LATEST CASE LAWS

1. Krishna Kumar Singh & Anr vs. State of Bihar & Ors Re-
promulgation of “Ordinance” is fraud and a subversion of
democratic legislative process. Articles 123 and 213. The decision
was given by a 7 judge bench of the Supreme Court.
2. Abhiram Singh vs. C.D. Commachen (Dead) by LRS and Ors. Section
123(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act. Seeking votes on the
basis of caste, religion or community amounted to corrupt
practices under section 123 of People’s representation Act.
3. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy vs. Sushil Ansal and
Another – Ansal was Sentenced after a long period of judicial
determination of his guilt...
4. Hussain and Anr. vs. UOI- Supreme Court directed disposal of Bail
pleas within one week. Speedy trial is a part of Article 21.
5. State of Tamilnadu vs. K Balu- There is no fundamental right to
carry on business in liquor since as a matter of constitutional
doctrine, Article 19(1) (g) does not extend to trade in liquor which
is consistently regarded as res extra commercium( a things beyond
commerce).
6. Deepa vs. Union of India (Reservation for OBC, SC and ST) - OBC
SC ST can qualify in general category provided that he/ she has not
taken special benefit of reserved category for example- age
relaxation or more attempt etc.
7. State (through) CBI vs. Sri Kalyan Singh (Former CM of UP) &Ors. -
Supreme Court restored criminal conspiracy charges against senior
BJP leaders L.K.Adwani, Uma Bharati, Murali Manohar Joshi and 13
Others.

Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

 8. Pawan kumar vs. State of H.P. Appeal of the convict was dismissed
and the court held out Right to reject of woman. SC said a woman
has an individual choice which has been legally recognized. It has
to be socially respected. No one can compel a women to love. She
has absolute right to reject.”
9. Mukesh and Anr.vs. State for NCT of Delhi- Delhi Nirbhaya Gang
Rape Case. Death sentence was upheld.
10. Suo-Motu Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1 Of 2017 In The Matter
Of:- In Re, Hon’ble Shri Justice C.S. Karnan - The sentence of six
months imposed by this Court on Sri Justice C.S. Karnan, shall be
executed forthwith, by the Director General of Police, West
Bengal, or through a team constituted by him.
11. Binoy Viswam vs. UOI - SC upheld constitutional validity of section
139AA of Income Tax Act which made mandatory linkage of IT
returns with AADHAAR subject to the outcome of main case
related to AADHAAR.
12. Bimolangshu Roy(Dead) Through LRs vs. State of Assam vs.
Another Assam Parliamentary Secretaries (Appointment, Salaries,
Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004. Supreme
Court declared this Act as unconstitutional. The Court held that
Article 194 of the Constitution of India does not expressly
authorize the State Legislature to create the office of
Parliamentary secretary.
13. Rajesh Sharma &Ors vs. State of UP and Anr. - Supreme Court laid
down exhaustive guidelines regarding section 498A of IPC, 1860.
14. Rakesh kumar Paul vs. State of Assam- Right to get ‘default bail’
under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C..

Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

 15. Shayara Bano vs.UOI (Triple Talaq Case)- Practice of Triple Talaq is
unconstitutional.
16. Justice K.S.Puttaswami (Retd.) and Anr. vs. UOI and Ors. (Right to
privacy is fundamental rights) - Right to privacy is fundamental
rights. In a unanimous decision, a nine-judge Constitution Bench
overruled the Judgment in MP Sharma and Kharak Singh Case.
17. Independent Thought vs. Union Of India & Anr. (Rape with wife) -
Section 375 Exception 2 is arbitrary to Articles 14, 15 & 21 of the
Constitution of India. Now in all cases, sexual intercourse with a
women including wife, if she is below the age of 18 years, is rape.
18. Ms. Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India through Secretary
general &Ors- Guidelines/norms for designation of ‘Senior
Advocate’ by the Supreme Court and all High Courts of this country
were laid down.
19. 101st Constitutional Amendment- Goods and Services Tax
20. Kamini Jaiswal Vs. Union Of India & anr. (Master of Roster) It was
held that CJI alone had the power to assign the case to a bench
even if there were allegations in the matter against him.
21. (Prasad Institute of Medical Science, Lucknow Case).
22. Dr.S.Rajaseekaran(II) vs.Union of India & Ors.- Guidelines for
safety of road accident (1) Road safety policy, (2)State Road Safety
Council (3)Load Agency(4)Road Safety Fund(5)Road Safety Action
Plan(6)District Road Safety Committee(7)Engineering
Improvement(8)Traffic Calming Measures(9)Road Sefty Audit etc.
25 guidelines were laid down.
23. Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) vs. UOI
and Others
Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]
 24. Writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.25 (Twenty five) lakhs to
be deposited by petitioner before the Registry of this Court within
six weeks where after said amount shall be transferred to the
Supreme Court Bar Association Advocate’ Welfare fund.
25. Ashok Pandey vs. Supreme Court of India Through Its Registrar
&Ors. - From an institutional perspective the Chief Justice is placed
at the helm of the Supreme Court. In the allocation of cases and
the constitution of benches the Chief Justice has an exclusive
prerogative. As a repository of constitutional trust, the Chief
Justice is an institution in himself.
26. Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M. (Hadia Case) Akhila converted into
Hadiya.- Right to choose is a fundamental rights. SC has restored
the marriage of Hadiya with Shafin Jahan, 10 months after the
Kerala high court annulled it.
27. Common Cause (A Regd. Society) Vs. Union of India and Another -
Misuse of Public Interest Litigation. PIL has become industry of
vested interests.
28. CBI vs. Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh (Ram Rahim Case) - Convicted
for Rape
29. State (ThroughC.B.I.) vs. Shri Lalu Prasad and Anr. Lalu Yadav Case
– Convicted for fodder scam.
30. Salman Case- Blackbuck Poaching Case, Five Years Jail. He was sent
to Jodhpur Jail.
31. State of Rajasthan vs. Asharam and Anr. (Aasharam Case)-
Aasharam was convicted for committing rape of minor.
32. Navtej singh Johar vs. Union of India- section 377 of IPC which
criminalized homosexuality is unconstitutional.

Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

 33. Suresh kaushal vs. union of India- Section 377 is legal and is
constitutional.
34. NAAZ Foundation vs. Delhi NCT – Section 377 is unconstitutional
and hence has no force. It violates the fundamental rights of a
person and is illegal.

Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

 1. NJAC (S.C Judges selection) held unconstitutional - Supreme Court
Advocates on Record Association vs. Union of India
2. Yakub Memon terrorist 1993 blasts midnight hearing - Yakub
Abdul Razak Memon vs. State of Maharashtra
3. Section 66A IT Act struck down by S.C- 66A affected Indian citizens'
right to free speech. - Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India
4. No compromise in Rape cases - State of MP vs. Madanlal
5. Unwed mother can become sole guardian of a child - ABC vs. State
(NCT of Delhi)
6. Uphaar Verdict - SushilAnsal vs. State through CBI
7. Award Compensation to the victim of crime - Manohar Singh vs.
State of Rajasthan
8. Section 364A IPC awarding death penalty not unconstitutional -
Vikram Singh vs. Union of India
9. States cannot unilaterally grant remission - Union of India vs.
Sriharan
10. Minimum Edu Qualification rule for Panchayat elections upheld -
Rajbala vs. State of Haryana
11. Women can be manager of a Joint Family - Shreya Vidyarthi vs.
Ashok Vidyarthi
12. Complete Departmental inquiries within six months - PremNath
Bali vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi
13. RBI also under RTI - Reserve Bank of India vs. JayantilalMistry
14. Acid Attack Victims in disability list - Parivartan Kendra vs. Union of
India

Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

 15. Writ petitions maintainable against ‘deemed Universities’ - Dr.
Janet Jeyapaul vs. SRM University
16. No politician photos in Govt Ads - Common cause vs. Union of India
17. Age determination of rape victim clarified - State of M.P. vs Anoop
Singh
18. Amendment in complaint can be done - S. R. Sukumar vs.
S.SunaadRaghuram
19. Obscene language cannot be allowed against ‘Historically
respected personalities’ - Devidas vs. State of Maharashtra
20. Appointment of Archakas to be made in accordance with Agamas –
Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sanga vs. Government of Tamil
Nadu
21. Father of deceased victim has right to appeal - Satya Pal Singh v.
State of M.P.
22. Jat reservation held unconstitutional - Ram Singh vs. Union of India
23. Concealing pending criminal cases by elected representative illegal
- Krishnamoorthy vs. Sivakumar
24. Writs against Judicial actions by judiciary not maintainable - Riju
Prasad Sarma etc. vs. State of Assam
25. Constitutional validity of Sec 499 IPC (Defamation) The court held
that Criminal Defamation law is not unconstitutional -
Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India

Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

 26. Haji Ali Dargah case- Bombay HC opens Haji Ali Dargah to women -
Dr. Noorjehan Safia Niaz vs. State of Maharashtra

Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

 27. Plea of Self-defence - Brij Lal vs. State of Rajasthan
28. Extra-Judicial Confession; Kala – Chandrakala vs. State through
Inspector of Police
29. District Judge Selection- Vijay Kumar Mishra vs. High Court of
Judicature at Patna
30. Upload FIRs in Police Websites - Youth Bar Association of India vs.
Union of India
31. Multiple Life Sentences will run concurrently, Remission of one
will not affect the other -
MUTHURAMALINGAM VS. STATE
32. Relief Possible against Minors, Women - Hiral P Harsora and ors vs.
Kusum Narottamdas Harsora
33. Forcing Husband to Get Separated From His Parents, Amounts To
’Cruelty’ - Narendra vs. K.Meena
34. Persons in Govt/Judicial service need not resign to participate in
District Judge Selection Process.
- VIJAY KUMAR MISHRA AND ANR VS HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
AND ORS

35. Public Service Commission shall provide Information about answer

sheets and Marks under RTI. -
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
36. No liquor shops near National Highways - State of Tamil Nadu vs.
K. Balu
37. National anthem must in Theatres - Shyam Narayan Chouski vs.
Union of India

Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

 38. SC can transfer cases from Jammu & Kashmir Courts to courts
outside it and vice versa - Anita Kushwaha vs. Pushpa Sudan
39. Upload FIRs in Police Websites., Case - Youth Bar Association of
India vs.Union of India
40. Multiple Life Sentences will run concurrently, Remission of one will
not affect the other. Case -Muthuramalingam vs. State
41. SC can transfer cases from Jammu & Kashmir Courts to courts
outside it and vice versa.
42. Relief Possible Against Minors, Women - Case Anita Kushwaha vs.
Pushpa Sudan
43. Supreme Court struck down the words “adult male” before the
word “person” in Section 2(q) of Domestic Violence Act. Case: -
Hiral P Harsora and ors s. KusumNarottamdasHarsora
44. Forcing Husband To Get Separated From His Parents, Amounts To
’Cruelty’- Narendra vs. K.Meena
45. Directions to Curb Female foeticide Case - Voluntary Health
Association vs State of Punjab
46. Persons in Govt/Judicial service need not resign to participate in
District Judge Selection Process Case - Vijay Kumar Mishra and
Anr vs High court of Judicature at Patna To and Ors
47. All Tribunals are not necessary parties to the proceedings where
legality of its orders challenged -
S. KAZI VS. MUSLIM EDUCATION SOCIETY
48. Public Service Commission shall provide Information about answer
sheets and Marks under RTI -
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

 49. Social Security to the Legal Profession Becomes an Essential Part of
Legal System - Cardamom Marketing Corporation &Anr. Vs. State
of Kerala &Ors
50. Landmark guidelines for disaster /drought management -
SwarajAbhiyan vs. UOI
51. People with disabilities also have the Right to Live with Dignity -
JeejaGhosh vs. UOI
52. No liquor shops near National Highways - State of Tamil Nadu vs.
K. Balu

Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

 53. High Court Judges Not Exempt From Airport Frisking - Union of India vs.
Rajasthan High Court and Ors
54. SC issues Guidelines on ‘Appointment of Govt. Lawyers - State of Punjab vs.
Brijeshwar Singh Chahal
55. Krishna Kumar Singh & Anr vs. State of Bihar & Ors - A seven-judge
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar Singh vs. State of
Bihar has held that re-promulgation is a fraud on the constitution.
56. Resolution against Justice Katju can’t be quashed - Justice Markandey
Katju vs. The Lok Sabha SC refused to quash the resolution by both houses
of parliament against him for describing Gandhi as a British agent and Netaji
as a Japanese Agent.
57. Cauvery Dispute and SC - State of Karnataka vs. State of Tamil Nadu
SC ordered Karnataka to release 15000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu, Later
on a plea by state of Karnataka, it was modified to 12000 cusecs.
58. SC orders NEET - Sankalp Charitable Trust vs. UoI. Supreme Court
ordered to conduct the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET) 2016 in
Two Phases.
59. Sedition: Direction to authorities - Common Cause vs Union of India.
Supreme Court of India issued a direction to all the concerned authorities to
follow the Constitutional bench judgment in Kedar Nath v State of Bihar (1962)
which limited the scope of sedition.
60. National anthem must in Theatres - Shyam Narayan Chouski vs. Union
of India

JURY DECISION OVERTURNED BY HIGH COURT (KM NANAVATI V STATE OF

MAHARASHTRA) - 1961
This case is notable for being the last case when a jury trial was held in India. KM
Nanavati, a naval officer, murdered his wife's lover, Prem Ahuja. The jury ruled in
favour of Nanavati and declared him "not guilty" which was eventually set aside by
the Bombay High Court.

