Landmark Judgement

ADM Jabalpur v Shivakant Shukla Case- 1976: A step backward for India

Allahabad High Court on June 12, 1975 delivered a verdict of the case State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain where the court held Indira Gandhi guilty of election malpractices and invalidated her election and in addition barred her for 6 years from contesting elections. Indira Gandhi filed an Appeal before Supreme Court, Indira Nehru Gandhi vs Shri Raj Narain mean while Indira Gandhi faced unprecedented protest from an opposition unified under J P Naryanan. Indira Gandhi requested Fakruddin Ali Ahmad to declare an emergency under Article 352 (1) of the Indian Constitution. On June 26, 1975 the emergency was declared. The Government said...., Read More

“Afzal Guru's death sentence sparked protests - 2002”

Afzal Guru was hanged in secrecy, after being found guilty of helping the five terrorists who attacked the parliament. When five Jaish-e-Muhammad fidayeen attacked the Parliament on December 13, 2001, no one in Kashmir had thought the attack would result in the hanging of Afzal Guru, a Kashmiri man, 12 years later. A resident of Sopore in Baramulla, Guru had dropped out of medical college to become a militant in the 90s but shunned the violent path to finish graduation in Delhi. Afterwards, he married the woman he loved, Tabassum, and often travelled between Srinagar and Delhi for his pharmaceutical business...... Read More

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India

The landmark judgment on the health of bonded laborers delivered by three-judge bench set a benchmark on the protection of fundamental rights of workers. In my view the judgment was absolutely correct and worth praising. As treating a mere letter as writ petition is a commendable step taken by the Supreme Court and acted upon it for the welfare of the people. Considering the petition as Public Interest Litigation is another great initiative because the people who are already surviving in this world and then to afford legal fees were not at all possible for them..... Read More

Zahira Habibullah Sheikh &Anr vs State Of Gujarat &Ors on 8 March, 2006

Basic to this note is a portrayal of the note worthiness of the judgment that is past definitive and representative to one that has been solidified into solid intercessions in law, strategy and statute. In a period shadowed by strict fundamentalist renewals, one perceives the infusion of legal levelheadedness and honesty in a hypothesis of mutual savagery that will not obscure the lines between strict remedies and criminal offenses. In finding strict devotion as outside the domain of religion, the Supreme Court holds fast in proclaiming public viciousness purportedly for the sake of a specific religion to not exclusively be criminal yet additionally strictly inexcusable.... Read More

CASE ANALYSIS- COMMON CAUSE-‘A’ REGISTERED SOCIETY, etc Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

In the year 2005, a writ petition under Art 32 of Indian Constitution was filed by Common Cause, a registered society for the common welfare of people, to legalize Passive Euthanasia and to make living wills legitimate. In this regard, the Supreme Court of India held that the right to die with dignity is a fundamental right and included as a part of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Apex court further held that passive euthanasia and living will are legally recognized. The Court issued detailed guidelines in this regard..... Read More

IC GOLAKNATH v. STATE OF PUNJAB

In the popular instance of Golaknath V. Province of Punjab, in the year 1967 the Court decided that Parliament couldn't abridge any of the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution.

Starting with its decision in GOLAKNATH, the Court created law around what was known as the BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE. As per this principle, the Court was accountable for forestalling the disintegration of those suffering qualities that comprise the quintessence of constitutionalism. In spite of the fact that it backtracked six years after the fact, the Court kept on saying freely.... Read More

Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain – 1975: Beginning of the fall of Gandhi

India held an election to the 5th Lok Sabha in 1971, from March 1-March 10, wherein Indira Gandhi campaigned heavily during the election campaigning period, for herself andher party and steered the Congress to a landslide victory by securing 352 seats out of 518in the said election. Raj Narain, the irrepressible leader of Ram Manohar Lohia’s SSP was contesting againstIndira Gandhi within the constituency of Rae Bareli within the state of U.P. Raj Narain was veryconfident of victory within the election; he went on to organize a victory rally even before theresults were declared.... Read More

