family members of the died person. The Supreme Court agreed with the Ministry, and imposed the duty on member states to provide all necessary particulars from persons died in Covid-19, while the Ministry should prepare a report within three months from compensations awarded for family members of persons died in the epidemic. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/27610/27610_2021_12_1503_34338_Judgement_24-Mar-2022.pdf   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-no-18052021-wp-c-5392021-2022-03-24  
February 28. 2022. Civil Appeal No. 1538 of 2022 Supreme Court of India Freedom to conduct a business The Supreme Court held, that a writ of mandamus is not a proper constitutional remedy against the cancellation of a school procurement due to the remote education ordered during the curfew, a civil suit should be filed instead. A municipality maintained educational institutions and aimed to procure furnitures to its schools, however, the government of the particular member state banned any procurements for schools during the closure of these institutions. The municipality submitted a writ of mandamus claim under art. 226. of the Constitution of India before the lower courts, which was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court argued, that writ of mandamus is not a proper constitutional remedy in this situation, the municipality should initiate a civil suit instead to contest the legality of the governmental action.     https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-civil-appeal-no-1538-2022-2022-02-28  
February 7. 2022. WP (C) No. 656/2021 Supreme Court of India Vaccination; right to access public health services; non-discrimination The Supreme Court ruled, that whoever should be registered for vaccination without submitting any of the generally accepted identity documents. The applicant was denied to be registered for vaccination since failed to submit any of the nine generally accepted identity documents in India. The contestant alleged, that this was in contrary with a ministerial decree prescribing, that authorities should register individuals for vaccination also without receiving identity documents. The Supreme Court upheld the writ of mandamus and considered, that the decision of the authority was discriminatory, the submission of any identity document should not be set as a mandatory requirement of vaccination registration. https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/147-siddharthshankar-sharma-v-union-of-india-7-feb-2022-410944.pdf   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-wp-c-no-6562021-2022-02-07Claim upheld  
February 4. 2022. Civil Appeal No 1067 of 2022. Supreme Court of India Freedom of association; freedom of assembly; freedom of religion The Supreme Court settled amicably a legal controversy between the governmental public health requirements of burial during the Covid-19 pandemic, and the burial ceremonies of the Zoroastrian faith. The members of the Parsi Zoroastrian religious community submitted a writ of mandamus against governmental orders on burials during the Covid-19 pandemic, since the rules set by the governmental orders were in conflict with the religious requirements of that faith. During the litigation, the parties negotiated with each other with the support of the Supreme Court and found an acceptable solution for both parties to balance the competing rights and interests to maintain public health but also respect the demands of the religious community. Therefore, the writ of mandamus was dismissed as settled by the mutual resolution of the parties. This case is usually considered as an excellent example of replacing constitutional review with moderated dialogue between the stakeholders concerned. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/25324/25324_2021_34_35_33136_Judgement_04-Feb-2022.pdf   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-civil-appeal-no-1067-2022-2022-02-04 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/covid-funeral-sop-for-parsis-gets-supreme-court-approval/articleshow/89355589.cms; https://theprint.in/judiciary/sc-okays-protocols-for-handling-of-dead-bodies-of-zoroastrian-covid-19-victims/821844/
February 3. 2022. WP(C) No. 58 of 2022. Supreme Court of India Right to education, legal security The Supreme Court of India rejected to postpone a scheduled engineering exam on public health grounds shortly before the originally scheduled date since such a step would infringe legal security. The petitioners initiated the postponement of an engineering exam on public health grounds. The exam was supposed to take place at February 2022, but the public health concerns threatened its holding. The Supreme Court considered the fact, that the submission was arrived just around 48 hours before the appointment of the exam, therefore, a postponement would cause a significant violation of legal security, and would entail chaos and uncertainty in the life of the students. Therefore, the claim was dismissed.     https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-wpc-no-58-2022-2022-02-03  