AMENDMENT MASQUERADES AS LAW (IC GOLAKNATH V STATE OF PUNJAB) - 1967

Parliament's prevented from taking away individual rights. In the highly famous
case of Golaknath V State of Punjab in 1967 the Supreme Court ruled that
Parliament could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights of individuals

Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

 mentioned in the Constitution. Parliament's overarching ambitions nipped in the
bud (Keshavananda Bharti vs State of Kerala) 1973.

ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES CANNOT BE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT

A highly notable case which introduced the concept of "basic structure" of the
constitution of India and declared that those points decided as basic structure could
not be amended by the Parliament. The case was triggered by the 42 nd Amendment
Act.Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain – 1975

The trigger that led to the imposition of emergency. In this landmark case regarding
election disputes, the primary issue was the validity of clause 4 of the 39th
Amendment Act. The Supreme Court held clause 4 as unconstitutional and void on
the ground that it was outright denial of the right to equality enshrined in Article 14.
The Supreme Court also added the following features as “basic features” laid down
in Keshavananda Bharti case – democracy, judicial review, rule of law and
jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Article 32.

Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

A STEP BACKWARD FOR INDIA (ADM JABALPUR V SHIVAKANT SHUKLA CASE) -
1976
Widely considered a violation of Fundamental Rights. In this landmark judgment,
the Supreme Court declared that the rights of citizens to move the court for
violation of Articles 14, 21 and 22 would remain suspended during emergencies.
Triumph of individual liberty (Maneka Gandhi vs UOI) 1978.

PARLIAMENT LIMITED BY ITSELF (MINERVA MILLS V UNION OF INDIA) - 1980

In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India in 1980 strengthened the
doctrine of the basic structure which was propounded earlier in the Keshavananda
Bharti Case. Two changes which were made earlier by the 42nd Amendment Act
were declared as null and void by the Supreme Court in this particular case.

CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS UPHELD (WAMAN RAO V

UNION OF INDIA) - 1981
SC ruled that Parliament had transgressed its power of constitutional amendment.
This case was a landmark decision in the constitutional jurisprudence of India. This
case has helped in determining a satisfactory method of addressing grievances
pertaining to the violation of fundamental rights by creating a fine line of
determination between the Acts prior to and after the Keshavananda Bharati case.

MAINTENANCE LAWSUIT SETS PRECEDENT (MOHD AHMED KHAN V SHAH BANO

BEGUM) - 1985
Muslim woman Shah Bano won the right to get alimony from her husband. The
petitioner challenged the Muslim personal law. The Supreme Court ruled in favour
of Shah Bano and granted her alimony. Most favoured it as a secular judgment but
it also invoked a strong reaction from the Muslim community, which felt that the
judgment was an encroachment on Muslim Sharia law and hence led to the
formation of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board in 1973.

MC MEHTA V UNION OF INDIA – 1986

Mounting environment-related concerns. A PIL filed by MC Mehta in 1986 enlarged
the scope and ambit of Article 21 and Article 32 to include the right to healthy and
pollution-free environment.

Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

RESERVATION IN CENTRAL GOVERNMENT JOBS (INDRA SAWHNEY V UOI NOVEMBER) -
1992
Attempt to correct historic injustices constitutionally. The constitutional bench of
the Supreme Court held in this matter that caste could be a factor for identifying
backward classes.

WRANGLE OVER SUPREME COURT JUDGE APPOINTMENTS (SUPREME COURT

ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD - ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA) -
1993
The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act and Constitutional
amendment Act passed in 2014 aimed at replacing the collegium system of
appointing Supreme Court judges. The act was struck down as unconstitutionalby
the Supreme Court in October 2015.

POWER OF PRESIDENT'S RULE CURTAILED (SR BOMMAI V UNION OF INDIA) - 1994

Persecution of state governments stalled. This landmark case had major
implications on Centre-State relations. Post this case the Supreme Court clearly
detailed the limitations within which Article 356 has to function.