JESSICA LAAL MURDER CASE

The Jessica Laal murder case is purely a murder case as suggested by the name itself. The case plays a vital role in understanding concepts such as hostile witnesses and role of media and public in the country. The term used in the case very often which is, hostile witness means a witness who gave statement against the accused at once but later, opposes one’s own statement in orderto save the accused. This can be due to the pressure or monetary help given by the accused to the witnesses. The case gained the attention of the public and later there was a movie directed on the same case to showcase the public the scenario of the case.... Read More

Joseph Shine v. Union of India

This is one of most important landmark judgment of the year 2018. It has broken old-school and stereotypical pattern of society, for the betterment. It has changed the Adultery Law in India. Adultery is one of the marital offences and by this judgment, has now been decriminalized. This landmark judgement has scrapped a law which was more than 150 years old, made during the British rule in 1860. 

In layman language, Adultery means a consensual sexual intercourse between a married man and a married woman out of the wedlock, i.e. sexual intercourse not with his/her respective spouse..... Read More

Justice K.S. Puttuswamy (Retd.) Vs. UOI & Ors. (2017) 10 SCC 1

Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs Union Of India And Ors is a historic judgment wide-ranging 547 pages given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 24th August 2017. A nine-judge bench assembled to revisit the question of whether the right to privacy is a constitutional right? The Court unanimously held that Right to Privacy is a Fundamental Right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Further, it was held that the right to privacy is an intrinsic element of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a constitutional value which is embodied in the fundamental freedoms embedded in Part III of the Constitution..... Read More

Kharak Singh v. The State of U.P. &Ors. [1963 AIR 1295]

Kharak Singh and M.P Sharma case didn’t recognise right to privacy as a fundamental right of Indian Constitution. The petitioner was under surveillance and was treated not less than an animal and then also in the decision of the case right to privacy was not considered as a fundamental right. The decision of Puttaswamy case overruled the decision of Kharak Singh and M.P. Sharma case and declared Right to Privacy as a fundamental right. The decision of latter case is the correct one and fits the modern society well. The rights provided in Article 19 and Article 21 are useless when there is no right to privacy...... Read More

MINERVA MILLS V. UNION OF INDIA-1980 ‘Parliament limited by Itself’

The Hon’ble SupremeCourt cleared all the doubts and hereby declared that there should be no limitation on the constituent power of the Parliament to make amendments by way of addition of variation or by repeal of the Constitution under this article. 

The above clauses were unanimously ruled as unconstitutional by Chief Justice Y.V Chandrachud, According to the opinion of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, since it has been held previously in Keshavnanda Bharti  v. State of Kerela, the power that vest within the Parliament  to amend constitution was limited and also it cannot amend the Constitution and convert the limited power into unlimited power asmentioned in 42nd amendment...... Read More

Mohd Ajmal Amir Kasab v State of Maharashtra - 2012

Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab, is a Pakistani national was the last surviving terrorist amongstten of them. He earned for himself five death penalties and an equal number of life imprisonments for committing multiple crimes of a heinous kind in this country. Some of the major charges against him were: conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India; collecting arms with the intention of waging war against the Government of India; waging and abetting the waging of war against the Government of India; .... Read More

Navtej Singh Johar V UOI, (2018) 10 SCC 1 "Decriminalising Homosexuality"

Section 377 of IPC, 1860 perpetuated social stereotypes and encouraged discrimination in the society. The LGBT community was deprived of their basic fundamental rights just because of social stereotypes and taboos set up by the society.

