Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1. NJAC held unconstitutional (Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association vs. Union of
India
2. Yakub Memon midnight hearing [Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs. State of Maharashtra]
3. Section 66A IT Act struck down [Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India]
4. No compromise in Rape cases [State of MP vs. Madanlal]
5. Unwed mother can become sole guardian of a child [ABC vs. State (NCT of Delhi)]
6.Uphaar Verdict [Sushil Ansal vs. State through CBI]
7. Award Compensation to the victim of crime [Manohar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan]
8. Section 364A IPC awarding death penalty not unconstitutional [Vikram Singh vs. Union of
India]
9. States cannot unilaterally grant remission [Union of India vs. Sriharan]
10. Minimum Edu Qualification rule for Panchayat elections upheld [Rajbala vs. State of
Haryana]
11. Women can be manager of a Joint Family [Shreya Vidyarthi vs. Ashok Vidyarthi]
12. Complete Departmental inquiries within six months [Prem Nath Bali vs. Registrar, High
Court of Delhi]
13. RBI also under RTI [Reserve Bank of India vs. Jayantilal Mistry]
14. Acid Attack Victims in disability list [Parivartan Kendra vs. Union of India]
15. Writ petitions maintainable against ‘deemed Universities’. [Dr. Janet Jeyapaul vs. SRM
University]
16. No politician photos in Govt Ads [Common cause vs. Union of India]
17. Age determination of rape victim clarified [State of M.P. vs Anoop Singh]
18. Amendment in complaint can be done [S.R.Sukumar vs. S.Sunaad Raghuram]
19. Obscene language cannot be allowed against ‘Historically respected personalities’. [Devidas
vs. State of Maharashtra]
20. Appointment of Archakas to be made in accordance with Agamas [Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal
Nala Sanga vs. Government of Tamil Nadu]
21. Father of deceased victim has right to appeal [Satya Pal Singh v. State of M.P]
22. Jat reservation unconstitutional [Ram Singh vs. Union of India]
23. Concealing pending criminal cases by elected representative illegal [Krishnamoorthy vs.
Sivakumar]
24. Writs against Judicial actions by judiciary not maintainable [Riju Prasad Sarma etc. Vs. State
of Assam]
25. Validity of Sec 499 IPC-Subrhamanyam swamy v UOI
26.Haji Ali Dargah; Dr. Noorjehan Safia Niaz Vs. State of Maharashtra [Bombay High Court, 26-
08-2016]
27. Plea of Self-defence; Brij Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan
28. Extra-Judicial Confession; Kala @ Chandrakala Vs. State Through Inspector of Police
29.District Judge Selection; Vijay Kumar Mishra Vs. High Court of Judicature At Patna
30. Constitution; Rajender Prashad Vs. Govt. of NCT [Delhi High Court, 04-08-2016
31. Government Bungalows; Lok Prahari Vs. State of U.P
32. Voice Samples; Sudhir Chaudhary Vs. State
33. Wild Life; State Vs. Salman Khan [Rajasthan High Court, 25-07-2016]
34. Sedition; Hardik Bharatbhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat
35. Slaughter House; Eagle Continental Foods Vs. Shailesh Singh
36. Victim; Jag Mohan Vs. State of U.P. [Allahabad High Court
37. Consent; Ayodhya Prasad Vs. State of U.P. [Allahabad High Court,
38. Juvenile Justice; “A” through her Father “F” Vs. State of U.P. [Allahabad High Court]
39.Upload FIRs in Police Websites [Youth Bar Association of India vs.Union of India]
40.Multiple Life Sentences will run concurrently, Remission of one will not affect the other
[Muthuramalingam vs. state]
41.DV Act; Relief Possible Against Minors, Women [ Hiral P Harsora and ors Vs. Kusum
Narottamdas Harsora]
42.Forcing Husband To Get Separated From His Parents, Amounts To ’Cruelty’ [Narendra vs.
K.Meena]
43.Persons in Govt/Judicial service need not resign to participate in District Judge Selection
Process [ Vijay Kumar Mishra and Anr Vs High court of Judicature at Patna and Ors]
44.Public Service Commission shall provide Information about answer sheets and Marks under
RTI [Kerala Public Service Commission vs State Information Commission].
45.No liquor shops near National Highways [State of Tamil Nadu vs. K. Balu]
46.National anthem must in Theatres [Shyam Narayan Chouski vs. Union of India]
47.SC can transfer cases from Jammu & Kashmir Courts to courts outside it and vice versa
[Anita Kushwaha vs. Pushpa Sudan]
48. Upload FIRs in Police Websites
Case: [Youth Bar Association of India vs.Union of India]
49- Multiple Life Sentences will run concurrently, Remission of one will not affect the other.
case: [Muthuramalingam vs. state]
50- SC can transfer cases from Jammu & Kashmir Courts to courts outside it and vice versa
Case- [Anita Kushwaha vs. Pushpa Sudan]
Supreme Court struck down the words “adult male” before the word “person” in Section 2(q) of
Domestic Violence Act.
