Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Landmark Judgement

    Uploaded by

    ssrivastva3004
    3 views7 pages

    Original Title

    LANDMARK JUDGEMENT

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    3 views7 pages

    Landmark Judgement

    Uploaded by

    ssrivastva3004

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 7
    yan 1 ge! NTS OF % NDMARK UDGME : ns COURT OF INDIA ' SUPREME C % THE i t ef Constitution are not distinct and rut Mad a lan Vv State 0! oxclus : ’ . or ee Sp tife and personel i ja Mills ¥ Union Pre unr aice 2h | gate of Parliament's amending power is limited andy, * Madhava, Menem iret for amending the Constittion this power cannot spective, O it jimited power. rast = No. egy the Constitution ame edl into an unlimited power- ghts guarantee ar Pradesh: 1964 ee chatri (ID v State of Bihar: 1981 ~ Stat Karak Singh v SW Tat of right Tile constitutionally Bound to provide free legal i Rh PT onstitralgent accused who are incapable v f Panjab: 1967-(Eleven POO se nth Sito Tanabe 1967 CINE? Gyeaging lawyer Judge Bene rar ioe ahs are eeep. Gupta v Union of India: 1581 - nek conor dent by Parliament. Independence of judiciary in appointment of judges iegesany sao Medes 102 | § Bere Singh v State of Punjab: 1982 - Jstfications for allowing caste based eewvations. Protection through Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the unreasonable «Madhav Jiwaji Rao Scindia v Union of india: 1970 - The order issued by the President of India derecognising the Rulers of former Indian states is ultra vires and illegal. ¢ Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala: 1973 = (Thirteen Judges Bench) An amendment to the Constitution is not “aw”, and to the extent that it does not violate the basic structure of the ‘Constitution, it is valid. ‘¢ Shamsher Singh v State of Punjab: 1974 - Neither the President nor the Governor is to exercise the executive functions personally. ¢ Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society v State of Gujarat: 1974 ~ Right of minorities: Articles ‘2B and 30 are not mutually exclusive. + Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain: 1975 ~ Right to free and fair elections is a basic feature of the Constitution. ad = enn v S. Shukla: 1976 — Right to roach court under Articles 14, 21 and 2 remain suspended during, the Emergency, ae 4+ Rev Siainisiaus v State of Madhya hya Pradesh: 1977 - Prohibition of conversion by foren fraud and 1877 -Proibion of conversion by free fraud an + Maneka Gandhi y Uni rubs Gi Inion of India; 1978 — mental rights conferred by Part IIL of the Constitution against arbitrary Cofns of the executive and judiciary. Normaly punishment for offence of murder is sonietct of lit Fimprisonment; the court can depart from that rule and impose death sentence if there are special reasons for doing so. Such reasons must be recorded in writing. + DS. Nakara v Union of India: 1983 ~ Or fairness and equity of treatment as per Article 14 Machhi Singh v State of Punjab: 1983 - Categories of rarest of rare cases deserving death sentences ‘¢ Indian Express Newspapers v Union of India: 1985 - Nature and extent of restrictions possible on freedom of speech and expression. + State of Himachal Pradesh v A Parent of a Student: 1985 — If in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), even letter can be treated as a writ petition, + Mohd, Ahmed Khan y Shah Bano Begum: 498g — State's initiative demanded in making uniform civil cadle. + Olga Tellis v Hombay Municipal Corporation; 1985 — Allowed! petitioners to live on pavemtents ang in slums in city of Bombay to stay andl ele that righe to livelihood fy a right to life as per Article 21 ang one's fundamental right cannot be waived, Landmark Judgments of the Supreme Court of India 4 Bijoe Emmanuel v State of Kerala: 1986 ~ eligious beliefs permits one not to sing the rational anthem. y Kehar Singh v Union of India: 1986 ~ ‘dent of India’s clemency power tinder Article Power of the President to even review the Gecision of the Supreme Court, AR. Antulay v RS. Nayak: 1988 — The ower to enlarge jurisdiction is legislative in Frracter, 0 also the power to confer the right of Sppealor take away a right of appeal. » Sodan Singh v New Delhi Municipal Corporation: 1989 ~ On the legitimate use of roads by citizens; street trading is a fundamental right. 