FOUNDATION FOR A FEMALE WORKFORCE (VISHAKA V STATE OF RAJASTHAN) - 1997

Definition of sexual harrassment and guidelines to deal with it laid down. In this
case Vishakha and other women groups filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
against State of Rajasthan and Union of India to enforce fundamental rights for
working women under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. This resulted in
the introduction of Vishaka Guidelines. The judgment of August 1997 also provided
basic definitions of sexual harassment at the workplace and provided guidelines to
deal with it. Hence the importance of the case as a landmark judgment.

Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

AFZAL GURU'S DEATH SENTENCE SPARKED PROTESTS – 2002
Shaukat Hussain Guru vs . State (NCT) Delhi and Ors. Awarded death sentence for
role in 2001 Parliament attacks. Afzal Guru was sentenced to death on February
2013 for his role in the December 2001 attacks on the Indian Parliament. The
judgment faced widespread criticism on three grounds – lack of proper defense,
lack of primary evidence and judgment based on collective conscience rather than
rule of law.

STATE OF TAMIL NADU V SUHAS KATTI - NOVEMBER 2004

Short conviction time of seven months. This was notable for being the first case
involving conviction under the Information Technology Act, 2000. A family friend
of a divorced woman was accused of posting her number online on messenger
groups which led to her being harassed by multiple lewd messages. The accused was
later convicted and sentenced.

RAMESHWAR PRASAD V UNION OF INDIA - 2005

Dissolution of Bihar Assembly unwarranted. In this case, the petitioner challenged
the constitutional validity of a notification which ordered dissolution of the
legislative Assembly of the state of Bihar. The dissolution had been ordered on the
ground that attempts were being made to cobble a majority by illegal means and lay
claim to form the government in the state which if continued would lead to
tampering with constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court held that the
aforementioned notification was unconstitutional.

VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT OR NOT? (OM PRAKASH V DIL BAHAR) - 2006

Controversial ruling had many opponents. The Supreme Court in the above case
declared that a rape accused could be convicted on the sole evidence of the victim in
spite of medical evidence not proving that it was rape.

JESSICA LAL MURDER CASE - DECEMBER 2006

Sidhartha Vashisht v s. State (NCT of Delhi) Civil society makes big gains. A model
in New Delhi working as a bartender was shot dead and the prime accused Manu
Sharma, son of Congress MP Vinod Sharma who was initially acquitted in February
Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]
 2006 was later sentenced to life imprisonment in December 2006 by a fast track
hearing by the Delhi High Court. On 19 April 2010, the Supreme Court of India
approved the sentence.

SANJAY DUTT PLAYS PRISONER IN REAL LIFE

Sanjay Dutt vs State through C.B.I 1994 Conviction under TADA changed under
milder Arms Act. Well- known actor Sanjay Dutt was sentenced to five year
imprisonment by the Supreme Court for illegal weapons possession in a case linked
to the 1993 serial blasts in Mumbai. The Supreme Court also cited that the
circumstances and nature of offence were too serious for the 53-year-old actor to be
released on probation.

NITHARI SERIAL MURDERS. APPEAL TURNED DOWN BY SUPREME COURT

Surendra koli vs State of U.P Koli was served with multiple death sentences. A
Special Sessions Court awarded death sentence in 2009 to Surinder Koli and
Moninder Singh Pandher for the murder of a 14- year-old girl. The murders
believed to have been committed through 2006 involved instances of cannibalism.
Pandher was later acquitted by the Allahabad High Court and was released on bail
but Koli’s death sentence was upheld by both the High Court as well as the Supreme
Court.

Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

AARUSHI TALWAR MURDER – 2008
Rajesh Talwar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. Verdict
delivered under unusual circumstances. A case which received heavy media
attention involved the double murder of 14-year- old Aarushi Talwar and her 45-
year-old domestic help in Noida. After five years a Sessions court convicted both
her parents Rajesh and Nupur Talwar and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

SECTION 377 CASE (NAZ FOUNDATION V GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) - JULY 2009
Cause for rejoicing for homosexuals. In 2009 the Supreme Court declared Section
377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as unconstitutional. The said section earlier
criminalised sexual activities “against the order of nature” which included
homosexual acts. This judgment however, was overturned by the Supreme in
December, 2013.

MEAGRE CLOSURE FOR CONTROVERSIAL AYODHYA (AYODHYA RAM MANDIR

BABRI MASJID CASE) - SEPTEMBER 2010
Ruled that the land was to be divided into three parts. The high court of Allahabad
had ruled that the disputed land in Ayodhya where the Babri Masjid was situated
before it was demolished in 1992 shall be divided into three parts. Two-thirds of the
land was to be awarded to the Hindu plaintiffs and one- third to the Sunni muslim
Waqf board.