52- Forcing Husband To Get Separated From His Parents, Amounts To ’Cruelty’
Case- [Narendra vs. K.Meena]
54- Persons in Govt/Judicial service need not resign to participate in District Judge Selection
Process
Case-[ Vijay Kumar Mishra and Anr Vs High court of Judicature at Patna To and Ors]
55- All Tribunals are not necessary parties to the proceedings where legality of its orders
challenged
Case-[ S. Kazi vs. Muslim education society]
56- Public Service Commission shall provide Information about answer sheets and Marks under
RTI
Case:[Kerala Public Service Commission vs State Information Commission]
57- Social Security to the Legal Profession Becomes an Essential Part of Legal System
Case: [Cardamom Marketing Corporation & Anr. Vs. State Of Kerala & Ors]
59- People with disabilities also have the Right to Live with Dignity
Case-[Jeeja Ghosh vs. UoI]
62- Soumya Case: Govindachami Acquitted Of Murder Charges; LIFE TERM Awarded For Rape
Case-[Govindaswamy Vs. State of Kerala]
69- Abhiram Singh V. C.D. Commachen (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS , New Delhi, January 02, 2017
SEEKING VOTES ON GROUND OF RELIGION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS*
Rajan Case1981
Involving the torture and death of a final year engineering student in custody in Kerala, the case
led to the resignation of K. Karunakaran, then the home minister, and imprisonment of the
officers accused.
VishakaVsState of Rajasthan1997
For the first time, sexual harassment, including sexually coloured remarks and physical contact,
was explicitly and legally defined as an unwelcome sexual gesture. It stated that every instance
of sexual harassment is a violation of fundamental rights.
7 Landmark Court Cases In History That Made Way For New Laws In India
1. The Nirbhaya Case - Led to the change in the Juvenile Justice Act
The incident behind the nirbhaya case will held on 16th December 2012, a brutal gang rape. A
23 year old girl named Nirbhaya was raped in a bus by 6 people. The culprits include 5 adults
and a juvenile aged 17. After the crime the criminals threw her body on to the road.
After the court proceedings the adults where sent to the jail for 10 years and the juvenile was
sent to correctional facility for 3 years. During the trial period one of the adult criminal was
found dead in jail.
But the judgement of the case will create a big shock on the people and they all are against it.
There were protests to try him as an adult. This will make a replacement in the juvenile Justice
Act, 2000. The age bar to be tried as an adult was lowered from 18 to 16 years
2. Shah Bano Begum vs Mohd Ahmed Khan - A win for secularism & Muslim women across the
country
Shah Bano was a Muslim lady who was the mother of five and aged 62 when she was divorced
by her husband, Mohd Ahmed Khan, in 1978. At that time she filed a case to get alimony but
this was against Islamic customs. The government also supports the husband instead of the
lady.
When considering the security and welfare of women the Supreme Court on the favour of the
women, Shah Bano. So she gets maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure
Code.
This judgement now entitles all ex-Muslim wives to basic maintenance of 3 months from their
ex-spouses, post which their care is handed over to their relatives or the WAKF board.
KM Nanavati was a naval officer. His wife is Sylvia. After their Marriage she had an affair with
husband’s friend, Prem Ahuja. On 27th April, 1959, Sylvia confessed to her husband about her
relationship with Ahuja, but he did intend to marry her. Nanavati then dropped his wife and
children off at the theatre and went to confront Prem Ahuja. He asked Ahuja that if he was
willing to marry Sylvia & take care of the children. He refused, so Nanavati shot him.
The intriguing story received a lot of media coverage and the jury was said to have been
'influenced' by it. Nanavati's connections with the influential families were also cited as reasons
for the jury to rule in his favour.
The case then went to Bombay High Court, where the judge overruled the jury's verdict and
found Nanavati guilty of murder, and sentenced him to life imprisonment. He was however
pardoned 3 years later. The case threw light on the fact that a jury could be influenced, thereby
abolishing the jury system.
1. Jury decision overturned by High Court (KM Nanavati v State of Maharashtra) - 1961
Hardly an open-and-shut case, the nature of the crime garnered media attention.
This case is notable for being the last case when a jury trial was held in India. KM Nanavati, a
naval officer, murdered his wifes lover, Prem Ahuja. The jury ruled in favour of Nanavati and
declared him not guilty which was eventually set aside by the Bombay High Court.