November 29. 2021. No. 4/2020 Supreme Court of India Rights of children; right to education The Supreme Court directed the district magistrates to review carefully the educational status of all children who lost their parents during the Covid-19 pandemic to avoid the disruption of their studies. The Supreme Court ordered district magistrates and the Government of India to review the educational status of each child whose parents died during the Covid-19 pandemic to avoid the disruption of their studies. Several minors who lost their parents during the public health emergency faced with additional difficulties to satisfy their educational needs, therefore the Supreme Court had to intervene for the protection of their rights. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/10820/10820_2020_0_4_21584_Order_03-Apr-2020.pdf   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-no-42020-2021-11-29  
October 20. 2021. No. 15615/2021 Supreme Court of India Right to social security The Supreme Court gave special permission to hear a case concerning the social security coverage of healthcare workers during the Covid-19 pandemic and their closest relatives as a matter of high public importance. The Supreme Court of India accepted to hear a case pending before the Bombay High Court since it dealt with a matter with nation-wide concern. The Supreme Court also gave permission to other interested stakeholders to join the case. The petition was submitted by the spouse of a healthcare worker died due to Covid-19 infection catched during the fulfilment of his labour duties. The surviving wife requested social security compensation for the loss of her spouse, however, the competent authority denied her request, which she contested before ordinary courts. The matter raised by this case was the social security coverage of healthcare workers and their closest relatives during the publich health emergency. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/99725795/?type=print   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-no-156152021-2021-10-20  
October 14. 2021. No. 607/2021. Supreme Court of India Mandatory vaccination; right to access public information; right to privacy; right to equality The Supreme Court of India confirmed, that mandatory vaccination, including the set of vaccination as  a requirement to access essential public services are unconstitutional; however, the Government does not have the constitutional duty to reveal the post-vaccination data regarding adverse events (who got infected, hospitalized or died, after receiving Covid-19 vaccination). The Supreme Court of India was seized to confirm the unconstitutionality of even indirect vaccination mandates as well as to direct the government to reveal post-vaccination information from infections, hospitalizations or dies. The Supreme Court confirmed in its judgment, that any form of mandatory vaccination, including ordering it as a requirement to access essential services shall amount to an unconstitutional limitation of right to privacy. However, the Supreme Court refused to direct the government to publish the requested information, since all documentation of providing permission for using available vaccinations are publicly available. Therefore, there is no need to impose additional duties on the Government in this regard. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/12077/12077_2021_5_1502_35439_Judgement_02-May-2022.pdf   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-new-delhi-no-6072021-2021-10-14  
October 8. 2021. SLP(C) No. 4351/2021‎ Supreme Court of India Right to education; right to equality The Supreme Court of India called the Government of Delhi and the National Government to provide funds and implement necessary measures for safeguarding the online education of underprivileged students. The Supreme Court highlighted, that in the public health emergency, online education should be provided for all students including those from underprivileged groups. For this purpose, the Government of Delhi was called for implementing proper measures, while the National Government has the constitutional duty to  cooperate closely with member state governments and to ensure necessary funds for the elaboration of nation-wide policies of inclusive online education. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/76866560/   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-slpc-no-43512021-2021-10-08 https://www.jurist.org/news/2021/10/india-top-court-rules-access-to-online-education-cannot-be-denied-to-underprivileged-children/
October 4. 2021. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 539 of 2021 Supreme Court of India Right to social security The Supreme Court of India confirmed the right of those persons, who lost their family members in the pandemic for ex gratia assistance, however, the competent authority has wide margin of appreciation to decide the exact amount of this support. The Supreme Court heard a case from the level of support required for those, who lost their family members during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court confirmed the right of these persons for ex gratia assistance, however, the necessary level of this support has not been specified. The Supreme Court noted, that the National Disaster Management Authority as a competent body has broad margin of movement to consider all the relevant factors to calculate the financial means provided for these applicants. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/16425/16425_2021_43_6_30546_Order_04-Oct-2021.pdf   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-writ-petition-civil-no-539-2021-2021-10-04  