VODAFONE 'S NAME CLEARED IN TAX BATTLE (VODAFONE-HUTCHISON TAX CASE) -

JANUARY 2012
Vodafone International Holdings B.V. vs. Union of India (UOI) Landmark decision
on taxability of offshore transactions. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of
Vodafone in the two-billion-dollar tax case citing that capital gains tax is not
applicable to the telecom major. The apex court also said that the Rs 2,500 crore
which Vodafone had already paid should be returned with interest.

CLEAN CHIT TO PRIME MINISTER NARENDRA MODI - 2012

Questions remains and victims of families yet to get closure. In April 2012 the
Supreme Court appointed Special investigation Team (SIT) gave current Prime
Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]
 Minister Narendra Modi a clean chit in the post- Godhra Gulberg massacre case
citing that it found no evidence against him. Narendra Modi went on to become the
Prime Minister of India with a huge mandate.

MOHD AJMAL AMIR KASAB V STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 2012

One of the most high-profile executions in the country. The Supreme Court
observed that the acts on November 26, 2008, had shaken the collective conscience
of Indian citizens and had confirmed the death sentence awarded to prime accused
Ajmal Kasab by the trial court and affirmed by the Bombay High Court, for waging
war against India.

NOTA JUDGMENT – 2013

People's Union for Civil Liberties and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. The
right to reject candidates formalised. In 2013, the Supreme Court introduced
negative voting as an option for the country’s electorate. According to this judgment
an individual would have the option of not voting for any candidate (None-Of-The-
Above) if they don’t find any of the candidates worthy.

PATENT TROUBLES OF PHARMA COMPANY NOVARTIS (NOVARTIS V UNION OF INDIA &

OTHERS) - 2013
Case accused of dealing a death blow to innovation in medicine. Novartis’
application which covered a beta crystalline form of imatinib, a medicine the
company brands as "Glivec", which is very effective against chronic myeloid
leukaemia (a common form of cancer) was denied patent protection by the
Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The Supreme Court in its ruling upheld the
board’s decision which eventually led to the medicine being made available to the
general public at a much lower cost.

Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

ILLEGALISING CONVICTED MPS AND MLAS (LILY THOMAS V UNION OF INDIA)
- JULY 2013
Effected much-needed cleansing of legislative bodies.

The Supreme Court of India, in this judgment, ruled that any member of
Parliament (MP), member of the legislative assembly (MLA) or member of
a legislative council (MLC) who was convicted of a crime and awarded a
minimum of two-year imprisonment, would lose membership of the
House with immediate effect.

UPHAAR FIRE TRAGEDY (SUSHIL ANSAL VS STATE THR CBI) - M ARCH 2014
Split judgment couldn't reach a decision on sentencing. August 2015:
Eighteen years after 59 people were killed in a fire in Delhi’s Uphaar
cinema, the Supreme Court held that the prime accused did not
necessarily need to go back to jail as they were fairly aged. The court
further held that “ends of justice would meet” if the accused paid Rs 30
crore each as fine.

NIRBHAYA CASE SHOOK THE NATION - MARCH 2014

State vs Ram Singh and Ors. Judiciary spurred into action and laws were
strengthened for sex offenders. Four out of the five accused in the horrific
gang-rape case of Nirbhaya were convicted and given the death sentence.
The case also resulted in the introduction of the Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 2013 which provides for the amendment of the
definition of rape under Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal
Procedures, 1973; the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

RECOGNISING THE THIRD GENDER (NATIONAL LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY V

UNION OF INDIA) - APRIL 2014
In a landmark judgment the Supreme Court in April, 2014 recognised
transgender persons as a third gender and ordered the government to

Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

 treat them as minorities and extend reservations in jobs, education and
other amenities.

SECTION 66A STRUCK DOWN (SHREYA SINGHAL V UNION OF INDIA) - MARCH

2015
Cracking down on "offensive" online content not easy. Controversial
section 66A of the Information Technology Act which allowed arrests for
objectionable content posted on the internet was struck down as
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in March 2015.

YAKUB MEMON SENTENCED TO DEATH (YAKUB ABDUL RAZAK MEMON V

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR) - JULY 2015
No reprieve for the accused in 1993 Mumbai serial blasts. Yakub Abdul
Razak Memon was convicted and sentenced to execution by hanging in
March 2015 for his involvement in the 1993 Bombay serial blasts. His
conviction sparked a nationwide debate on capital punishment in India.