4 Indra Sawhney v Union of India: 1992- For the purpose of reservation, backward classes can be jdentified on the basis of caste; creamy layer must be excluded; reservation shall not exceed 50%; no reservation in promotions. ¢ Kihotta Hollohan v Zachillhu: 1992 — Anti- defection law is not violative of any rights or freedom or the basic structure of parliamentary democracy. 4 Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. -y Union of India: 1993 — Role of the Supreme Court and independence of the judiciary in appointment of judges. + SR. Bommai v Union of India: 1994 — Conditions under which state governments may be + Rajgopal v State of Tamil Nadu, 1994 - In this Auto Shankar case, SC held that right to privacy subsisted even if a matter becomes of public record and only the information appearing in public record canbe accessed, even without his consent. + L.Chandrakumar v Union of India: 1995 ~ Power for review by the Supreme and High Courts is part ofthe basic structure of the Constitution. + C. Masilamani Mudaliar v Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami Swaminathaswami Thirukoil: 1996 ~ Right of women to elimination of gender based discrimination particularly in respect of Property, __ * Gian Kaur v State of Punjab: 1996 — Right to life does not include right to die. ms Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of ace 1996 - On curbing industrial pollution and forcement of “polluter pays” principle. 7h 13 legally cote nae v Union of India: 1997 - Md colected lax is ot the property ofthe sate ‘Abseasts ‘tide the ‘i — power of the state. free lis the right to seek refund of taxes ally and unauthorisedly collected, + DAK Basu v State of West Bengal: 1997 ~ Guidelines to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention. ¢ Vishaka v State of Rajasthan: 1997 ~ Right of working women to dignity and safety. Guidelines to prevent harassment of women at their place of work and Vishaka Guidelines were issued. ¢ Dinesh Trivedi y Union of India: 1997 — Citizens’ right to know about decisions and actions of the government. « M.C. Mehta v Kamal Nath: 1997 — Public Trust Doctrine is part of the Indian law (Ecology). ¢ PUCL v Union of India: 1997 ~ Right under Article 19(1)(a) includes right to hold telephone conversations in privacy. @ West Bengal Housing Board v Brijendra: 1997 ~ Supreme Court not to interfere in matters of policy unless the action of the government is ‘unconstitutional or ultra vires or arbitrary, irrational or in abuse of power. © "X""'v “Z" Hospital: 1998 — AIDS patient does not have right to marry till cured; right to privacy is not absolute. ¢ Gita Hariharan v Reserve Bank of India: 1999 ~ Mother's right to be the natural guardian in spite of the father being alive. @ State of Karnataka vy State of AP: 2000 — Right of water is a right to life. Danial Latifi v Union of India: 2001 — On the constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. ¢N. Adithyan y Travancore Devaswom Board: 2002 - On whether only Brahmins could be ordained as priests in certain temples in Kerala. ¢ TMA Pai Foundation v State of Karnataka: 2002 - States/Universities cannot regulate admission of students and staff recruitment by minority unaided educational institutions. States/ Universities can specify qualifications for ensuring academic standard. ¢ Rupa Ashok Hurra On allowing curative petition after the dismissal v Ashok Hurra: 2002 — lof iW the review petition on the final judgment of the pacers Biswas v Indian Institute of zs arena 2002 = Multiple test for soot ag. whether a pattictlar Corporation oF vices ye held tobe itchuded! within the definition of “slate” wndor Article 12 of the Constitution, P.A. Inamdar y State of Maharashtra: 2005 * Right to impart education is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g); rights of minority unaided cexiucational institutions. ¢ Islamic Academy of Education v State of Kamataka: 2006 - Rights of minorities under Article 30(1) is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions. + M. Nagaraj v Union of India: 2006 - Equality of treatment under Article 14; State not bound to make reservation for SCs/ST’s in matters of promotion. + LR. Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu: 2007 ~ Power of the judiciary to review laws which destroy or damage the basic structure of the Constitution even when such laws are inserted in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. + Ashok Kumar Thakur v UOI: 2008 ~ On the validity of the Constitution Amendment (93rd) Act reserving 27% seats to OBC students in institutions of higher learning, + All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v State of Tamil Nadu: 2009 _ Impermissibility of bandh, « Malay Kumar Ganguly vy Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee: 2009 - Hospitals knowingly failing in Patients would amount to medical malpractice + Amarinder Sin, 2010 - On privileges of the Hous csrcise of power by the State Legi of misconduct by any member, ¢ State Of Maharashtra y Sangharaj Damodar Ruparwate: 2030 ~ Guidelines tu be followed while Passing orders for forfeiture/impounding, of books, 3 SelM y State of Karnataka: 2010 M aka: 2010 ~ Meaniny and scope of “self incriminationy yaa Polygraph and pirap Interrogation violative ¢ and improper islature on issues Marco analysis, ‘ests are methods of Of Article 21, igh v Punjab Vidhan Sabha: Legal Gener, > Al Kny | Mor) ) + 8. Kushboo v Kaniammat; 9 ty, and criminality not to be treated gg” Mon Morally provocative statements Whicker make out any offence cannot subj me interference under criminal law, Feta ¢ Bhabani Prasad Jena y Orissa Commission for Women: 2010 ~ pia ‘, allowed only when a strong prima facie cage eminent need is made out for such a cour # State of West Bengal v Committee fe Protection of Democratic Rights: 2019 _ ¢," powers of the constitutional courts with sepa the enforcement of fundamental rights, & + CBSE v Aditya Bandopadhyaya: 2914 _ Interpretation of the Right to Information ‘he Examinee’s right includes the right to inspections his evaluated answer books. + Nandini Sundar v State of Chhattisgay 2011 - Appointment of illiterate tribal youth 35 Special Police Officers to fight ‘salwa judum’ counter Maoists unconstitutional; violate Articles Mand 21. ¢ Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v Union of India: 2011 - Guidelines for passive euthanasia, Centre for Public Interest Litigation v Union of India: 2012 — While distributing natura resources, the State is bound to act in consonance with principles of equality and public trust and ensure that no action is taken which may be detrimental to public interest, * Vodafone International Holdings BV v Union of India: 2012 - Indian tax authorities does not have jurisdiction to impose tax on off — shore transaction between two non ~ resident companies even when the purpose of the transaction isto acquite Indian assets of the foreign company, # Society of Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v Union of India: 2012 — Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Educa 2009 is constitutionally valid; the Act as on hae ‘ot apply to unaided minority schools, shall ¢ Bharat Aluminium Co. v Kaiser Alumni Technical Service Inc,, (2012) 9 SCC 559 Interim Injunction is not Maintainable in the Basis of an International ration with a seat Outside India, + Novertis AG v Union of Indi: ‘1311 ~ Evergreening of Patents, tia on Mercia] 3 AIR 2015 sh Ma al the Supreme Court of India anamark Judgments of the Sup of Kumar Koushal v NAZ Foundation, ¢ Surect No, 10972 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP civil APPei36 of 2009). Decided on 11-12-2013 - (© No. onal Validity of Section 377 of IPC. sSpabnam Hashmi v Union of India, Writ (civil) No. 470 of 2005. Decided on 19-2- of gts of a Muslim to Adopt Child. tional Legal Services Authority v Union dis, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 400 of 2012. of tged on 5-4-2014 — Recognition of Transgender ind Gender. asTM ian Bank Association