Caselaw Database - All Cases

ESCR-Net Caselaw Database: A database on domestic, regional and international decisions regarding Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The action arose from an appeal of two High Court decisions that were issued in 2016. A local women’s group (Mahila Mandals) and other self-help groups challenged the validity of a tender notice issued by the state of Maharashtra that year. The tender awarded a contract to large corporations with strong political connections for the supply of nutritional food supplements to beneficiaries under the ICDS.

The complainant, Un Techo para mi País México (Techo), claimed that the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI) failed to collect census data for informal settlements. According to Techo, this failure resulted in the State’s non-realization of the right to adequate housing because State policies and policymaking depend on statistical information gathered in the census. The Court affirmed that the INEGI’s failure to collect and disseminate statistical information on informal settlements created a presumption of unconstitutionality that put the burden of proof on INEGI.

In 2014 and 2015, an outbreak of Ebola in Sierra Leone forced schools to close for nine months. One consequence of the closures was a significant spike in pregnancies among teenage girls (in some areas, rates went up 65%). As a result, the then-Minister of Education, Science and Technology publicly stated that pregnant girls would not be able to attend mainstream schools while they were pregnant in order to avoid adversely influencing their peers.

Nevsun Resources Ltd. (Nevsun), a corporation incorporated in British Columbia that owns 60% of the Bisha Mining Share Company, appealed from the Court of Appeal’s agreement with the Chambers Judge to dismiss Nevsun’s motion to strike the pleadings. Nevsun was sued in a class action made up of more than 1,000 individuals who claimed they were forced to work at the Bisha Mining Share Company’s mine between 2008 and 2012.

This case concerns the constitutionality of Section 3(d) of the 2005 Amendment (“Amendment”) to India’s Patent Law, which was added to comply with Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and World Trade Organization’s (WTO) minimum standards for protecting intellectual property.  Section 3(d) requires that inventions based on a known substance be patentable only if they show the “enhanced efficacy” of the known substance.  Novartis, a large pharmaceutical company, submitted a patent application for its leukemia medication, Gleevec.  Novartis’ application was denied on

On 10 September, 2013, the High Court granted an eviction order “by agreement” of 184 unauthorized occupiers from a block of flats where they had been living for periods of up to 26 years. Only four of the 184 occupiers were present at the initial Court proceeding, accompanied by their unofficial ward committee representative, Mr. Skhulu Ngubane. The High Court both ordered the eviction of the occupiers, and, in parallel proceedings, refused to grant a rescission of this judgment. The case before the Constitutional Court was the rescission application.

The petitioner, Sandesh Bansal, is a health activist and member of Jan Adhikaar Manch, a nongovernmental organization (NGO) working to raise concern over the high maternal mortality rate (MMR) in Madhya Pradesh as a part of their “Save our Mothers” campaign. The case was also part of Human Rights Law Network’s (HRLN’s) national litigation strategy to address India’s high maternal mortality and morbidity rates. Petitioner alleged that the state failed to provide basic and adequate maternal healthcare.

At issue in this case were restrictions derived from English common law on charities’ engagement in non-partisan political activity to secure changes to laws or policies to further their charitable purpose. In Canada these restrictions had been incorporated into Canada’s Income Tax Act (ITA), which stated that registered charities may only engage in non-partisan political activities to seek changes to any laws or policies if such activities were “ancillary and incidental” to their charitable activities, with the latter constituting “substantially all” of the organization’s resources.

Seven parties, a human rights organization, a civil rights organization, a privacy rights organization, an organization that works for the privacy rights of clients of psychotherapists, a statute-made national council of client participants in government policymaking, and two individuals brought suit against the State of the Netherlands in March 2018, challenging the legality of the use of SyRi, a government data legal instrument used to assess the risk that individuals receiving welfare benefits from the State have behaved fraudulently.

The issue in this case was whether the Minister of Education and eight South African provinces had constitutional and statutory duties to provide daily NSNP meals to learners. The plaintiffs included Equal Education, a nonprofit legal education advocacy organization and the school governing bodies of both Vhulaudzi Secondary School and Mashao High School.