data/cases.json

[
    {
        "id": "case_001",
        "case_name": "K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India",
        "year": 2017,
        "court": "Supreme Court of India",
        "articles": [
            "21"
        ],
        "topics": [
            "privacy",
            "dignity",
            "data protection"
        ],
        "summary": "Right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21.",
        "key_points": [
            "Privacy is intrinsic to life and liberty",
            "Includes informational privacy",
            "Relevant to employer data collection and surveillance"
        ],
        "embedding_text": "privacy fundamental right article 21 dignity autonomy data protection surveillance employment"
    },
    {
        "id": "case_002",
        "case_name": "Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India",
        "year": 1978,
        "court": "Supreme Court of India",
        "articles": [
            "21",
            "14"
        ],
        "topics": [
            "due process",
            "fairness",
            "arbitrariness"
        ],
        "summary": "Procedure affecting life or liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable.",
        "key_points": [
            "Expanded scope of Article 21",
            "Links Articles 14 and 21",
            "Prevents arbitrary actions"
        ],
        "embedding_text": "fair procedure article 21 due process reasonable law arbitrariness article 14"
    },
    {
        "id": "case_003",
        "case_name": "E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu",
        "year": 1974,
        "court": "Supreme Court of India",
        "articles": [
            "14"
        ],
        "topics": [
            "equality",
            "arbitrariness"
        ],
        "summary": "Arbitrariness is antithetical to equality under Article 14.",
        "key_points": [
            "Equality includes non-arbitrariness",
            "State action must be fair"
        ],
        "embedding_text": "article 14 equality arbitrariness fairness non arbitrary action"
    },
    {
        "id": "case_004",
        "case_name": "Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib",
        "year": 1981,
        "court": "Supreme Court of India",
        "articles": [
            "12",
            "14"
        ],
        "topics": [
            "state definition",
            "instrumentality"
        ],
        "summary": "Expanded definition of 'State' under Article 12.",
        "key_points": [
            "Includes government-controlled bodies",
            "Applies fundamental rights obligations broadly"
        ],
        "embedding_text": "article 12 state definition instrumentality government control article 14 applicability"
    },
    {
        "id": "case_005",
        "case_name": "Shreya Singhal v. Union of India",
        "year": 2015,
        "court": "Supreme Court of India",
        "articles": [
            "19"
        ],
        "topics": [
            "free speech",
            "vagueness"
        ],
        "summary": "Struck down Section 66A for violating free speech.",
        "key_points": [
            "Restrictions must be reasonable",
            "Vague laws unconstitutional"
        ],
        "embedding_text": "freedom of speech article 19 reasonable restriction vagueness censorship unconstitutional"
    },
    {
        "id": "case_006",
        "case_name": "Bennett Coleman v. Union of India",
        "year": 1973,
        "court": "Supreme Court of India",
        "articles": [
            "19"
        ],
        "topics": [
            "freedom of press"
        ],
        "summary": "Restrictions affecting press violate Article 19.",
        "key_points": [
            "Indirect restrictions also violate rights",
            "Economic control impacts freedom"
        ],
        "embedding_text": "article 19 press freedom indirect restriction economic control freedom expression"
    },
    {
        "id": "case_007",
        "case_name": "Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation",
        "year": 1985,
        "court": "Supreme Court of India",
        "articles": [
            "21"
        ],
        "topics": [
            "livelihood"
        ],
        "summary": "Right to livelihood is part of Article 21.",
        "key_points": [
            "Livelihood integral to life",
            "State action affecting livelihood must be fair"
        ],
        "embedding_text": "right to livelihood article 21 employment survival dignity life"
    },
    {
        "id": "case_008",
        "case_name": "Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan",
        "year": 1997,
        "court": "Supreme Court of India",
        "articles": [
            "14",
            "19",
            "21"
        ],
        "topics": [
            "workplace harassment",
            "gender equality"
        ],
        "summary": "Established guidelines against workplace sexual harassment.",
        "key_points": [
            "Safe workplace is fundamental right",
            "Employer responsibility emphasized"
        ],
        "embedding_text": "workplace harassment gender equality article 14 19 21 safe workplace employer duty"
    },
    {
        "id": "case_009",
        "case_name": "Air India v. Nergesh Meerza",
        "year": 1981,
        "court": "Supreme Court of India",
        "articles": [
            "14"
        ],
        "topics": [
            "gender discrimination"
        ],
        "summary": "Discriminatory service conditions violate Article 14.",
        "key_points": [
            "Arbitrary employment rules invalid",
            "Gender-based discrimination prohibited"
        ],
        "embedding_text": "employment discrimination gender article 14 arbitrary service conditions invalid"
    },
    {
        "id": "case_010",
        "case_name": "State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar",
        "year": 1952,
        "court": "Supreme Court of India",
        "articles": [
            "14"
        ],
        "topics": [
            "equal protection"
        ],
        "summary": "Established test for reasonable classification.",