v Union of India, * Petition (Civil) No. 18 of 2013. Decided on Wait 4 — Direction Issued for Disposal of Cases ao to Dishonour of Cheques. ae eepree Court — Advocates-on-Record ation v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) f 2015. Decided on 16-12-2015 ~ National 45 al Commission (NJAC) Unconstitutional as it nes Basi Sructre sf Cana itrt n Shreya Singhal v Union of India, Writ petition (Criminal) 167 of 2012. Decided on 24-3- sats - Section 66. of the Information Technology ‘Act, 2000 relating to Restrictions of Online Speech sirick Down and Declared Unconstitutional. on Grounds of Violating the Freedom of Speech Guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. + Anita Kushwaha v Pushpa Sudan - By invoking Articles 32, 136 and 142, SC is empowered to transfer a case from a Court in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to a Court outside the State or vice versa + Jeeja Ghosh v Union of India, (decided on 1252016) ~ Persons with disability are equal in dignity and entitled to enjoy the same human rights and freedom as others. * Subramanian Swamy v Union of India, (decided on 13-5-2016) - Criminal defamation Proceedings for offence under section 500, IPC is not unconstitutional. * State Bank of India v Santosh Gupta, (decided on 16-12-2016) - The State of Jammu & shmir has no vestige of sovereignty outside the Cousttuton of India and its own Constitution, ich is subordinate of the Constitution of India. one Balakram y State of Uttarakhand (decided to22017 ~ The denial of right to the accused 'nspect the case diary cannot be characterised as, . petiti oie ¢ Nal 15 unreasonable or arbitrary, The confidentiality is always kept in the matter of investigation and is not desirable to make available the police diary to the accused on his demand, my: + In re: Hon'ble Justice C.S. Karnan, (decided on 9-5-2017) ~ Justice Karnan held for the contempt of Court, and of the judiciary of the Bravest nature, + Binoy Viswam v Union of India, (decided on 9-6-2017) ~ It is mandatory for all Aadhar Card holders to link it with their Permanent Account Number (PAN) for filing of income tax returns. # Rajesh Sharma v State of U.P. (decided on 27-7-2017) — Directions to prevent misuse of Section 498A IPC, 1860 issued by the Supreme Court * Shayara Bano v Union of India, (decided on 22-8-2017) - Triple Talaq practice (Talag-e-biddat) held unconstitutional. # Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (decided on 24-8-2017) - Right to privacy is a fundamental right. The decisions in M.P. Sharma and Kharak Singh were overruled, had repercussions on previous decisions particularly the controversial decision in Naz Foundation. @ Amardeep Singh v Harveen Kaur, (decided on 12-9-2017) ~ Supreme Court held that the period. mentioned in section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 is not mandatory but directory. It will be open to the Court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case where there is no possibility of parties resuming cohabitation and there are chances of alternative rehabilitation. ¢ Shyam Narayan Chouksey v Union of India & Ors. (decided on 09-01-2018) ~ A three judge bench of the Supreme Court modified its 30 November 2016 interim.order which had made it mandatory for the cinema halls to play national anthem and held that from now onwards it will not be mandatory for cinema halls to play the National Anthem. @ S. Sukumar v The Secretary, Institute of Chartered Accountants in India, February 2018 - On 23 February, a two judge bench directed formation of a Committee of Experts to monitor the functioning of ‘Mult-national Accounting Firms (MAFS). ¢ Common Cause (A Registered. Society) v Union of Indian (Passive euthanasia — is permissible, Living Wills, and the Right to Die with Dignity), WP (Civil) 215 of 2005, March 2018 —On 9 March 2018, a five-judge Constitution Bench, werent of NCT *, «civil Appeal 35 of India (Civ! rch rule + Go y Union eet ;, 2018, the fiv : ae jg bound by the aid a ‘Council of Ministers. nawalla v U! Union of India, the Lt d advice of inion © we (civil) 754 ‘The Supreme

    You might also like