Religious & Property Rights
Appeared before the Supreme Court in matters concerning rights of worship and ownership of prominent Jain shrines. One such matter saw more than 15 Senior Advocates of the Supreme Court represent conflicting interests.
Writ petitions, special leave petitions and constitutional challenges before the Supreme Court of India, the Delhi High Court and other High Courts.
Constitutional law is at the centre of the practice of the Chambers of Kumar Abhishek & Associates in New Delhi. The Chambers advises on, drafts and appears in writ petitions, special leave petitions (SLPs) and constitutional challenges before the Supreme Court of India, the Delhi High Court and other High Courts across the country.
The work spans fundamental rights and civil liberties, the validity of statutes, rules and notifications, questions of federal structure, and original suits between States.
Appeared before the Supreme Court in matters concerning rights of worship and ownership of prominent Jain shrines. One such matter saw more than 15 Senior Advocates of the Supreme Court represent conflicting interests.
Appeared with Senior Counsel in two of the oldest surviving Original Suits before the Supreme Court, concerning long-standing inter-State boundary disputes among Assam, Nagaland, and Arunachal Pradesh.
Argued the reported writ petition (2024:DHC:9187) before the Delhi High Court on the special work-permit rights of a U.S. citizen seeking to work at the British Embassy in India.
Represented 8,000 selected Lekhpal candidates from Uttar Pradesh, persuading the Supreme Court to lift its stay and clear the way for their appointments.
Article 32 allows a person to approach the Supreme Court directly, but only for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Article 226 empowers every High Court to issue writs both for fundamental rights and “for any other purpose”, so its scope is wider. In practice, the Supreme Court often expects a petitioner to approach the High Court first.
Under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court may grant special leave to appeal against a judgment or order of any court or tribunal in India. The remedy is discretionary. Under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, an SLP against a High Court judgment is ordinarily to be filed within 90 days of that judgment.
Yes. A statute, rule or notification can be challenged before a High Court or the Supreme Court on grounds such as violation of fundamental rights, lack of legislative competence, or inconsistency with other provisions of the Constitution.
This is general information about legal procedure, not legal advice on any particular matter.