Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Krishna Murari Yadav Assistant Professor, LC-I, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi Contact No. - 7985255882
Krishna Murari Yadav Assistant Professor, LC-I, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi Contact No. - 7985255882
Krishna Murari Yadav Assistant Professor, LC-I, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi Contact No. - 7985255882
Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi
2
2017. India (Reservation for Regarding this Judgement, There is a lot of rumour.
OBC, SC and ST) Rumour is that OBC, SC and ST candidate can't
qualify in general category. This rumour is not
true.OBC SC ST can qualify in general category
provided that he/ she has not taken special benefit of
reserved category for example- age relaxation or
more attempt etc.
7 19 April State(Through) CBI FIR lodged on 06Dec.1992 for hatching conspiracy
2017 Vs. Sri Kalyn Singh for demolition of Babri Mosque in Ayodhya.
(Former CM of UP) Supreme Court restored criminal conspiracy charges
&Ors. against senior BJP leaders L.K.Adwani, Uma
Bharati, Murali Manohar Joshi and 13 Others.
8 28 April, Pawan kumar vs. State Appeal was dismissed.SC said, “She has an
2017. of H.P.3 individual choice which has been legally recognised.
It has to be socially respected. No one can compel a
woman to love. She has absolute right to reject.”
Women‟s right to love and reject.4
9 05May Mukesh and Anr.vs. Delhi Gang Rape Case. Death sentence was upheld.
2017 State for NCT of Delhi
10 09May, Suo-Motu Contempt The sentence of six months imposed by this Court on
Seven Petition (Civil) No. 1 Sri Justice C.S. Karnan, shall be executed forthwith,
Judges Of 2017 In The Matter by the Director General of Police, West Bengal, or
2017 Of: In Re, Hon‟ble through a team constituted by him.
Shri Justice C.S. Justice Karnan Case / Contempt of Court. This case
Karnan was decided by seven judges.
11 09June Binoy Viswam vs. UOI SC upheld constitutional validity of section 139AA of
2017 Income Tax Act which made mandatory linkage of
IT returns with AADHAAR subject to the outcome
of main case related to AADHAAR.
12 26July, Bimolangshu Assam Parliamentary Secretaries (Appointment,
2017 Roy(Dead) Through Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions)
LRs vs. State of Assam Act, 2004. Supreme Court declared this Act as
vs. Another unconstitutional. The Court held that Article 194 of
the Constitution of India does not expressly
authorize the State Legislature to create the office
of Parliamentary secretary.5
13 27 July, Rajesh Sharma &Ors Supreme Court laid down exhaustive guidelines
2017 vs. State of UP and regarding section 498A of IPC, 1860.
Anr.
3
UGC NET 2018 (Dec.).
4
UGC NET 2018 (Dec.).
5
UGC NET 2018 (Dec.).
Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi
3
14 16 Aug. Rakesh kumar Paul vs. Right to get „default bail‟ under section 167(2) of
2017 State of Assam Cr.P.C..
15 22Aug Shayara Bano vs.UOI Practice of Triple Talaq is unconstitutional.
2017 ( Triple Talaq Case) Constitutional Bench-Article 145(3) and (5)- 5
Judges, Decision 3:2 Majority Judges(1) Justice
Joseph Kurian (2) J. U.U.Lalit,(3)Justice
.R.F.Nariman Minority-(1) CJI Khehar (2) Justice
Abdul Nazeer. It is violation of Article 14. In
consequences of this decision, Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Bill, 2017 was
passed in Lok Sabha.
16 24Aug, Justice Right to privacy is fundamental rights. In a
Aug. K.S.Puttaswami unanimous decision, a nine-judge Constitution
6
(Retd.) and Anr. Vs. Bench overruled the Judgment in MP Sharma and
UOI and Ors. (Right Kharak Sing Case.
to privacy is
fundamental rights)
17 11Oct. Independent Thought Section 375 Exception 2 is arbitrary to Articles 14,
2017 Vs. Union Of India & 15 & 21 of the Constitution of India. Now in all
Anr. (Rape with wife) cases, sexual intercourse with a women including
wife, if she is below the age of 18 years, is rape.
18 12Oct, Ms. Indira Jaising vs. Guidelines/norms for designation of „Senior
2017 Supreme Court of Advocate‟ by the Supreme Court and all High
India through Courts of this country were laid down.