September 29. 2021. No. 1113 of 2021 and No. 1114 of 2021. Supreme Court of India Right to access to justice; right to fair trial; prisoners rights The Supreme Court of India rejected two petitions for bail, but outlined the standards applicable to tackle bail requests during the Covid-19 pandemic. Two petitions were submitted to the Supreme Court for the review of two lower court orders, which denied requests for bail. The Supreme Court rejected both applications, as the denial of bail was not relevant at the time of hearing the petitions, however, the body provided important orientations for courts to deal with similar issues during the public health emergency. The Supreme Court argued, that during the Covid-19 pandemic, most bail requests should be accepted, very compelling reasons would be necessary to reject such demands. The not sufficiently justified denial of bail requests may undermine the constitutional rights of individuals and would give discretionary power for the courts to assess these issues. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/82897858/   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-new-delhi-no-1113-2021-and-no-1114-2021-2021-09-29 https://indianexpress.com/article/india/supreme-court-covid-19-prisoners-surrender-8516059/
September 9. 2021. WP(C) No. 16501 of 2021 Supreme Court of India Vaccination; right to life; right to self-determination The Supreme Court confirmed, that the 84-day-long mandatory waiting period between the two doses of vaccination is based on scientific assessment and is deemed to be constitutional.       https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-wpc-no-16501-2021-2021-09-09  
September 8. 2021. WP(C) 619/2021‎ Supreme Court of India Vaccination; right to equality; right to life The Supreme Court of India highlighted the importance of alternative measures to spread vaccination around the country, however, refused to impose strict duties on the governmental authorities in this regard. The Supreme Court of India heard a case from the necessity of door-to-door Covid vaccination programme for make the protection more accessible for elder, disabled and other vulnerable persons also, who may be unable to register online for vaccination. The Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of such adaptative measures and called the claimants for approaching the Public Health Ministry for their recommendations to implement such mechanisms. However, the Supreme Court also considered the diversity of conditions prevalent in different parts of the country, and for this reason, refused to provide strict general directions for the governmental authorities in this respect. https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/door-to-door-vaccination-policy-not-possible-writ-petition-civil-6192021-08-09-2021watermark-400586.pdf   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-wpc-6192021-2021-09-08

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-rejects-door-to-door-covid-19-vaccination-plea/article36354455.ece;

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/covid-19-door-to-door-vaccination-not-possible-sc-says/articleshow/86029587.cms
August 26. 2021. SMW(C) No.4/2020‎ Supreme Court of India Rights of children; right to education The Supreme Court of India ordered for member state governments to make additional steps for the protection of children orphaned during the Covid-19 pandemic and to provide more information from this matter. The Supreme Court of India requested from member state governments to submit information from the status of children orphaned during the Covid-19 pandemic as regard their educational and social security status. The Court assessed the received information and instructed member state governments individually to implement further endeavors for the protection of these cchildren as well as to update the Supreme Court from further development in this regard. The Supreme Court also called for member state governments still refraining from providing information to submit their reports within one month. Further Supreme Court decisions have been also envisaged from this matter.     https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-smwc-no42020-2021-08-26 https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-suo-moto-children-in-need-of-care-and-protection-loss-of-parents-covid-five-states-directions-186591
August 11. 2021. WP (C) No. 518 Supreme Court of India Right to education; right to equality The Supreme Court of India ordered, that the National Council for Teacher's Education should grant permission for the academic year 2021-2022 for those colleges which meet all the administrative, infrastructural and financial requirements despite the rise of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court of India heard joint applications against the National Council for Teacher's Education, which denied to grant accreditation for certain colleges for the academic year 2021-2022 relying on the Covid-19 pandemic. The denials were reasoned by the delay of inspections, which caused the postponement of certain permissions for the 2022-2023 academic year. The applicants contested this decision, and their complaints were considered as well-founded by the Supreme Court. The claimants meet with all necessary administrative, infrastructural and financial requirements set by relevant regulations, the delay was attributable exclusively to the National Council for Teacher's Education. The NCTE was ordered to grant the accreditations within 3 days, and the colleges were allowed to admit students also for the 2021-2022 academic year. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/11182/11182_2021_32_1502_29166_Judgement_11-Aug-2021.pdf   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-wp-c-no-518-2021-08-11  
