Case law Revision Sheet
Name of the case law
1. Hussainara Khatton vss
State of Bihar
2.3 Judges Case
Statement of the court
1. The first ever PIL is
listed as Hussainara Khatoon
v. State of
Bihar and dates back to 1979.
2. A public
interest activist
behalf of thousands of lawyer
filed this case on
prisoners of the Bihar jail
against the inhuman conditions of the
3. A
Supreme Court bench headed by Justice prison.
P.N.
Bhagwati declared the right for free legal aid and
expeditious trial of these prisoners, which
ultimately led to their release
4. This also led to
introduction of PIL
PILGanaplug to dooio-conomiMahi, A
uitLmanä nwounmat Au and
1981- The first
Judges case (1981) gave primacy to the
Executive and stated that the CJl's recommendation to
the President can be refused for
cogent reasons. It gave
vast powers to the Executive for the next 12
years, in
making judicial appointments.
1993-The Judgment held that the Chief Justice of India
has primacy in the matter of appointments to the
Supreme Court and the High Courts, and that an
appointment 'has to be in conformity with the final
opinion of the Chief Justice of India', while emphasising
the desirability of consultation of the Chief Justice
other Judges. The executive element in the appointment
with
process was reduced to a minimum and political
influence eliminated. This decision rendered by a
nine-judge bench was however supported by only five
judges on the bench and the four other judges did not
concur with the majority opinion.
1998- Later in 1998, the Supreme Court in a Presidential
reference (1998 advisory decision) emphasized upon the
of
role of 'consultation' and held that the process
Court and the
appointment of Judges to the Supreme
consultative
High Courts is an 'integrated participatory
his opinion
process' The Chief Justice of India firms up
his opinion
after consultation with a plurality of Judges;
is formed by a body of senior Judges.
 3. Maneka Gandhi vs UOI 1. Her passport was confiscated by the
governmental authorities without giving her .

chance of prior hearing.

her any
2. Invoking its judicial review powers in
administrative matters, the Supreme Court hel
that in the matter of cofiscation of passports a
7 .
Shs

hearing should have been given to the petitioner

Bor

in the interest of the principles of natural justice

3. Consequently, a hearing was given and the
passport was returned to her.

4.Principle of post deoigipn 4. This is an example where the court adopted the
hearing principle of post decision-hearing, in situations of
basudn o2oM urgency where prior hearing is not feasible, and
recognized that a chance of hearing cannotbe
debarred completely.

5. Supreme Court in case of 1. Judicial review offers

Court Martial safeguards to the aggrieved
against any sentence or punishment that is
disproportionate and burdensome. For example,
theSupreme Court, in a case, has held that the
quantum of penalty or punishment sentenced by a
court martial on any army persons should not be
disproportionate to the offence.
2. According to the theory Principle of
proportionality

| 6. Kesavananda vs State of 1. The landmar 1973

Kerala
Supreme Court case of
Keshavanda Bharathi v. State of Kerala discussed
the question about the unlimited
constitutional
amendment powers of the Parliament and
established the doctrine of the basic structure or
feature of the çonstitution.
2. This dactrine invalidates any
constitutional
amendments that destroys or harms a basic or
essential feature of the Constitution, like
secularism, democracy and federalism. Supreme
Court
3. Has also held judicial review to be
the basic
structure or feature of the Constitution; as a
result, it can nullify any constitutional amendment
that abolished or disregards judicial review in
 Issues
citizensconcerning to fundamental rights of

7. Shanta Bai vs State of

1.
Bombay The distinction between movable and immovabe
property was observed. If the intention is to reap
fruits from the
trees, then it is regarded as an
immovable property.
2. But if the intention is to
cut down the tree
use it as and
timber, it would be regarded as movable
property.
8. Marshall vs Green
. :
1. Therè was a [ale of trees wherein the trees were
Y
-tut arnd taken away. The Court held that the sale
9. Cooper vs Cooper was not that of immovable property.
1. Court held that the doctrine of election
applied on
every instrument and all types of property.
10. Madam Pillai Vs Badar 1. The plaintiff acquired a title by
Kali way of oral
transfer and she is entitled to the property
though
the instrument of _ale was not registered.
11.Gajadhar vs Romabhaee 1. It was held that there is violation on thé part of the
original lessor and the sub-lessee can sue the
original lessor for damages for violation of quiet
enjoyment of the property.
12. Balfour vs Balfour 1. The wife initiated action to recover the arrears due
to her. The Court dismissed it on the ground that
the agreement entered into between the husband
and Agreement Enforceable in law Contract wife
was not a contract.
2. The arrangement between the husband and wife
was only a moral obligation and the parties never
intended to create any legal relationship.