DANCE BARS FUNCTIONAL AGAIN

Indian Hotel & Restaurant Association and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra
and Ors After a gap of two decades, dance bars open. The Supreme Court in
July 2013 passed a judgment directing the state government to reopen dance
bars in Maharashtra which had earlier been banned under the Maharashtra
Police Act. The resultant ban

The Constitutional validity of Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Code upheld

The constitutional validity of the IBC and National Company Law Tribunal
has been questioned again and again, and the Supreme Court finally

Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

 settled the challenges in the landmark case of Swiss Ribbons Pvt Ltd. v
Union of India. A two bench judge held that the difference between
operational creditors and financial creditors were based on intelligible
differentia and thus not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The
petition also challenged Section 12A and Section 29A of the code. Section
12A of the code prescribed threshold of 90% of the Committee of Creditors
for allowing withdrawal of resolution application. However, the Supreme
Court did not see any difficulty with such a high threshold and upheld the
validity of the said Section.

Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and NCLT.

(Case name: Swiss Ribbons Pvt Ltd anr v Union of India, decided on
25.01.2019)

CINEMA BAN IN WEST BENGAL OVERTURNED

Bengali film “Bhobishyoter Bhoot” was stopped from screening by the

Bengal Government in most of the cinemas. The Government contended
that the movie was politically sensitive and it may hurt some sentiments
and cause disorder in the State. Thereafter, a plea was filed by the
producers of the film claiming their fundamental right to speech and
expression has been violated. The Supreme Court while deciding the case
imposed a fine of Rs. 20 Lakhs on the West Bengal government as
compensation to the producers for the loss they suffered due to the virtual

Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

 ban imposed. Further, the Court held that the right to free speech and
expression cannot be taken by public officials because they fear mob
violence.

Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

 Judgment: Public officials and the State Government are subject to the
rule of law and cannot gag free speech due to fear of violence. The ban
imposed on the Bengali film was overturned and compensation was
provided to the producers.

(Case name: Indibility Creative Pvt Ltd and others v Government of West
Bengal and others, decided on 11.04.2019)

RESERVATION IN PROMOTIONS UNDER KARNATAKA ACT UPHELD

Karnataka in 2002, enacted a law that stated consequential seniority

would be applicable while dealing with promotions of the SC/ST
employees in government offices. This implied that a reserved category
employee could be promoted before a senior employee belonging to the
general category. In 2007 the Supreme Court held that the law passed by
the Karnataka Government did not comply with the guidelines established
under the Nagraj case and was thus unconstitutional. Subsequently, the
Karnataka Government set up a Committee to demonstrate the criteria laid
down in the Nagraj case has been fulfilled, i.e. (1) current backwardness of
SC/ST (2) inadequate representation and (3) and impact on administrative
efficiency and thereafter re-enacted the earlier law. The constitutional

Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

 validity of the re-enacted law was questioned. The Supreme Court held
that the deficiency that

was noted in the 2002 Act have been fulfilled and the Reservation Act 2018
is thereby valid under Article 16(4A) of the Constitution.

Judgment: The constitutional validity of the Karnataka Act approving

consequential seniority in promotions for the reserved category was
upheld.

(Case name: BK Pavitra and others v Union of India, decided on

10.05.2019)

DEATH PENALTY AWARDED FOR RAPE AND MURDER OF A MINOR GIRL

Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

 In 2010, the accused with another, kidnapped the victims, a 10-year-old
girl, and her 7-year-old brother. The girl was then raped and thereafter
both the victims were thrown in a canal alive, causing their death. One of
the convicts was killed during an encounter and the High Court awarded
the death penalty to the other convict. The judgment of the High Court was
appealed in the Supreme Court and was heard by a three bench judge. The
majority of the judges upheld the conviction of the death penalty however,
Justice Sanjiv Khanna had a dissenting opinion. He believed that the
convict should not be given the death penalty as the case does not fall
under the category of ‘rarest of rare’ case, but the appellant should be given
the punishment to suffer for life in imprisonment as the case would fall
under a special category.

In another case, Ravi v State of Maharashtra, a man was awarded the

death penalty for committing rape and murder of a 2-year-old.