August 9. 2021. No. 11622/2021 Supreme Court of India Right to life The Supreme Court called the National Government to make all necessary steps for allocating the proper amount  of Oxigen for Delhi as the national capital to maintain the efficiency of the public health system. The Supreme Court heard a case based on a Delhi High Court order which directed the National Government to safeguard the allocated amount of Oxigen for Delhi as the national capital to maintain the efficiency of the protective measures against Covid-19. The Supreme Court declared, that the Government of the Union failed to submit convincing evidences for taking all the necessary measures, a committee was also constituted to review the supply of Oxigen in Delhi. This committee submitted its report to the National Government, and the Supreme Court in this ruling directed the government to implement the recommendations of this report. https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-new-delhi-no-116222021-2021-08-09   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-new-delhi-no-116222021-2021-08-09 https://www.barandbench.com/columns/pandemic-and-courts-saat-samundar-paar-part-iii-the-second-phase-in-india-and-conclusions
July 20. 2021. No. 5 of 2021. Supreme Court of India Right to life; right to conduct a business The Supreme Court held, that the relaxation of store closures for one full day before a huge religious celebration meant a disproportionate restriction on right to life for the sake of promoting economic freedoms. The Supreme Court of India heard petitions against the Government of Kerala, which divided the territory of Kerala into four types of zones (low-spread; average-spread; high-spread; and critical-spread areas) based on the number of infections registered. Before the Bakrid, a huge religious celebration for the Muslim Community, the store closures were relaxed for three days in most of the regions, in the critical-spread areas, only one day relaxation was allowed. The claimants argued, that lifting the closure for one full day in the most riskful parts of Kerala would amount to a disproportionate balancing between right to life and economic freedoms, as this measure causes significant risk for human lives around the most affected regions. The Supreme Court agreed with the petitioners, and directed the Government of Kerala to amend its relevant regulations to shorten the relaxation period even before the Bakrid to avoid the further rise of Covid-19. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/193845777/   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-no-5-2021-2021-07-20  
July 15. 2021. Civil Appeal No. 2739 of 2021. Supreme Court of India Right to education; right to equality The Supreme Court of India found it reasonable to suspend study leaves for doctors hired by government hospitals during the worst vawes of Covid-19; however, this policy is shall not be justified once the public health situation should be more favourable. The request for study leave of a doctor employed by a government hospital of Delhi was rejected, since a governmental policy excluded all study leaves for doctors working at public hospitals during the public health emergency. The doctor fulfilled all formal and substantial requirements and were accepted in a higher education programme, however, was unable to accept his enrollment due to the governmental policy. The doctor turned to court and argued, that the governmental policy might have been well-founded during the rise of Covid-19 pandemic, however, in the time of his enrollment, the public health situation was under control in Delhi, so such restrictions were no more reasonable. His claim was rejected by the lower courts, however, the Supreme Court agreed with the doctor and ordered, that the public health circumstances improved considerably, therefore, a blanket ban on doctor's study leaves should not be maintained. As a consequence, the application of the doctor to the higher education should be considered in the next academic year at the same programme to which he had applied. However, in the next admission period, he should not be accepted automatically since he did not attend any class owing to the governmental policy. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/11686017/   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-civil-appeal-no-2739-2021-2021-07-15

https://www.advocateretainer.com/blogs/education-institutions/supreme-court-directs-admission-of-doctor-to-post-graduation-course-last-year-cannot-join-due-to-denial-of-study-leave-for-rendering-services-in-covid-19;

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-policy-decision-study-leave-govt-doctors-covid-19-situation-177712