1. The Court rejected these comtents ofthe

13. Carlill vs Carbolic company and allowed Mrs. Carlill's claim for euro
smoke ball co. Itd
100.
2. The Court also stated that deposit of euro 1000 in
the Alliance Bank by the smoke ball was company
evidence that the company had real intention to
enter into a legal relationship with anyone who
accepted the offer.
 3. An offer can also be made to the world at
is called a general offer and it is valid. In
large. t
the case
of a general offer, there is no need for
communicating acceptance to the offeror. Merely
fulfiling the conditions of the offer itself is treated
14. Torts acts in India as acceptance too create a contracct.
1. Torts are mostly a common law
subject; it is
commonlaw in the sense that tort law or the rules
of tort law developed not from a statute or
an act
passed by the 48 Parliament, but from
centuries
of judicial'decislons case by case in
English
courts as well as in
courts of other countries
following common law system like India
and the
United States ofAmerica.
2.There are no
statutes that
15. Donoghue with tort law as a separate comprehensively
area of law.
deal
vs Stevenson 1. The court held that the
owe a duty of reasonable
manufacturers of products
care to the consumers
who use the
2. The
products.
negligence on part of the manufacturer of the
soft drink resulted in the
illness or
injury to the
claimant.
3. The court held that the
manufacturer owed duty of
care to those who are
be affected by the 'reasonably foreseeable' to
owed
product. So the duty of care is
to those whom
one can
16. Absolute as being potentially harmed. reasonably foresee
Liability cases 1. We are of the view that
engaged in a hazardous orenterprise,
an
which is
industry, which poses a inherently dangerous
health and safety of the potential threat to the
persons working in the
factory and residing in the
owes an absolute and surrounding areas
non-delegable
community to ensure that duty to the
no harm results to
one on account of any
hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity
2. In which it is
engaged must be conducted with the
highest standards of safety and if
done on account of such any harm is
must be absolutely liable toactivity, the enterprise
harm and it should be no compensate for such
to say that it had answer to the enterprise
taken all reasonable care and
that the harm occurred
wlthout any negligence on
17. State of Its part."
Maharashtra vs 1. It was held in this
Mayor Hans George case that, "Mens rea by
necessary implication can be excluded from
a
statute only where it is absolutely clear that the
 dat large. It
the case implementationof the object of
otherwise be defeated
a statute
wou
and its exclusion ena
those put under strict
liability by their act or
Merely
eated Kartar Singh
vs
State of omission
1 : The
to assist the promotion oT tne mens
Supremé
Court held that the elen vision
/ P u n j a b

rea must be read into a statutory penal provsio

necessay
unless a statute either éxprssly or by
19.Re Sreerangayee case implication rules it out.
.The person doing the act is well aware of thne
or
his action
onseqyences or the outcomes of
omission.
That is all that is required for affixing crimina
t does not matter, say in ordinary
as we
ability. act done with good
language; whether an was
is 60
or bäd intent. if the'act which
irttent knowingly
prohibited reus) is done wilfully,
(actus consequences
or with awareness of the resulting
liability in criminal law.
then the same will cause
held to be a confession
20. Sahoo vs State of UP 1. The statement was

relevant in evidence, for it is

not necessary
for the

that it should be
relevancy of a confession
person.
communicated to some otherCourt
the Supreme of India has
21. Konkan railways Corp 1. On these lines, Conciliation
Arbitration and
Ltd vs Mehul Construction also affirmed that the
1996 was introduced in order to attract the
Co. Act,
international mercantile community.
that the
2. The Supreme Court has thus emphasised
Act should be interpreted and applied,
keeping
commercial s e n s e of the dispute in mind
the
(Konkan Railways Corp. Ltd. v. Mehul
Construction Co.(2000) 7 SCC 201)
1. Our judicature moulded by AngloAmerican
22. MH Hoskot Case models and our judicial process, engineered by
kindred legal technology, compel the
collaboration of lawyerpower or steering the
wheels of equal justice under the law.
 Extra points

Tal aut n lnaik.)

3 AudialiLamaskn - i i L Ltalkeh_