Secretary general
&Ors
18A 13Oct, K.L.N.V. Dispute was regarding publication of Professor
2017 Veeranjaneyulu V. Kancha Ilaiah‟s book. Supreme Court observed,
Union Of India & “every author or writer has a fundamental right to
Ors7. speak out ideas freely and express thoughts
adequately. Curtailment of an individual
writer/author's right to freedom of speech and
expression should never be lightly viewed.” S C
declined to ban on publication of book.
st
19 2017 101 Constitutional Goods and Services Tax
Amendment
20 14/11/201 Kamini Jaiswal Vs. It was held that CJI alone had the power to assign
7 Union Of India & Anr. the case to a bench even if there were allegations in
(Master of Roster) the matter against him.
(Prasad Institute of Medical Science, Lucknow
6
UPPCS J 2018
7
UGC NET 2018(Dec.).
Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi
4
Case).
30Nov. Dr.S.Rajaseekaran(II) Guidelines for safety of road accident (1) Road
21 2017 vs.Union of India & safety policy, (2)State Road Safety Council (3)Load
Ors. Agency(4)Road Safety Fund(5)Road Safety Action
Plan(6)District Road Safety
Committee(7)Engineering Improvement(8)Traffic
Calming Measures(9)Road Sefty Audit etc. 25
guidelines were laid down.
22 01Dec. Campaign for Judicial Writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.25(Twenty
2017 Accountability and five)lakhs to be deposited by petitioner before the
Reforms(CJAR) vs. Registry of this Court within six weeks whereafter
UOI and Others said amount shall be transferred to the Supreme
Court Bar Association Advocate‟ Welfare fund
2018 2018 2018
23 11/01/ Ashok Pandey Vs. From an institutional perspective the Chief Justice is
2018, Supreme Court Of placed at the helm of the Supreme Court. In the
India Through Its allocation of cases and the constitution of benches
Registrar &Ors. the Chief Justice has an exclusive prerogative. As a
(Constitution of repository of constitutional trust, the CHIEF
Benches and Allocation JUSTICE IS AN INSTITUTION IN HIMSELF.
of Cases)
24 08March Shafin Jahan vs. Right to choose is a fundamental rights. SC has
2018 Asokan K.M. (Hadia restored the marriage of Hadiya with Shafin Jahan
Case) Akhila on08 March 2018 10 months after the Kerala high
converted into Hadiya. court annulled it.
S.C., said “Hadiya alias Akhila Asokan is at liberty to
pursue her future endeavours according to law. We
clarify that the investigations by the NIA in respect of
any matter of criminality may continue in accordance
with law”.
25 09 March Common Cause (A (1) Right to die with dignity is a fundamental right
2018 Regd. Society) Vs. under Article 21,
Union of India and (2) Passive euthanasia is legally valid and
Another. (3) Living will is legally valid.
Meaning of Living Will- Living will is a written
document that allows a patient to give explicit
(express) instructions in advance about the medical
treatment to be administered when he or she is
terminally ill or no longer able to express informed
consent.
26 20 March Dr. Subhash This is a Judgment on Scheduled Caste And
2018 Kashinath Mahajan Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
vs. State of 1989 in which anticipatory bail was denied and
Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi
5
8
UP(J) 2018
Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi
6
class from live- Court room area beyond the physical four walls of
streaming: the Court rooms. Technology is evolving with
(i)Matrimonial matters, increasing swiftness whereas the law and the courts
including transfer are evolving at a much more measured pace. This
petitions; (ii) Cases Court cannot be oblivious to the reality that
involving sensitive technology has the potential to usher in tangible and
issues as in the nature
intangible benefits which can consummate the
of sexual assault; and
aspirations of the stakeholders and litigants in
(iii) Matters where
children and juveniles particular. It can epitomize transparency, good
are involved, like governance and accountability, and more
POCSO cases. (iv) The importantly, open the vista of the court rooms,
presiding judge of each transcending the four walls of the rooms to
courtroom shall have accommodate a large number of viewers to witness
the discretion to the live Court proceedings. Introducing and
disallow live-streaming integrating such technology into the courtrooms
for specific cases would give the viewing public a virtual presence in
where, in his/her the courtroom and also educate them about the
opinion, publicity working of the court.
would prejudice the
interests of justice. Etc.
32 Sep. 26, Justice Constitutional Bench 4:1.Supreme Court upholds
K.S.