The decriminalization of Section 377 was a big victory for the LGBT community as they have suffered indignities of denial for a period of hundred and fifty eight years. And even they were deprived of their constitutional rights for sixty eight years after the advent of the Constitution. This decriminalization will give them a better life, as the Right to life under Article 21 can’t be a mere animal existence.... Read More

Surendra Koli v State of U.P. and Ors (15.02.2011)

Nithari serial murder case is one amongst the most horrifying and hideous cases of 2006. Nithari is a village situated in Noida (Delhi). This case involved the commission of heinous crimes like sexual assault, murder, cannibalism and attempted necrophilia. The case grabbed headlines in media because of its brutal and rare nature of crimes. This case came into the light after a continued series of disappearances of the small children (both boys and girls) and teenagers from the Nithari village within the year 2005 and 2006. .... Read More

Om Prakash v Dil Bahar – 2006: Victims of sexual assault or not

In our legal system presumed victim is vulnerable especially to female because they can hamper easily and they cannot reveal about the offence which has committed on her to the police. In fact our judiciary has keen to reforms a law of crime against women. According to NCRB one woman is raped every 20 minutes in India. From 2011 to 2012, the recorded incidence of rape increased by 3%. The Criminal Amendment Act 2013 had changed the definition of rape in IPC. Though in the act rape was retained in section 375 and it was extended to cover actions in addition to vaginal penetration, this amendment sought to modify the word rape to sexual assault..... Read More

Selvi & ors. V. State of Karnataka

The truth is; but this comment will be judged by Ms.'s decision. Selvi vs. State of Karnataka has fought a good fight on behalf of humanity against technology. The decision of the then Honorable Chief Justice and his two fellow judges declared that narcoanalysis, brain mapping, fMRI and polygraph examination were unconstitutional and null. One of its kind; The decision by a three-judge panel authorizes against all new aspects of privacy and self-repression protected by Article 20 (3) of the Constitution. In short, it is a historic decision in the history of the Indian judiciary. NarcoAnalysis, Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BAP),...... Read More

SUNIL BATRA V. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

The essence of litigating this case is not intended to adjudicateupon the particular grievances of individual prisoners but to address and deliver social justice in a broad perspective. It seeks to humanisethe harsh legal legacy that has been hidden from judicial view.The Supreme Court and the High Courts have deeply explored upon the deplorable conditions prevailing in prisons and have acknowledged the gross violation of prisoners’ rights. The concept of Prisoners’ rights have become anagenda for prison reforms. The Supreme Court has been proactive in interfering with and responding to human right violations in Indian prisons..... Read More

Mohd Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985):
Maintenance Law Suit Sets Precedent

Mohd Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum 1 is a landmark case that is extremely popular in the
legal fraternity on two counts. Firstly, it deals with the critical issue of whether a Muslim
woman should be provided with maintenance by her husband after divorce. Secondly, this
case witnesses a conflict between Personal Law and Criminal Law, more specifically, the
Muslim Personal Law and Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter,
‘CrPC’). Though, the Court very rightly and justly held that maintenance should be awarded
to the Muslim woman after divorce, the Court ruling was opposed widely and criticized for
being in conflict with Islamic Law.... Read More

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan- 1997: Foundation for a Female Workforce

The Court put it well by observing that gender equality is embedded in the three basic and integral fundamental rights of Art.14, Art.19 and Art.21. Absolutely, it must be understood that sexual harassment is as serious a violation of these three fundamental rights of a woman as it is of the Indian Penal Code. Sexual harassment by a man of a woman amounts to the man treating the woman as if she is inferior to him and believes that she does not deserve to live with dignity and respect. Therefore, it is symbolic of gender inequality and male domination. Sexual harassment is the violation of a woman’s person, it is the violation of her expression of womanhood, it is the violation of her purpose. It is much more than and beyond the scope of violation of fundamental rights.... Read More

 

Waman Rao v Union of India (AIR 1981, Supreme Court, 271)

J. Bhagwati in this case gave his dissenting opinion and couldn’t agree with the majority view that the doctrine is be not applicable in this case to uphold the validity of the Articles but only to the laws that areprotected by the Article. The bench has upheld the constitutional validity of Article 31A by straight application of this doctrine.

In Keshavananda Bharati case the validity of Article 31A was indeed upheld and that this decision binds the present one on the simple ground of stare decisis. 

The judgment of this case was land mark one in the history of the jurisprudence.

This case has facilitated in defining a reasonable method of upholding the settled position and to address complaints pertaining to the violation of fundamental rights..... Read More