Upload Date - 1/14/2019 - Supreme Court of India

Ashish Jain versus Makrand Singh and Others, 2019

Section 27-Indian Evidence Act- Recovery Obtained by coerced confessional statement is illegal - If confessional statement is made under section 27, Indian Evidence Act is under undue pressure and compulsion from the investigating officer, the evidentiary value of such a statement leading to the recovery is nullified. -  PARA 21 OF JUDGMENT

Upload Date - 5/9/2021 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Versus State of Maharashtra and others , CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 330 OF 2021 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

We caution the High Courts again against passing such orders of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be taken” till the investigation is completed and the final report is filed, while not entertaining quashing petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Upload Date - 1/3/2017 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Kishore Bhadke vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 January, 2017

This Court has held that a joint disclosure or simultaneous disclosures, per se, are not inadmissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Joint or simultaneous disclosure is a myth, because two or more accused persons would not have uttered informatory words in chorus.

Upload Date - 11/26/2013 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Indra Sarma vs V.K.V.Sarma on 26 November, 2013

All live-in- relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage. Live-in partners not entitled to protection if one of the partner has a subsisting marriage

Upload Date - 1/6/2020 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Sk. Md. Rafique v. Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania High Madrasah and Others, Civil Appeal No.5808 OF 2017, Dated-January 6, 2020, New Delhi

Held - No Absolute Right Of Appointment For Minority Educational Institutions

Upload Date - 1/29/2020 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Sushila Aggarwal and others Versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another, SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NOS.7281­7282/2017, Dated -January 29, 2020, New Delhi;

Held that no time limit could be fixed while granting anticipatory bail

Upload Date - 1/10/2020 - Supreme Court of India

ANURADHA BHASIN VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1031 OF 2019 -Dated- JANUARY 10, 2020, New Delhi

Internet Shutdown & Restrictions under Section 144, Cr.P.C. in Kashmir Case

Upload Date - 11/27/2020 - Supreme Court of India

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 27 Nov 2020

There was a failure of the High Court to discharge its adjudicatory function at two levels – first in declining to evaluate prima facie at the interim stage in a petition for quashing the FIR as to whether an arguable case has been made out, and secondly, in declining interim bail, as a consequence of its failure to render a prima facie opinion on the first. The High Court did have the power to protect the citizen by an interim order in a petition invoking Article 226. Where the High Court has failed to do so, this Court would be abdicating its role and functions as a constitutional court if it refuses to interfere, despite the parameters for such interference being met. The doors of this Court cannot be closed to a citizen who is able to establish prima facie that the instrumentality of the State is being weaponized for using the force of criminal law. Our courts must ensure that they continue to remain the first line of defense against the deprivation of the liberty of citizens. Deprivation of liberty even for a single day is one day too many. We must always be mindful of the deeper systemic implications of our decisions.

Upload Date - 11/4/2020 - Supreme Court of India

Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020 (Decided on 04/11/2020)

General Guidelines and Directions - I. Issue of Overlapping Jurisdictions , II. Payment of interim maintenance, III. Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance, IV. Date from which Maintenance to be awarded, V. Enforcement of orders of maintenance, VI. Final Directions

Upload Date - 11/6/2019 - Supreme Court of India

DELHI POLICE NON-GAZETTEDKARMCHARI SANGH & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Dated - 20/11/1986

WHETHER NON-GAZETTED MEMBERS OF THE DELHI POLICE FORCE CAN FORM UNION UNDER ARTICLE 19(1)(C) OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Upload Date - 9/27/2018 - Supreme Court of India

Joseph Shine vs. Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No.194/2017

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.
 

Upload Date - 10/31/2010 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

T.M.A Pai Foundation & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 31 October, 2002

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.

Upload Date - 8/22/2017 - Supreme Court of India

Shayara Bano Versus Union of India and others, Writ Petition (C) No. 118 of 2016

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".

Upload Date - 10/31/2017 - DELHI HIGH COURT

SHANTA KUMAR Versus COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC ANDINDUSTRIAL RESEARCH (CSIR) & ORS

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.”

Upload Date - 3/21/2006 - Supreme Court of India

Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli - DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/03/2006

 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.

Upload Date - 3/23/2017 - Supreme Court of India

Ram Kishan Fauji Versus State of Haryana and Ors.

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

Upload Date - 8/3/2012 - Supreme Court of India

Dayal Singh & Ors. Versus State of Uttaranchal

In this important case Hon'ble decided three important issue -

1.  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?

2. Depending upon the answer to the  above,  what  directions  should  be issued by the courts of competent jurisdiction?

3. 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

Upload Date - 4/24/1992 - Supreme Court of India

MADAN GOPAL KAKKAD Vs. NAVAL DUBEY AND ANR

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.