        "key_points": [
            "Classification must be reasonable",
            "No arbitrary grouping"
        ],
        "embedding_text": "reasonable classification article 14 equality arbitrary classification invalid"
    },
    {
        "id": "case_011",
        "case_name": "Minerva Mills v. Union of India",
        "year": 1980,
        "court": "Supreme Court of India",
        "articles": [
            "14",
            "19",
            "21"
        ],
        "topics": [
            "basic structure"
        ],
        "summary": "Fundamental rights are part of basic structure.",
        "key_points": [
            "Rights cannot be destroyed",
            "Balance between rights and directive principles"
        ],
        "embedding_text": "fundamental rights basic structure article 14 19 21 balance constitution"
    },
    {
        "id": "case_012",
        "case_name": "I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu",
        "year": 2007,
        "court": "Supreme Court of India",
        "articles": [
            "14",
            "21"
        ],
        "topics": [
            "judicial review"
        ],
        "summary": "Laws violating fundamental rights are subject to judicial review.",
        "key_points": [
            "Ninth Schedule laws can be reviewed",
            "Rights supremacy maintained"
        ],
        "embedding_text": "judicial review fundamental rights violation article 14 21 supremacy constitution"
    },
    {
        "id": "case_013",
        "case_name": "Niranjan Shankar Golikari v. Century Spinning",
        "year": 1967,
        "court": "Supreme Court of India",
        "articles": [],
        "topics": [
            "employment contract",
            "non-compete"
        ],
        "summary": "Certain restrictive covenants during employment are valid.",
        "key_points": [
            "Reasonable restrictions allowed",
            "Applies during employment"
        ],
        "embedding_text": "employment contract non compete clause reasonable restriction validity"
    },
    {
        "id": "case_014",
        "case_name": "Superintendence Company v. Krishan Murgai",
        "year": 1981,
        "court": "Supreme Court of India",
        "articles": [],
        "topics": [
            "restraint of trade"
        ],
        "summary": "Post-employment restrictions are generally void under Section 27.",
        "key_points": [
            "Protects employee freedom",
            "Invalidates broad non-compete clauses"
        ],
        "embedding_text": "section 27 restraint trade post employment non compete void employee freedom"
    },
    {
        "id": "case_015",
        "case_name": "Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala",
        "year": 1986,
        "court": "Supreme Court of India",
        "articles": [
            "19",
            "25"
        ],
        "topics": [
            "freedom of conscience"
        ],
        "summary": "Freedom of conscience protected under Articles 19 and 25.",
        "key_points": [
            "Cannot compel expression against beliefs",
            "Protects individual autonomy"
        ],
        "embedding_text": "freedom conscience article 19 25 autonomy belief expression compulsion unconstitutional"
    },
    {
        "id": "case_016",
        "case_name": "Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi",
        "year": 1981,
        "court": "Supreme Court of India",
        "articles": [
            "21",
            "14"
        ],
        "topics": [
            "dignity",
            "human rights"
        ],
        "summary": "The right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and minimum necessities.",
        "key_points": [
            "Life includes dignity, not mere survival",
            "State action must be humane and fair"
        ],
        "embedding_text": "right to dignity article 21 human dignity fair treatment article 14 humane conditions"
    },
    {
        "id": "case_017",
        "case_name": "Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar) v. Union of India",
        "year": 2018,
        "court": "Supreme Court of India",
        "articles": [
            "14",
            "19",
            "21"
        ],
        "topics": [
            "privacy",
            "proportionality"
        ],
        "summary": "Established proportionality test for restrictions on fundamental rights.",
        "key_points": [
            "Any restriction must be proportionate",
            "Balancing state interest and individual rights"
        ],
        "embedding_text": "proportionality test article 14 19 21 privacy restriction balance rights state"
    },
    {
        "id": "case_018",
        "case_name": "Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh",
        "year": 2016,
        "court": "Supreme Court of India",
        "articles": [
            "19",
            "14"
        ],
        "topics": [
            "reasonable restriction",
            "proportionality"
        ],
        "summary": "Reinforced the proportionality doctrine for restrictions under Article 19.",
        "key_points": [
            "Restrictions must not be excessive",
            "Balancing test required"
        ],
        "embedding_text": "proportionality reasonable restriction article 19 article 14 balance excessive restriction"
    },
    {
        "id": "case_019",
        "case_name": "Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India",
        "year": 2018,
        "court": "Supreme Court of India",
        "articles": [
            "14",
            "15",
            "19",
            "21"
        ],
        "topics": [
            "equality",
            "dignity",
            "privacy"
        ],
        "summary": "Decriminalized homosexuality and reinforced dignity, equality, and privacy rights.",
        "key_points": [
            "Sexual orientation protected",
            "Dignity central to Article 21",
            "Equality under Article 14"
        ],
        "embedding_text": "equality dignity privacy article 14 15 19 21 autonomy discrimination fundamental rights"
    }
]