In the highly famous case of Golaknath V State of Punjab in 1967 the Supreme Court ruled that
Parliament could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights of individuals mentioned in the
Constitution. Parliaments overarching ambitions nipped in the bud (Keshavananda Bharti vs
State of Kerala) 1973.
A highly notable case which introduced the concept of basic structure of the constitution of
India and declared that those points decided as basic structure could not be amended by the
Parliament. The case was triggered by the 42nd Amendment Act.
4. Beginning of the fall of Indira Gandhi (Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain) - 1975
In this landmark case regarding election disputes, the primary issue was the validity of clause 4
of the 39th Amendment Act. The Supreme Court held clause 4 as unconstitutional and void on
the ground that it was outright denial of the right to equality enshrined in Article 14. The
Supreme Court also added the following features as “basic features” laid down in
Keshavananda Bharti case – democracy, judicial review, rule of law and jurisdiction of Supreme
Court under Article 32.
5. A step backward for India (ADM Jabalpur v Shivakant Shukla Case) - 1976
In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court declared that the rights of citizens to move the
court for violation of Articles 14, 21 and 22 would remain suspended during emergencies.
Triumph of individual liberty (Maneka Gandhi vs UOI) 1978.
In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India in 1980 strengthened the doctrine of the
basic structure which was propounded earlier in the Keshavananda Bharti Case. Two changes
which were made earlier by the 42nd Amendment Act were declared as null and void by the
Supreme Court in this particular case.
8. Constitutional validity of individual rights upheld (Waman Rao v Union of India) - 1981
This case was a landmark decision in the constitutional jurisprudence of India. This case has
helped in determining a satisfactory method of addressing grievances pertaining to the
violation of fundamental rights by creating a fine line of determination between the Acts prior
to and after the Keshavananda Bharati case.
9. Maintenance lawsuit sets precedent (Mohd Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum) - 1985
Shah Bano won the right to get alimony from her husband.
The petitioner challenged the Muslim personal law. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Shah
Bano and granted her alimony. Most favoured it as a secular judgment but it also invoked a
strong reaction from the Muslim community, which felt that the judgment was an
encroachment on Muslim Sharia law and hence led to the formation of the All India Muslim
Personal Law Board in 1973.
A PIL filed by MC Mehta in 1986 enlarged the scope and ambit of Article 21 and Article 32 to
include the right to healthy and pollution-free environment.
11. Reservation in central government jobs (Indra Sawhney v UOI November) - 1992
The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court held in this matter that caste could be a factor
for identifying backward classes.
12. Wrangle over Supreme Court judge appointments (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record -
Association and another versus Union of India) - 1993
The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act and Constitutional amendment Act passed
in 2014 aimed at replacing the collegium system of appointing Supreme Court judges. The act
was struck down as unconstitutionalby the Supreme Court in October 2015.
13. Power of Presidents Rule curtailed (SR Bommai v Union of India) - 1994
This landmark case had major implications on Center-State relations. Post this case the
Supreme Court clearly detailed the limitations within which Article 356 has to function.
In this case Vishakha and other women groups filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against
State of Rajasthan and Union of India to enforce fundamental rights for working women under
Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. This resulted in the introduction of Vishaka
Guidelines. The judgment of August 1997 also provided basic definitions of sexual harassment
at the workplace and provided guidelines to deal with it. Hence the importance of the case as a
landmark judgment.
Afzal Guru was sentenced to death on February 2013 for his role in the December 2001 attacks
on the Indian Parliament. The judgment faced widespread criticism on three grounds – lack of
proper defense, lack of primary evidence and judgment based on collective conscience rather
than rule of law.
This was notable for being the first case involving conviction under the Information Technology
Act, 2000. A family friend of a divorced woman was accused of posting her number online on
messenger groups which led to her being harassed by multiple lewd messages. The accused
was later convicted and sentenced.
In this case, the petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of a notification which ordered
dissolution of the legislative Assembly of the state of Bihar. The dissolution had been ordered
on the ground that attempts were being made to cobble a majority by illegal means and lay
claim to form the government in the state which if continued would lead to tampering with
constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court held that the aforementioned notification was
unconstitutional.
20. Victims of sexual assault or not? (Om Prakash v Dil Bahar) - 2006
In this matter the Supreme Court had commuted the death sentence awarded to prime accused
Santosh Singh (son of former IPS officer), to life imprisonment for the rape and murder of the
23-year-old law student, Priyadarshini Mattoo.
