Teeter yy Top 10 Landmark Judgements of Human Rights Law in Indio ‘TOP 10 LAND!A i yy, | i ak meter | | Hh i {} i i; f tsonal law was dis ee rsa laws) was most rain \ Un this cle, the court jected he hes thee olnerved that intoductioh of Canstinsional i the howe ( F _? Mohd Abed Man Shah Bane begum, 1985 | i || Subject: Right co maintenance | \ Hl Haye Ai Why 4 Heb ell ee Hehe Cr al ter Sb Sn ge alimony which the Muslim community felt as an feeroachment on Muon Shai aw The Heifon af he ease led t0 SST ee te eee Hi a || HHWM MA Nila tay 3 MC Meda Union of 6 Ha htiiid My ly Subject: Right to Life PTT ribald ia \ WHHL Riibaddbbi MC Mehta fled a Public Interest Litigation for escape of felohi estoy plant io Bhopal The cout in this case srrcaded the scope of Aric 21 sh 3 ft Contin of Ina. The cn alo 10s as Bhopal Gas! Tragedy, POAT de bid , ' PH MAN AN ii , Aid id 4. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985, TVA HAH Ui WNL Subject: Right to Life ML] ‘This case came before the Supreme Court as a writ petition. 5 judge-bench gave decision allowing petitioners who live on pavements and in slums in the city of Bombay to stay on the pavements against their order of eviction. The court also held that tight to livelihood is a right to life as per Article 21.AY My a HN ky, Nie Put OM th "5. Sarla Mudgal Union of India, 1995 7 ' 4. Subject Women’s Rights | “ i 21 0ARE dab ‘The Court held tharif a Hindu converss so Muslim and then havea second martiage, he cannot do s0,isespectve of the fact that polygamy is allowed ia! Tslamie Law) 5 00" 6. Vishaka State of Rajasthan, 1997 Subject: Working conditions for women einiployees! inner “This case came before'the Supreme Court as a Public Interest Litigation against State of Rajasthan and Union of India by Vishaiha and other women groups, The petiioners demanded enforcement fundamental eights for working women under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constinyion. For this, Vishaka Guidelines were issued, The judgment also provided basic definitions of sexual harkssment at the workplace along with provided guidelines to deal with the same.iVae Ny, ates 7.Naz foundation ¥. NCT, 2009 . Subject: Rights of LGBTs ‘The court decriminalized sexual activities “against the order of nature” which included homosexual acts, as per Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. But this judgement was overruled in 2013 by the Supreme Court of India. 8. Selvi v. State of Karnataka, 2010 " Subject: Rights of transgender ‘The apex court in the following case held brain mapping, lie detector tests and narco analysis as unconsticutional and violative Article 20 (3) of Fundamental Rights. It observed that these techniques cannot be conducted forcefully on any individual and requires consent for the same. When they arc conducted with consent, the material so obtained is regarded as evidence during tial of cases according to Section 27 of the Evidence Act.Hp i Nile: iia. ile, he ‘ ‘et Ni Avni hea Wingy Sern te = oie dt aloe pote a ili, My, iy iad , i Wi Hl ibe ist ve itt mat ign Fig Ny fi "hy 16S ga mL EPMA Hy ‘ i aly ly, i, "i til NAAM , MW MA i yh Wily re) My