List of Important Leading Judgements
DELHI POLICE NON-GAZETTEDKARMCHARI SANGH & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Dated - 20/11/1986
Supreme Court of IndiaUpload Date - 11/6/2019
WHETHER NON-GAZETTED MEMBERS OF THE DELHI POLICE FORCE CAN FORM UNION UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(C) OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Joseph Shine vs. Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No.194/2017
Supreme Court of IndiaUpload Date - 9/27/2018
Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are violative of Articles 14, 15(1), and 21 of the Constitution of India.
T.M.A Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 31 October, 2002
SUPREME COURT OF INDIAUpload Date - 10/31/2010
WHAT ARE MINORITY INSTITUTION- REQUIREMENT TO ESTABLISH MINORITY INSTITUTIONS- All citizens have a right to establish and administer educational institutions under Articles 19(1)(g) and 26, but this right is subject to the provisions of Articles 19(6) and 26(a). However, minority institutions will have a right to admit students belonging to the minority group.
Shayara Bano Versus Union of India and others, Writ Petition (C) No. 118 of 2016
Supreme Court of IndiaUpload Date - 8/22/2017
Hon'ble Supreme Court held "Talaq is manifestly arbitrary in the sense that the marital tie can be broken capriciously and whimsically by a Muslim man without any attempt at reconciliation so as to save it. This form of Talaq must, therefore, be held to be violative of the fundamental right contained under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, therefore, the 1937 Act, insofar as it seeks to recognize and enforce Triple Talaq, is within the meaning of the expression “laws in force” in Article 13(1) and must be struck down as being void to the extent that it recognizes and enforces Triple Talaq".
SHANTA KUMAR Versus COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC ANDINDUSTRIAL RESEARCH (CSIR) & ORS
DELHI HIGH COURTUpload Date - 10/31/2017
Mere Physical Contact does not amount to Sexual Harassment-
Delhi High Court held -"The Complaint Committee concluded that respondent no.3 might have held the petitioner’s arm and thrown the material in her hand in a fit of anger; although, the said incident may be a case of harassment and is deplorable, the same would not qualify as a sexual harassment. Plainly, all physical contact cannot be termed as sexual harassment and only a physical contact or advances which are in the nature of an “unwelcome sexually determined behavior” would amount to sexual harassment.”
Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli - DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/03/2006
Supreme Court of IndiaUpload Date - 3/21/2006
Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is a ground for the grant of divorce- Supreme Court of India in its landmark judgment held that -Before we part with this case, on the consideration of the totality of facts, this Court would like to recommend the Union of India to seriously consider bringing an amendment in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to incorporate irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for the grant of divorce. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, Government of India for taking appropriate steps.
Ram Kishan Fauji Versus State of Haryana and Ors.
Supreme Court of IndiaUpload Date - 3/23/2017
The Supreme Court has held that an intra-court appeal cannot be filed before a division bench of the high court if a single judge has passed the order in a criminal case
Dayal Singh & Ors. Versus State of Uttaranchal
Supreme Court of IndiaUpload Date - 8/3/2012
In this important case Hon'ble decided three important issue -
Where acts of omission and commission, deliberate or otherwise, are committed by the investigating agency or other significant witnesses instrumental in proving the offence, what approach, in appreciation of evidence, should be adopted?
Depending upon the answer to the above, what directions should be issued by the courts of competent jurisdiction?
Whenever there is some conflict in the eye-witness version of events and the medical evidence, what effect will it have on the case of the prosecution and what would be the manner in which the Court should appreciate such evidence?
HELD- WHERE THERE IS AN INCONSISTENCY WITH MEDICAL EVIDENCE (POST MORTEM) AND EYE WITNESS, THE RELIABLE TESTIMONY OF EYE WITNESS SHALL PREVIAL - REFER PARA 11 AND 12 OF JUDGMENT
MADAN GOPAL KAKKAD Vs. NAVAL DUBEY AND ANR
Supreme Court of IndiaUpload Date - 4/24/1992
The medical officer should mention the negative facts in his report, but should not give his opinion that no rape had been committed. Rape is crime and not a medical condition. Rape is a legal term and not a diagnosis to be made by the medical officer treating the victim. The only statement that can be made by the medical officer is that there is evidence of recent sexual activity. Whether the rape has occurred or not is a legal conclusion, not a medical one.
Abhiram Singh V. C.D. Commachen (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS , New Delhi, January 02, 2017
SUPREME COURT OF INDIAUpload Date - 1/2/2017
SEEKING VOTES ON GROUND OF RELIGION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL -
Hon'ble Supreme Court ban on seeking votes over religion, race or caste. Held- “religion, race, caste, community or language would not be allowed to play any role in the electoral process”. Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act defines as “corrupt practice” appeals made by a candidate or his agents to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of “his” religion, race, caste, community or language. The Constitution forbids state from mixing religion with politics,” ruled a seven-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice T.S. Chief Justice Thakur, judges S.A. Bobde, Adarsh Kumar Goel and L. Nageswara Rao and Madan B. Lokur formed the majority opinion. Three judges—Adarsh Kumar Goel, U.U. Lalit and D.Y. Chandrachud—argued against it maintaining this was the prerogative of Parliament