June 30. 2021. Reepak Kansal And Another v. Union of India and others Supreme Court of India Right to life; right to social security The Supreme Court of India called for the competent authorities to provide reliable standards within four weeks to identify those, who would be entitled to ex gratia compensation after having lost their family members in the Covid-19 pandemic. However, the Court refused to direct the central/state governments how to calculate the exact amount of compensations provided. The Supreme Court of India heard two petitions against central/state governments who failed to provide coherent standards to decide, who should be provided ex gratia compensation for the loss of family members in the Covid-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court partially upheld the claims: the Supreme Court directed the authorities to elaborate reliable standards in this regard within four weeks as Covid-19 pandemic should be classified as a disaster justifying proper compensations for the closest relatives of the victims. In the meanwhile, the Court refused to provide orientations for the authorities to calculate the exact amount of the compensations, this should be left for the space of manoeuvre of the deciding bodies. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/11514/11514_2021_36_1503_28108_Judgement_30-Jun-2021.pdf   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-reepak-kansal-and-another-v-union-india-and-others-2021-06-30  
June 29. 2021. Suo Motu WP(C) No. 60 of 2020 with WP(C) No. 916 of 2020. Supreme Court of India Freedom of movement; migration; right to privacy The Supreme Court of India directed the central and state governments to dully register workers migrating within member states, and also to provide food and direct financial aid for this group. The Supreme Court of India dealt with the rights of employees moved to other member states for labour purposes during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court held, that the central and the member state governments have not complied with previous Supreme Court orders to elaborate a database from these persons based on their proper registration. Moreover, food should be provided for this group at least until the rise of the Covid-19 pandemic, community kitchens should be also established for this purpose, while the interested workers should be informed from the availibility of these assistances. Apart from this, similarly to certain construction and auto rickshaw workers, migrant employees are entitled to receive financial assistance via direct bank transfer from the authorities. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/11706/11706_2020_36_1501_28166_Judgement_29-Jun-2021.pdf   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-suo-motu-wpc-no-60-2020-wpc-no-916-2020-2021-06-29 https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/2157/2157_2022_11_16_36554_Judgement_21-Jul-2022.pdf
June 3. 2021. Vinod Dua v. Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India Freedom of expression; freedom of the press The Supreme Court rejected to impose criminal sanction on a journalist criticizing publicly the governmental policies during the first vawes of the pandemic in a concrete case, however, the general exclusion of such state interventions during the public health emergency has been denied. A well-established journalist criticized publicly the governmental policies during the first vawe of the global pandemic: he alleged, that the protective measures rendered by the Government shall not be sufficient; while the Government use the epidemy as a political instrument in its daily communication. Criminal proceedings were initiated against him, however, the lower courts refused to hear the case. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court, which said, that the communication of a journalist amounted to the critical discussion of a matter of public interest rather than incitement to violence against the governmental authorities during a public health emergency. For this reason, the criminal investigation of the case was rejected, however, the Supreme Court highlighted, that this decision should not be extended to all other similar cases. The petitioner proposed, that a general exclusion of criminal sanctions against journalists based on their public communications should be declared, unless a special committee comprised of the representatives of the central government, the opposition, and the member state governments do not agree to open the criminal investigation. The Supreme Court did not accept this proposal, and did not provide any generally applicable standard for such controversies. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/50969306/   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-vinod-dua-v-union-india-others-2021-06-03

https://ipi.media/indias-supreme-court-blocks-use-of-sedition-laws-against-journalists-for-government-criticism/;

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/journalists-cant-be-arrested-just-for-criticising-govt-supreme-court/articleshow/83222172.cms