A model in New Delhi working as a bartender was shot dead and the prime accused Manu
Sharma, son of Congress MP Vinod Sharma who was initially acquitted in February 2006 was
later sentenced to life imprisonment in December 2006 by a fast track hearing by the Delhi High
Court. On 19 April 2010, the Supreme Court of India approved the sentence.
Well-known actor Sanjay Dutt was sentenced to five year imprisonment by the Supreme Court
for illegal weapons possession in a case linked to the 1993 serial blasts in Mumbai. The
Supreme Court also cited that the circumstances and nature of offence were too serious for the
53-year-old actor to be released on probation.
A Special Sessions Court awarded death sentence in 2009 to Surinder Koli and Moninder Singh
Pandher for the murder of a 14-year-old girl. The murders believed to have been committed
through 2006 involved instances of cannibalism. Pandher was later acquitted by the Allahabad
High Court and was released on bail but Koli’s death sentence was upheld by both the High
Court as well as the Supreme Court.
A case which received heavy media attention involved the double murder of 14-year-old
Aarushi Talwar and her 45-year-old domestic help in Noida. After five years a Sessions court
convicted both her parents Rajesh and Nupur Talwar and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
26. Section 377 case (Naz Foundation v Govt of NCT of Delhi) - July 2009
In 2009 the Supreme Court declared Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as
unconstitutional. The said section earlier criminalised sexual activities “against the order of
nature” which included homosexual acts. This judgment however, was overturned by the
Supreme in December, 2013.
27. Meagre closure for controversial Ayodhya (Ayodhya Ram Mandir Babri Masjid Case) -
September 2010
The Supreme Court restored the conviction and sentence of six-year rigorous imprisonment
imposed on two British nationals who were acquitted by the Bombay High Court in a
paedophilia case. The Bench directed the accused to serve the remaining period of sentence. In
a landmark judgment the Supreme Court observed “Children are the greatest gift to humanity.
The sexual abuse of children is one of the most heinous crimes”.
29. Vodafones name cleared in tax battle (Vodafone-Hutchison tax case) - January 2012
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Vodafone in the two-billion-dollar tax case citing that
capital gains tax is not applicable to the telecom major. The apex court also said that the Rs
2,500 crore which Vodafone had already paid should be returned with interest.
In April 2012 the Supreme Court appointed Special investigation Team (SIT) gave current Prime
Minister Narendra Modi a clean chit in the post-Godhra Gulberg massacre case citing that it
found no evidence against him. Narendra Modi went on to become the Prime Minister of India
with a huge mandate.
The Supreme Court observed that the acts on November 26, 2008, had shaken the collective
conscience of Indian citizens and had confirmed the death sentence awarded to prime accused
Ajmal Kasab by the trial court and affirmed by the Bombay High Court, for waging war against
India.
In 2013, the Supreme Court introduced negative voting as an option for the country’s
electorate. According to this judgment an individual would have the option of not voting for any
candidate (None-Of-The-Above) if they don’t find any of the candidates worthy.
33. Patent troubles of Pharma company Novartis (Novartis v Union of India & Others) - 2013
Novartis’ application which covered a beta crystalline form of imatinib, a medicine the company
brands as Glivec, which is very effective against chronic myeloid leukaemia (a common form of
cancer) was denied patent protection by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The
Supreme Court in its ruling upheld the board’s decision which eventually led to the medicine
being made available to the general public at a much lower cost.
34. Illegalising convicted MPs and MLAs (Lily Thomas v Union Of India) - July 2013
The Supreme Court of India, in this judgment, ruled that any member of Parliament (MP),
member of the legislative assembly (MLA) or member of a legislative council (MLC) who was
convicted of a crime and awarded a minimum of two-year imprisonment, would lose
membership of the House with immediate effect.
35. Uphaar fire tragedy (Sushil Ansal vs State Thr Cbi) - March 2014
August 2015: Eighteen years after 59 people were killed in a fire in Delhi’s Uphaar cinema, the
Supreme Court held that the prime accused did not necessarily need to go back to jail as they
were fairly aged. The court further held that “ends of justice would meet” if the accused paid Rs
30 crore each as fine.
Judiciary spurred into action and laws were strengthened for sex offenders.
Four out of the five accused in the horrific gang-rape case of Nirbhaya were convicted and given
the death sentence. The case also resulted in the introduction of the Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 2013 which provides for the amendment of the definition of rape under
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedures, 1973; the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
37. Recognising the Third gender (National Legal Services Authority v Union of India) - April
2014
Third gender acknowledged as citizens with rights.
In a landmark judgment the Supreme Court in April, 2014 recognised transgender persons as a
third gender and ordered the government to treat them as minorities and extend reservations
in jobs, education and other amenities.
38. Section 66A revised (Shreya Singhal v Union of India) - March 2015