HABEAS CORPUS PETITIONS FILED AGAINST THE DETENTION OF KASHMIRI

MLA

A state-wise ban was imposed on the State of Jammu and Kashmir after
the Parliament abrogated Article 370 of the Constitution. A virtual
lockdown was imposed and various political leaders and non-political
persons were detained since August 5, 2019, when the Centre passed an
Act taking away the special status that was granted to the State. On 19th
August 2019, general secretary of the Communist Party of India, Sitaram
Yechury filed a habeas
Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]
 corpus petition in the Supreme Court challenging the illegality and
constitutional validity of the detention imposed leader of his party
Mohammed Yousuf Tarigiami. The Supreme court allowed the petitioner
to visit the detenu however, the judgment passed was highly criticized as
the bench did not question the grounds on which detention was placed by
the Central Government. Moreover, the petitioner was permitted to only
meet his leader and was not allowed to carry out any other political
activities. He was also required to submit a report on his return to the Apex
Court.

Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

 Judgment: In response to the habeas corpus petition filed by the general
secretary of the Communist Party of India, the Supreme Court allowed him
to visit the detenu. However, restrictions were imposed on his meet and no
justification was given to validate the detention imposed by the Central
Government.

(Case name: Sitaram Yechury v Union of India, decided on

28.08.2019)

43-YEAR-OLD PRECEDENT OVERRULED BY THE SUPREME COURT

The bench headed by Justice RF Nariman held that even at the post
cognizance stage a Magistrate can invoke his powers under Section 156(3)
of CrPC. A 43-year-old judgment which held that Section 156(3) of CrPC
can only be invoked at a pre cognizance stage was overruled.

(Case name: Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and others v The State of Gujarat
and others, decided on 16.10.2019)

Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

SUPREME COURT VERDICT PASSED IN AYODHYA- BABRI MASJID CASE

The Ayodhya- Babri Masjid dispute is the longest property dispute in the
history of India. The case was finally concluded by the Supreme Court after
134 years from the first case filed on this matter. The Allahabad High Court
delivered a judgment in 2010 wherein the land in dispute was divided into
three equal parts, the judgment did not satisfy any of the parties involved
and thus an appeal was filed in Supreme Court. After 9 years and 40 days
of continuous hearing, the Court gave one of the most crucial judgments.
The Court after observing the developments of the case scrapped the High
Court verdict and held that the land in dispute is to be awarded to the
Hindu Deity ‘Ram’ for the construction of the temple. It was observed that
the land was not of Islamic origin and the Masjid was not built on vacant
land. The Court also ordered that a suitable alternative land of 5 acres is to
be allotted to the Sunni Waqf Board for construction of the mosque in
Ayodhya itself.

Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

 Judgment: The disputed land was given to Ram Lalla and the Central
Government has been ordered to formulate a scheme and set up a trust
within 3 months for the construction of the temple.

(Case name: M Siddiq through Lrs v Mahant Suresh Das and others,
decided on 08.11.2019)

CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA COMES UNDER RTI

In November, the Supreme Court in its historic judgment held that the CJI
comes under the Right to Information Act and is a public authority under
Section 2(h) of the Act. This implies that the CJI is to be transparent and is
answerable to all questions raised by the citizens of the County. However,
the court also emphasized the importance of maintaining confidentiality
under certain aspects of the judiciary’s working. The RTI will apply to CJI
only when it is in the interest of the public and does not hamper the
proceedings of the judiciary in any manner.

Judgment: CJI is a public authority under the RTI Act.

Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

 (Case name: Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court v
Subhash Chandra Agarwal, decided on 13.11.2019)

AADHAR CARD JUDGMENT REFERRED TO A LARGER BENCH AND SECTION 184

OF FINANCE ACT UPHELD

The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on the constitutional validity of

Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017 and whether the Act comes under the
definition of Money Bill as defined under Article 110 of the Constitution of
India. Section 184 of the Act was challenged because it gave the power of
appointment and service conditions of members of a Tribunal, Appellate
Tribunal and other authorities to the Central Government and thus was
considered unconstitutional and arbitrary by the

Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]

 petitioners. The Court held that the powers delegated to the Center cannot be
questioned and taken away on the mere possibility of misuse of such powers. The
issue of whether Finance Act can be referred to as a Money Bill or not was referred
to a larger bench for further examination.

Judgment: The 5 Judges Bench doubted the correctness of referring to the

Finance Act as a Money Bill and thus it was referred to a larger Bench. However,
the Court upheld the legal validity of Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017.

(Case name: Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank Ltd, decided on 13.11.2019)

Important Case laws [Type here] [Type here] [Type here]