May 31. 2021. Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2021. Supreme Court of India Vaccination; right to equality; right to life The Supreme Court of India highlighted certain concerns about the liberalized vaccination policy implemented during the second vawe of the pandemic in India, and requested further information and justification from the National Government to analyse the matter. The Government of India established a liberalized vaccination policy during the second vawe of the Covid-19 pandemic. 50% of the available vaccinations were provided for people over 45 years free of charge, this was managed by the Central Government of the Union. Regarding the people between 18-44 years, the other 50% of the available vaccinations were allocated, however, these persons had to pay for this service. 25% of all vaccinations were reserved for member state governments, the other 25% for private hospitals. The Supreme Court argued, that this vaccination policy failed to prioritize persons with additional illnesses; with disabilities; or with other factors of vulnerability. Moreover, the policy did not take into account the different population of each member state, and reserved the same amount of vaccination for all member state governments. Thirdly, the new governmental policy also prescribed digital registration as a mandatory pre-requisite of for vaccination for people between 18-44 years, according to the Supreme Court, this requirement would also impose additional burdens on the most vulnerable groups to access vaccination with equal chances. The Supreme Court requested further information and explanation from the governmental authorities to understand better the new liberalized vaccination policy as well as its constitutional implications. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/11001/11001_2021_35_301_28040_Judgement_31-May-2021.pdf   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-suo-motu-writ-petition-civil-no-3-2021-2021-05-31

https://www.livemint.com/news/india/centres-vaccine-policy-prima-facie-arbitrary-irrational-supreme-court-11622661932755.html;

https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/supreme-court-slams-centres-covid-19-vaccination-policy-for-being-arbitrary-and-irrational-demands-to-know-details-on-money-spent-on-vaccine-shots/articleshow/83194269.cms
May 6. 2021. C.A. No. 1767 of 2021. Supreme Court of India Right to vote; freedom of expression; freedom of the press The Supreme Court ruled, that an oral observation does not form part of the record of a judicial proceeding, therefore, the press has the possibility to report from such dialogues without restrictions. The Madras High Court heard a case concerning the fair counting of votes during the Covid-19 pandemic. As part of the proceeding, the Madras High Court held an oral observation which was widely reported by several media channels, which was deemed to be harmful for the reputation of the Madras Central Electoral Commission, as several complaints have been lodged against their activities after the circulation of this oral observation. The Electoral Commission turned to the Supreme Court and argued, that press shall not report from oral observations of judicial proceedings to avoid the undermine of public confiance on state authorities. The Supreme Court rejected the petition of the Electoral Commission and held, that media has unlimited freedom to report from judicial hearings. Only the judgments and other rulings constitute the formal expression of the court's view, opinions expressed by the court during oral observations shall not be considered as official statements of the court. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/11474/11474_2021_35_1502_27915_Judgement_06-May-2021.pdf   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-ca-no-1767-2021-2021-05-06

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-8921-should-media-report-the-oral-observations-made-by-the-court-during-hearing-which-do-not-form-a-part-of-the-written-judgment-legal-connotation-of-oral-observations.html;

https://www.livelaw.in/columns/reporting-oral-observations-in-judicial-proceedings-freedom-of-press-media-gag-182476
May 3. 2021. Indian School, Jodhpur & Anr vs State of Rajasthan & Ors Supreme Court of India Right to education The Supreme Court of India considered, that no new rules should be enacted for the possible reduction of education fees during the Covid-19 pandemic, however, the existing regulatory framework should be interpreted in favour of students to avoid the elimination of certain students from the education due to financial hardships. The petitions challenged the education fee regulation of a province in India, which set the requirements to deduct fees of educationin case of financial hardships. The Supreme Court took into account the extra-ordinary circumstances of the global pandemic and considered, that the existing regulation is sufficient to tackle the  new difficulties raised by the pandemic in this regard. Nevertheless, authorities has the constitutional duty to interpret the relevant rules in favour of the students: fee deduction should be provided in most of the cases; smaller delays of payments should be tolerated; and no students should be expelled from classes on financial grounds, except from strongly justified cases. https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/indian-school-jodhpur-vs-state-of-rajasthan-ll-2021-sc-240-392802.pdf   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-indian-school-jodhpur-anr-vs-state-rajasthan-ors-2021-05-03 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/schools-must-reduce-fees-for-online-only-classes-supreme-court/articleshow/82377796.cms
