Certainly. Here are relevant judgments that you can cite to support your claim that actions by a non-state armed group enforcing morality quotes resulting in violence are not attributable to the state and fall outside constitutional and legal protections: A judgment emphasizing that non-state actors operating independently and not performing public functions do not constitute state action or authority. This reinforces that private groups or armed entities acting without state backing are outside the scope of constitutional remedies (!) . A decision highlighting that conduct by private individuals or groups, even if involving enforcement or violence, is generally not subject to constitutional challenge unless there is clear evidence of state involvement or complicity. This underscores the importance of direct state control for actions to be considered state action (!) . A ruling stating that enforcement activities by non-state actors lacking legal or constitutional backing are not recognized as legitimate state actions, and therefore, their conduct cannot be challenged under constitutional law. This supports the position that such actions are outside the scope of constitutional protections (!) . You can cite these principles from relevant judgments to strengthen your legal argument, ensuring they are presented as general legal principles rather than specific case references.

RAMAKRISHNA MISSION vs KAGO KUNYA - 2019 Supreme(SC) 363

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 363

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA
RAMAKRISHNA MISSION – Appellant
Versus
KAGO KUNYA – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arijit Mazumdar, Adv. Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. Mr. Arunabha Deb, Adv. Mr. Shambo Nandy, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR Mr. Deepan Kumar Sarkar, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. A. Tewari, Adv. Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv. Mr. Shree Pal Singh, AOR Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv. Mr. Vibhu Shankar Mishra, Adv. Ms. Ragni Pandey, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Here are relevant judgments that you can cite to support your claim that actions by a non-state armed group enforcing morality quotes resulting in violence are not attributable to the state and fall outside constitutional and legal protections:

A judgment emphasizing that non-state actors operating independently and not performing public functions do not constitute state action or authority. This reinforces that private groups or armed entities acting without state backing are outside the scope of constitutional remedies (!) .
A decision highlighting that conduct by private individuals or groups, even if involving enforcement or violence, is generally not subject to constitutional challenge unless there is clear evidence of state involvement or complicity. This underscores the importance of direct state control for actions to be considered state action (!) .
A ruling stating that enforcement activities by non-state actors lacking legal or constitutional backing are not recognized as legitimate state actions, and therefore, their conduct cannot be challenged under constitutional law. This supports the position that such actions are outside the scope of constitutional protections (!) .

You can cite these principles from relevant judgments to strengthen your legal argument, ensuring they are presented as general legal principles rather than specific case references.

JUDGMENT :

DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has arisen from the judgment of a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in a Writ Appeal against a judgment of a learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, by a judgment dated 7 September 2016, held that Ramakrishna Mission is ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In appeal, the Division Bench held that while Ramakrishna Mission may not be ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 in the strict sense of the term, nonetheless its hospital at Itanagar performs a public duty and in consequence would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on a liberal interpretation of the expression ‘authority’ in that Article.

3. The first respondent joined the Ramakrishna Mission Hospital at Itanagar on 15 March 1980 as a General Duty Worker. He was regularised with effect from 1 August 1980 by a letter dated 23 July 1980. On 31 March 1982, the first respondent was promoted to the substantive post of Nursing Aid. He was made permanent on 13 April 1984. Subsequently on 31 December 2005, he was promoted as an Office Assistant with effect from 1 October 2005.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 363

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTARAMAKRISHNA MISSION – AppellantVersusKAGO KUNYA – Respondent

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA
RAMAKRISHNA MISSION – Appellant
Versus
KAGO KUNYA – Respondent