2018 Puttaswamy constitutional validity of AADHAAR but strikes
(Retd.)And Anr. v. down certain provisions including its linking with
Union Of India and bank accounts, mobile phones and school
Others admissions. CBSE, NEET, JEE, UGC etc. cannot
make the requirement of AADHAR mandatory.
PAN, Income Tax Return9 and for availing welfare
scheme AADHAR is essential.
SC upheld Passing of Aadhaar Act as Money Bill.
33 Sep. 27, Joseph Shine v. Union Section 497 was declared unconstitutional. The
2018 of India decisions in Smt. Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union Of
India & Anr. (27 May, 1985), V. Rewathi v. Union of
India (1988)10 and W.Kalyani v. State Tr.Insp.Of
Police & Anr (1 December, 2011)11 hereby stand
overruled. Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. The State of Bombay
(1954).12
34 Sep. 27, M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. The Supreme Court, by a 2:1 majority, refused to
2018 v. Mahant Suresh Das refer the Ayodhya-Ram Janmabhoomi land dispute
And Others Etc. case to a larger bench. While the majority judgment
9
UP (J) 2018 (GS)
10
UP (J) 2018.
11
UP (J) 2018.
12
UP (J) 2018.
Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi
7
13
UP (J) 2018.
14
The Hindu News Paper
Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi
8
4 19/09/2019 Union of India & Anr. v. Tarsem Supreme Court said, “We
Singh & Ors. therefore declare that the
provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act relating to
solatium and interest contained
in Section 23(1A) and (2) and
interest payable in terms of
section 28 proviso will apply to
acquisitions made under the
National Highways Act.
Consequently, the provision of
Section 3J is, to this extent,
violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India and,
therefore, declared to be
unconstitutional”.
5 09/11/2019 M.Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. 1. The Chief Justice
Ranjan Gogoi,
Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi
9
Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi
10
(2)M.Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Mahant Suresh Das (Ayodhya Land Dispute Case) (09/11/2019)
There are following direction –
Hindu
Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi
11
(i) The Central Government shall, within a period of three months from the date of this
judgment, formulate a scheme pursuant to the powers vested in it under Sections 6 and 7
of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act 1993.
The scheme shall envisage the setting up of a trust with a Board of Trustees or any other
appropriate body under Section 6.
The scheme to be framed by the Central Government shall make necessary provisions in
regard to the functioning of the trust or body including on matters relating to the
management of the trust, the powers of the trustees including the construction of a temple
and all necessary, incidental and supplemental matters;
(ii) Possession of the inner and outer courtyards shall be handed over to the Board of
Trustees of the Trust or to the body so constituted. The Central Government will be at
liberty to make suitable provisions in respect of the rest of the acquired land by handing it
over to the Trust or body for management and development in terms of the scheme
framed in accordance with the above directions; and
(iii) Possession of the disputed property shall continue to vest in the statutory receiver
under the Central Government, untill in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 6 of the
Ayodhya Act of 1993, a notification is issued vesting the property in the trust or other
body.
Muslim
(i) Simultaneously, with the handing over of the disputed property to the Trust or body
under clause 2 above, a suitable plot of land admeasuring 5 acres shall be handed over
to the Sunni Central Waqf Board,
(ii) The land shall be allotted either by: (a) The Central Government out of the land
acquired under the Ayodhya Act 1993; or (b) The State Government at a suitable
prominent place in Ayodhya; The Central Government and the State Government shall
act in consultation with each other to effectuate the above allotment in the period
stipulated.
Anuradha Bhasin & Ghulam Nabi Azad v. Union of India and Ors. (10/01/2020)
Fact -Internet Service all over India especially Jammu and Kashmir.
Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi
12
Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (January 29, 2020)
(Constitutional Bench)
Abstract – In this Case Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court discussed several cases
relating to anticipatory bail to decided life/ duration of „Anticipatory Bail‟. Especially
Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Case (1980), Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh Case (1995) and
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (2010).
Reason of Conflicting opinion
In case of Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) Constitutional Bench said,
“The normal rule should be not to limit the operation of the order in relation to a
period of time”. It was followed till Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of
Maharashtra15. It was stated in Salauddin Case that grant of anticipatory bail should not
mean that the regular court, which is to try the offender, would be “bypassed”.