May 1. 2021. SLP Civil Diary No. 10698/2021‎ Supreme Court of India Right to vote The Supreme Court of India validated the result of a local elections in the state of Utter Pradesh, petitions submitted on the ground of insufficient public health safeguards were rejected. Petitioners argued that electoral authorities failed to implement necessary protective measures in the shadow of the pandemic during the whole process of a municipal election including the campaign period and the voting itself, and requested the annulment of the results as well as the repeat of the voting. The Supreme Court denied these requests and refrained from interfering to the outcome of the elections as the electoral authorities demonstrated convincing evidences that all reasonable endeavors were made to minimising the risk factor during the public health emergency. The electoral authorities also published proper notifications to inform the electoral staff and the voters from the virus concerns and the steps required from each individual to avoid as much infections as possible. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/168017418/   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-slp-civil-diary-no-106982021-2021-05-01 https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-allows-local-body-elections-in-uttar-pradesh-with-obc-quota-224954; https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/sc-gives-nod-to-uttar-pradesh-to-hold-local-body-elections/article66669152.ece; 
March 23. 2021. Small Scale Industrial vs Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 476 OF 2020‎ Supreme Court of India Right to conduct a business The Supreme Court of India held, that the state measures were sufficient to assist small- and medium-sized enterprises during the public health emergency, however, no interest, compound interest or penalty interest should be charged on small- and medium-sized enterprises during the moratorium period, and sums already paid on this title should be reinbursed. The petitioner, the Association of Small- and Medium-sized Enterprises argued, that the authorities failed to implement necessary steps for supporting small- and medium-sized enterprises to compensate their huge losses during the public health emergency. The Supreme Court assessed the measures applied and held, that the reliefs, concessions and loans as well as moratorium of payments received by the small- and medium-sized enterprises are proper remedies of these hardships. However, no interests, compound interests or penalty interests should be charged on small- and medium-sized enterprises during the emergency period, if any amount has been already transferred on these titles should be refunded. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/56305231/   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-small-scale-industrial-vs-union-india-2021-03-23

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sc-waives-interest-on-interest-for-loans-above-2-crore-too/articleshow/81658973.cms;

https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/supreme-court-grants-relief-to-company-to-pay-ots-amount-with-interest-considering-covid-194084
February 24. 2021. WP(C) No. 1410/2021‎ Supreme Court of India Right to education The Supreme Court of India considered, that the postponement of an exam for public servants amounts to sufficient accommodation  in favour of candidates, however, the requests for extra attempts has been rejected. The Union of Public Servants in India postponed the annual examination of public servants from May to October 2020 due to the implications caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The petitioners argued, that this reschedule in itself is not an adequate response from the authority to the situation, additional attempts should have been also provided for those candidates who exceeded the attempt limits or the age brackets. The Supreme Court assessed the effect of the public health emergency on the examination and held, that the postponement with around 5 months should be evaluated as a necessary measure in favour of the candidates, provide additional attempts for certain candidates is not a constitutional duty of the Union of Public Servants. For this reason, the claim was rejected.     https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-wpc-no-14102021-2021-02-24  
January 13. 2021. Dipika Jagatram Sahani vs Union of India and others Supreme Court of India Rights of children; rights of women; right to social security The Supreme Court of India ordered, that Anganvadi Centers (childcare centres providing suplementary food for pregnant women, nursing mothers, adolescent girls and little children) should be reopened until 31 January 2021, as well as effective mechanisms should be provided for the monitoring of these centers. The Supreme Court heard a petition against the closure of Anganvadi Centres around India during the second vawe of the Covid-19 pandemic. These institutions constitute a network across the country and provide suplementary food for pregnant women, nursing mothers, adolescent girls and little kids. The Supreme Court agreed with the claimants and directed the Central Government as well as all state and local authorities to reopen Anvangadi Centers no later than 31 January 2021. to provide necessary services for women and children facing with difficulties during the pandemic. Apart from this, the Supreme Court called the authorities to elaborate a proper mechanism for monitoring the functioning of these centers and to implement a complaint mechanism to ensure that the benefit reaches the beneficiaires. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/91605966/   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/india-supreme-court-india-dipika-jagatram-sahani-vs-union-india-and-others-2021-01-13