Upload Date - 1/2/2017 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Abhiram Singh V. C.D. Commachen (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS , New Delhi, January 02, 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

Upload Date - 7/4/2003 - Andhra Pradesh High Court

Avon Organics Ltd. vs Poineer Products Ltd. And Ors. on 4 July, 2003

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT held-  "I am of considered view that the cheque issued without mentioning the amount for which it is drawn is not a cheque at all. It is not a bill of exchange at all as it is not drawn for a certain amount. When such is the thing, the question of invoking Section 138 of the Act does not arise". 

Upload Date - 2/20/2010 - Bombay High Court

Ramkrishna Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Maliwada, Ahmednagar v. Shri Rajendra Bhagchand Warma 2010

Bombay High Court held - Banks cannot prosecute borrowers under section 138, Negotiable Instrument Act, if blank post-dated cheques issued by them as collateral security are dishonoured. The court upheld the acquittal of Ahmednagar resident Rajendra Warma, who was prosecuted after a blank cheque issued by him for a loan was dishonoured. ​

''It is doubtful if the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can apply to a case in which a blank or post-dated cheque is obtained by a bank or money lender before or while sanctioning or disbursing loan amounts as security for the loan,'' said Justice P R Borkar. The order is likely to come as a huge setback to lending agencies who ask borrowers to deposit blank post-dated cheques as security. ''Law-makers must not have intended or imagined that money lenders or banks would obtain blank or post-dated cheques while sanctioning/disbursing loans as securities and would use them to make debtors/borrowers repay the loan under threat of prosecution and punishment (under the cheque-bouncing law),'' added the judge".
 

Upload Date - 11/30/2016 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MUKARRAB ETC. Versus STATE OF U.P.

BONE OSSIFICATION TEST MEDICAL IS NOT CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF AGE- Medical evidence as to the age of a person though a very useful guiding factor is not conclusive and has to be considered along with other circumstances. Bench said "We hold that ossification test cannot be regarded as conclusive when it comes to ascertaining the age of a person"

Upload Date - 11/30/2016 - Supreme Court of India

SHYAM NARAYAN CHOUKSEY Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s)

NATIONAL ANTHEM CASE- it is the duty of every person to show respect when the National Anthem is played or recited or sung. Apex court passed following directions -

(a) There shall be no commercial exploitation to give financial advantage or any kind of benefit.

(b) There shall not be dramatization of the National Anthem and it should not be included as a part of any variety show.

(c) Not be printed on any object and also never be displayed in such a manner at such places which  may be disgraceful to its status and tantamount to disrespect. 

(d) All the cinema halls in India shall play the National Anthem before the feature film starts and all present in the hall are obliged to stand up to show respect to the National Anthem. 

(e) Prior to the National Anthem is played or sung in the cinema hall on the screen, the entry and exit doors shall remain closed so that no one can create any kind of disturbance which will amount to disrespect to the National Anthem. After the National Anthem is played or sung, the doors can be opened. 

(f) When the National Anthem shall be played in the Cinema Halls, it shall be with the National Flag on the screen. 

(g) The abridge version of the National Anthem made by any one for whatever reason shall not be played or displayed.

Upload Date - 11/22/2016 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

RAMESH AND OTHERS V. STATE OF HARYANA , CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2526 OF 2014

CONVICTION DESPITE WITNESS TURNED HOSTILE-

it is held by Apex court "In my fieldwork experiences, witnesses become “hostile” not only when  they are directly implicated in a case filed by the police, but  also  when  they are on the side of the plaintiff's  party. During  the  often  rather  long period that elapses between the police investigation and the  trial  itself, often observed, the party who has lodged the complaint  (and  who  becomes the main witness) can irreparably compromise the case with the  other  party by means of compensation, threat or blackmail."

The State has a definite role to play in protecting the  witnesses,  to start with at least in sensitive cases involving those  in  power, who  has political patronage and could wield muscle and money power, to  avert  trial getting tainted and derailed and truth becoming a casualty. As  a  protector of its citizens it has to ensure that during a trial in  Court  the  witness could safely depose truth  without  any  fear  of  being  haunted  by  those against whom he had deposed. Every State  has  a  constitutional  obligation and duty to protect the life and  liberty  of  its  citizens.

Upload Date - 11/26/2013 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Indra Sarma Versus V.K.V. Sarma , New Delhi, November 26, 2013

•   Live-in or marriage like relationship is neither a  crime  nor  a  sin though socially unacceptable in this country.   The  decision  to  marry  or not to marry or to have a heterosexual relationship is  intensely  personal.
•   We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether  a  “live-in relationship” would amount to a “relationship in  the  nature  of  marriage” falling within the definition of “domestic relationship” under Section  2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short  “the DV Act”) and the disruption of such a relationship by failure to maintain  a women involved in such a relationship amounts to “domestic violence”  within the meaning of Section 3 of the DV Act.