Supreme Court fixed the outer date for the continuance of the bail and further directed
that the petitioner, upon expiry, should move the regular court of bail. It means
„Anticipatory bail‟ is for limited period. Generally this judgment was followed till
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2010).16 In this case it was
observed that life of anticipatory bail cannot be curtailed. Constitutional Bench of
Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and
another (January 29, 2020) settled this controversy. In this case Supreme Court said that
ruling of Sibbia Case must be followed. Salauddin Case( 1995) and Siddharam Case
(2010) are of extreme views which cannot be accepted.
Yashwant Sinha & Ors. v. CBI Through Its Diector & Anr17 (April 10, 2019)
In this case „Review Petition‟ was filed on the grounds of discloser of new facts related to
„Rafale Deal‟ which were collected by members of The Hindu News Paper. These facts were
also published in the News Paper. Maintainability of Review Petition was challenged on the
ground of lack of bona fide. Attorney General claimed that these copies have been taken illegally
. Attorney General contended that documents were unauthorisely removed from the Ministry in
violation of several laws.
But Supreme Court did not accept this contention and accepted „Review Petition‟. Hon‟ble
Justcie K.M. Joseph observed, “ Under the common law both in England and in India the context
for material being considered by the court is relevancy. There can be no dispute that the manner
in which evidence is got namely that it was procured in an illegal manner would not ordinarily be
very significant in itself in regard to the Courts decision to act upon the same”.
15
(1996) 1 SCC 667
16
(2011) 1 SCC.
17
Available at : https://www.thehindu.com/news/resources/article26793859.ece/BINARY/Rafale-Review-
Judgement_10-Apr-2019.pdf (Last visited on February 19, 2020).
Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi
13
Question - Which among the following citations is more relevant to the judgement relating to
“Sabarimala Temple”?
(a) Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. v. State of Kerala
(b) Justice Puttaswamy v. State of Kerala
(c) Ayyapaa Temple Trustees v. State of Kerala
(d) Sabarimala v. State of Kerala.
Answer – A.
Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi
14
2020
In-Re Banners Placed On Road Side In The City Of Lucknow v. State of U.P. 18
(Removal of Hoarding Case)
Allahabad High Court, Division Bench.
Hon‟ble Chief Justice Govind Mathur, Hon‟ble J. Ramesh Sinha.
Date of passing of Order -9.3.2020
Facts- The banners came up at a major road side with personal details of more than 50 persons
those accused of vandalism during protest in the month of December, 2019. The poster is
seeking compensation from the accused persons and further to confiscate their property, if they
failed to
pay compensation. The installation of banners was reported in several newspapers, television and
internet channels on 6th and 7th of March, 2020.
Noticing injury to the right of privacy, the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court directed the
Registry to register a petition for writ in public interest and list that before the Bench nominated.
Suo motu action by Allahabad High Court.
Order
Division Bench passed order for removal of hoardings on 9.3.2020.
Reason of decision-
1. Violation of right to privacy - It was violation of right to privacy which is enshrined in
Article 21. This fundamental right provides lungs to the edifice of our entire
constitutional system. A slightest injury to it is impermissible as that may be fatal for our
values designed and depicted in the preamble of the constitution.
2. No power in hand of Police or Executive under Cr.P.C. - Under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, the power is available to a Court to publish a written proclamation
requiring appearance of a persons against whom a warrant has been issued and such person
is concealing himself to avoid execution of warrant. No other power is available in the
Code to police or the Executive to display personal records of a person to public at large.
There are certain provisions empowering the investigating agencies or other Executives to
take picture of accused for the purpose of their identification and record but that too is not
open for publication. The only time these photographs be published is to have assistance in
the apprehension of a fugitive from justice.
3. K.P. Puttaswamy and others Vs. Union of India and others19 - Supreme Court declared
privacy an intrinsic component of Part III of Constitution of India that lays down our
fundamental rights relating to equality, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of
movement and protection of life and personal liberty. These fundamental rights cannot be
given or taken away by law and laws. All the executive actions must abide by them. The
Supreme Court has however, clarified that like most other fundamental rights the right to
privacy is not “absolute right”. A persons privacy interests can be overridden by
compounding state and individual interests subject to satisfaction to certain tests and
bench marks. The nine Judges Bench noticed certain tests and bench marks, which are
18
Order is available: http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/WebDownloadJudgmentDocument.do (Last
visited on March 10, 2020).
19
AIR 2017 SC 4161.
Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi
15
liability, legitimate goal, proportionately and procedural guarantees. But in this case,
these tests are not being fulfilled.
4. They are not fugitive -The accused persons are the accused from whom some
compensation is to be recovered and in no manner they are fugitive.
Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi