Major Legal Judgements (1961 -2023) | Legal Reasoning for CLAT PDF Download

Few Landmark Judgements through the years

From Aarushi Talwar murder to Ajmal Kasab death sentence, our judiciary has been at its finest in declaring verdicts over the years.

1. Jury decision overturned by High Court (KM Nanavati v State of Maharashtra) - 1961

Hardly an open-and- shut case, the nature of the crime garnered media attention. 

• 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 as 'guilty'; which was eventually set aside by the Bombay High Court.

• Essence: Commander Nanavati was tried for the murder of his wife's lover. The jury acquitted him, but the High Court overturned the verdict, leading to the abolition of jury trials in India.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), Article 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention).

2. Amendment masquerades as law (IC Golaknath v State of Punjab) - 1967

Parliament is prevented from taking away individual rights. 

• In the famous case Golaknath V State of Punjab in 1967, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights of individuals mentioned in the Constitution. Parliament's overarching ambitions nipped in the bud (Keshavananda Bharti vs State of Kerala) 1973.

• Essence: Challenged the 17th Constitutional Amendment's validity, which curtailed fundamental rights. The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights.

• Articles related: Article 13 (Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights to be void), Article 368 (Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution).

3. 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 42nd Amendment Act.

4. Beginning of the fall of Indira Gandhi (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.

• Essence: Indira Gandhi's election was challenged for electoral malpractice. The High Court found her guilty, leading to the imposition of Emergency and subsequent legal and political ramifications.

• Articles related: Article 329 (Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters).

5. 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.

• Essence: During Emergency, the Supreme Court ruled that fundamental rights, including the right to life, could be suspended. This case raised debates on individual rights versus state power.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty), Article 359 (Suspension of the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III during emergencies).

6. Overlapping zones of laws rectified thanks to a writ petition

• The case caused a huge uproar over the definition of Freedom of Speech. The court ruled that the procedure must be fair and the law must not violate other Fundamental Rights.

7. 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.

• Essence: Examined amendments affecting judicial review. Supreme Court struck down parts of the 42nd Amendment, affirming judicial review as a basic feature of the Constitution.

• Articles related: Article 13 (Laws inconsistent with or in derogation of fundamental rights to be void), Article 368 (Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution).

8. 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.

• Essence: Tested the constitutional validity of land reforms laws in Karnataka. Court upheld state's power to enact land reforms while protecting property rights.

• Articles related: Article 31 (Compulsory acquisition of property by the State), Article 300A (Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law).

9. Maintenance lawsuit sets precedent (Mohd Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum) - 1985

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.

• Essence: Landmark case on maintenance for divorced Muslim women. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Shah Bano, sparking debates on personal laws versus fundamental rights.

• Articles related: Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 44 (Uniform Civil Code).

10. 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.

• Essence: Environmental PIL leading to the closure of hazardous industries in Delhi. Set precedent for environmental protection through judicial activism.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), Article 48A (Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wildlife).

11. 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.

• Essence: Case on reservation in central government jobs. Supreme Court upheld reservations but capped quotas at 50%, setting guidelines for reservation policies.

• Articles related: Article 16 (Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment), Article 335 (Claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to services and posts).

12. 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.

• Essence: Case on judicial appointments. Court upheld the primacy of the judiciary in appointing judges, establishing the Collegium system.

• Articles related: Article 124 (Establishment and constitution of Supreme Court), Article 217 (Appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court).

13. 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 Center-State relations. Post this case the Supreme Court clearly detailed the limitations within which Article 356 has to function.

• Essence: Examined the misuse of President's Rule. Supreme Court set guidelines restricting the Centre's power to dismiss state governments.

• Articles related: Article 356 (Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in States).

14. Scam-tainted politicians - 1997

The Jain Hawala case exposed bigwigs. 

• The Hawala scandal was an Indian political scandal involving payments allegedly received by politicians through four hawala brokers, the Jain brothers. 
• In 1991, an arrest linked to militants in Kashmir led to a raid on hawala brokers, revealing evidence of large-scale payments to national politicians. The prosecution that followed was partly prompted by a public interest litigation. Many were acquitted, partly because the hawala records (including diaries) were judged in court to be inadequate as the main evidence. 
• The high court decreed that the CBI had not brought on record any material which could be converted into legally admissible evidence.

15. 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.

• Essence: Case on sexual harassment at workplace. Supreme Court laid down guidelines (Vishaka Guidelines) for prevention and redressal of sexual harassment.

• Articles related: Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth).

16. Afzal Guru's death sentence sparked protests - 2002

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.

• Essence: Case on the attack on Indian Parliament. Supreme Court upheld the death sentence, sparking debates on due process and terrorism laws.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty), Article 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention).

17. Justice deferred in Best Bakery case - 2003

Miscarriage of justice as a large number of witnesses turn hostile. 

• The Best Bakery was burned down, killing 14 people on March 1, 2002 as part of the 2002 Gujarat violence. 
• The Supreme court, in a rarest of rare case, ordered a re-trial outside of Gujarat in which nine out of the seventeen accused were convicted by a special court in Mumbai in 2006.

• Essence: Post-Godhra riots case. Supreme Court ordered retrial, highlighting delays and flaws in justice delivery.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Right to Speedy Trial), Article 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention).

18. 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.

• Essence: Case on electoral malpractice. Supreme Court ordered re-election, addressing electoral integrity.

• Articles related: Article 324 (Superintendence, direction and control of elections to be vested in an Election Commission).

19. 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.

• Essence: Anti-defection law case. Supreme Court upheld the disqualification of MPs under the Tenth Schedule.

• Articles related: Tenth Schedule (Provisions as to disqualification on ground of defection).

20. 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.

• Essence: Case on victims of sexual assault. Supreme Court emphasized the need for evidence and victim protection.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty), Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth)

21. Priyadarshini Mattoo case - October 2006

14-year- old fight for justice gets results. 

• In this matter the Supreme Court had commuted the death sentence awarded to prime accused Santosh Singh (son of former IPS officer), to life imprisonment for the rape and murder of the 23- year-old law student, Priyadarshini Mattoo.

• Essence: Case on rape and murder. Supreme Court ordered retrial, addressing judicial accountability.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Right to Speedy Trial), Article 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention).

22. Jessica Lal Murder Case - December 2006

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 2006 was later sentenced to life imprisonment in December 2006 by a fast track hearing by the Delhi High Court. On 19 Apr 2010, the Supreme Court of India approved the sentence.

• Essence: Case on murder of Jessica Lal. High-profile trial leading to public outcry and judicial scrutiny.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), Article 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention).

23. Sanjay Dutt plays prisoner in real life - 2007

Conviction under TADA changed to under the 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.

Sanjay Dutt entering the TADA court, in 2007

24. Nithari serial murders - 2009

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.

• Essence: Serial killings in Nithari, Uttar Pradesh. Highlighted law enforcement and public safety issues.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), Article 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention).

25. Aarushi Talwar murder - 2008

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.

• Essence: High-profile murder case. Controversial investigation and trial.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), Article 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention).

26. 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.

• Essence: Section 377 case. Delhi High Court decriminalized consensual homosexual acts.

• Articles related: Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth).

27. 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.

Protest for the construction of Ram Temple in Ayodhya 

• Essence: Dispute over the Ayodhya site. Allahabad High Court's verdict on land division among Hindus and Muslims.

• Articles related: Article 25 (Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion), Article 26 (Freedom to manage religious affairs).

28. Child sexual assault not to be taken lightly - 2011

Punishment not enough for child abusers. 

• The Supreme Court restored the conviction and sentence of six-year rigorous imprisonment imposed on two British nationals who were acquitted by the Bombay High Court in a paedophilia case.The Bench directed the accused to serve the remaining period of sentence. 
• In a landmark judgment the Supreme Court observed “Children are the greatest gift to humanity. The sexual abuse of children is one of the most heinous crimes”.

29. Vodafone cleared in tax battle (Vodafone - Hutchison tax case) - January 2012

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.

• Essence: Tax dispute on Vodafone's acquisition of Hutchison. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Vodafone.

• Articles related: Article 265 (Taxes not to be levied save by authority of law), Article 300A (Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law).

30. 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 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.

• Essence: Allegations of Gujarat riots. Supreme Court upheld lower courts' decisions.

• Articles related: Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty).

31. 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.

• Essence: Mumbai terror attack case. Supreme Court upheld death sentence for Kasab.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty), Article 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention).

32. NOTA Judgment - 2013

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.

• Essence: Right to reject candidates in elections. Supreme Court introduced the option of 'None of the Above' in EVMs.

• Articles related: Article 324 (Superintendence, direction and control of elections to be vested in an Election Commission), Article 19 (Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.).

33. 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.

• Essence: Patent case on cancer drug. Supreme Court denied patent, impacting pharmaceutical patent laws.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), Article 19 (Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.).

34. 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.

• Essence: Disqualification of convicted MPs and MLAs. Supreme Court struck down Section 8(4) of the Representation of People Act.

• Articles related: Article 102 (Disqualifications for membership).

35. Uphaar fire tragedy (Sushil Ansal vs State Thr Cbi) - March 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.

• Essence: Fire in Uphaar cinema, Delhi. Supreme Court dealt with liability and compensation issues.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), Article 32 (Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by Part III).

36. Nirbhaya case shook the nation - March 2014

The 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.

• Essence: Brutal gang-rape case. Supreme Court upheld death penalty for the convicts.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty), Article 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention).

37. Recognising the Third gender (National Legal Services Authority v Union of India) - April 2014

Third gender acknowledged as citizens with rights. 

• In a landmark judgment the Supreme Court in April, 2014 recognised transgender persons as a third gender and ordered the government to treat them as minorities and extend reservations in jobs, education and other amenities.

• Essence: Recognition of third gender. Supreme Court recognized transgender as a third gender.

• Articles related: Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth).

38. Section 66A revised (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.

• Essence: Section 66A case. Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for being unconstitutional.

• Articles related: Article 19 (Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.).

39. 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.

• Essence: Mumbai blasts case. Supreme Court upheld death sentence for Yakub Memon.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty), Article 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention).

40. Dance bars functional again - October 2015

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 by the Bombay High Court was stayed.

41. Triple Talaq Judgement (2016)

• The SC outlawed the backward practice of instant ‘triple talaq’, which permitted Muslim men to unilaterally end their marriages by uttering the word “talaq” three times without making any provision for maintenance or alimony. Read about the Triple Talaq Bill, 2019.

• Essence: Case on instant Triple Talaq. Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional, protecting women's rights.

• Articles related: Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth).

42. Right To Privacy (2017)

• The SC declared the right to privacy as a Fundamental Right protected under the Indian Constitution.

• Essence: Right to Privacy case. Supreme Court declared privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty).

43. Repealing Section 377 (2018)

• The SC ruled that Section 377 was unconstitutional “in so far as it criminalizes consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex.”

• Essence: Section 377 case. Supreme Court decriminalized consensual homosexual acts.

• Articles related: Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth).

44. Alok Verma v. Union Of India  (2019)

• The Supreme Court has set aside the Central government’s order divesting Alok Verma of hispowers as Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

• While doing so, the Court also directed the High Power Committee to consider the matter afresh, and held that Alok Verma shall cease and desist from taking any major policy decision pending the Committee’s consideration.

• The Court has also set aside the order asking CBI Joint Director Nageshwar Rao to take over the duties of the CBI Director.

• Essence: Case on CBI Director's removal. Supreme Court reinstated Alok Verma with curtailed powers.

• Articles related: Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 311 (Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State).

45. The Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Babita Puniya & Ors. (2020)

• The Supreme Court marked 17 February, 2020 as an important date in the calendar of Indian Armed Forces. 
• For the first time since independence, the females belonging to the Indian Armed Forces will be granted permanent commission to serve in the army.
• The females had been struggling to attain this right for more than a decade. Justice DY Chandrachud, while delivering the judgment, stated that: ‘At the stage of opting for the grant of PC, all the choices for specialization shall be available to women officers on the same terms as for the male SSC officers. 
• Women SSC officers shall be entitled to exercise their options for being considered for the grant of PCs on the same terms as their male counterparts’.
• The judgment upheld the directive principle of equality by providing access to permanent commission to the female populace

46. Vikash Kumar v. UPSC 2021

• A bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna observed that the decision in V Surendra Mohan v. State of Tamil Nadu would “not be a binding precedent”, after the coming into force of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016. 
• The Bench in the same judgment also held that the facility of the scribe can be provided for persons with disabilities other than those having benchmark disabilities.

• Essence: Case on UPSC exam dispute. High Court ruled on eligibility criteria and selection process.

• Articles related: Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 16 (Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment).

47. Union of India v. KA Najeeb 2022

• The apex court held that Section 43D (5) of UAPA per se does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on the ground of violation of the Fundamental Right to Speedy Trial.
• Bench: Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose

• Essence: Case involving national security and individual rights. Court balanced individual rights against state interests.

• Articles related: Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty), Article 22 (Protection against Arrest and Detention).

48. Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India, 2022

• Reservation is not at odds with merit”; Here’s why SC upheld OBC reservation in NEET PG
  and UG Admissions in AIQ quota.

• Essence: Case related to constitutional rights. Details needed for specific elaboration.

• Articles related: Depends on the specifics of the case.

49. In Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India, 2023

Date of Judgement/Order: 11.12.2023

• Bench Strength: Judges
• Composition of Bench: Chief Justice of India (CJI) D. Y. Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B. R. Gavai, and Surya Kant

Case Background: Article 370 of the Constitution of India provided special governance arrangements for Jammu and Kashmir. In 2019, the President issued Constitutional Orders 272 and 273, applying the entire Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir and abrogating Article 370 during a Proclamation under Article 356. Simultaneously, Parliament enacted the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act 2019, splitting the state into two Union territories. Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of these actions, leading to a Supreme Court review.

Supreme Court Verdict: The Constitution Bench upheld the abrogation of Article 370, clarifying that it represented asymmetric federalism, not sovereignty. The court emphasized that Article 370 was a transitional provision without permanent status. Its abrogation did not disrupt the federal structure, ensuring citizens in Jammu and Kashmir have the same rights as those in other parts of India. The court also noted that Article 370(3) facilitated the end of the temporary arrangement, reinforcing the Constitution's applicability and the state's integration into India.

Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019: On August 5, 2019, Parliament passed the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganization Bill, leading to the bifurcation of the state into Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh and effectively abrogating Article 370, which granted the region special status. The Act, effective from October 31, 2019, consists of 103 clauses, extends 106 central laws to the Union Territories, repeals 153 state laws, and abolishes the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Council. It also grants the Central government powers to issue various executive orders concerning both Union Territories.

50. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India, 2023

Supreme Court Ruling on Appointment of Election Commissioners

Date of Judgment: March 2, 2023 

• Bench: Five-judge Constitution bench, including Justices K.M. Joseph, Ajay Rastogi, Aniruddha Bose, Hrishikesh Roy, and C.T. Ravikumar. 

Relevant Articles: Article 32 and Article 324 of the Constitution of India 

Background: The Supreme Court was hearing petitions under Article 32 regarding the appointment process of Election Commissioners. Petitioners sought a transparent and independent system for these appointments, referencing various reports on electoral reforms. 

Key Observations: The Court emphasized the need for an independent Election Commission, stating that the means used to achieve political ends must be fair, especially in a democracy. 

Verdict: The Court ruled that Election Commissioners should be appointed by the President of India based on the advice of a committee consisting of: 

• The Prime Minister 
• The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha or the leader of the largest opposition party 
• The Chief Justice of India 

This practice will be followed until Parliament enacts legislation on the matter. 

51. Mohit Singhal v. State of Uttarakhand, 2023

Date of Judgement/Order: 01.12.2023

• Bench Strength: Judges
• Composition of Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal

Case Background:

• The widow of the deceased borrowed money from Sandeep Bansal, with allegations of threats and assault from Sandeep's son regarding repayment.
• Sandeep allegedly took cheques from the widow, one of which was dishonored, leading to legal notice and stress for the deceased.
• The deceased, under distress, committed suicide, and a note was found, prompting legal proceedings against the accused.
• The High Court allowed the case to proceed, but the accused appealed, arguing lack of close instigation before the suicide.

Supreme Court Ruling:

• The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that for abetment under IPC Section 107, there must be clear instigation by the accused with the intent to push the deceased to suicide.
• The court found no close temporal link between the accused's actions and the suicide, leading to the appeal’s approval.

Relevant Legal Provisions:

• Section 107: Abetment of a thing. Involves instigating, conspiring, or aiding the commission of an act.
• Section 306: Abetment of suicide. Punishes those who abet suicide with imprisonment and fines.

52. Phulel Singh v. State of Haryana, 2023

Keywords: Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Supreme Court 

• Date of Judgement/Order. 27.09.2023 
• Bench Strength. 3 Judges 
• Composition of Bench. Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra 

Facts of the Case:

• The appellant married the deceased in 1987. 
• The prosecution alleged that the appellant harassed the deceased due to insufficient dowry. 
• To meet the appellant's demands, the deceased's parents initially paid him in cash and later gave him a scooter and gold ornaments in 1990. 
• Despite these payments, the dowry demands continued. 
• The deceased eventually was burnt and taken to the hospital with 91% burns. 
• When she regained consciousness, she accused the appellant of burning her. 
• A First Information Report (FIR) was filed based on her statement, leading to charges against the appellant and his family. 
• The Sessions judge convicted the appellant under Section 304-B but acquitted him under Section 302 IPC. 
• The High Court upheld the conviction but the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. 

Supreme Court Verdict:

• The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant, highlighting the importance of a trustworthy and reliable dying declaration for criminal convictions. 

Relevant Legal Provision:

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 32: This section relates to the admissibility of statements made by a deceased person regarding the cause of their death or circumstances leading to it. Such statements are relevant regardless of whether the person was under the expectation of death at the time of making them. 

53. M/s. N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Indo Unique Flame Ltd. And Ors., 2023

Supreme Court on Arbitration Agreement and Stamp Duty

• Date:25.04.2023
• Bench:Justices K.M. Joseph, Aniruddha Bose, C.T. Ravikumar, Ajay Rastogi, and Hrishikesh Roy

Background:

• A sub-contract between the petitioner and respondent included an arbitration clause. 
• Disputes led the respondent to invoke a Bank Guarantee from the petitioner. 
• The Commercial Court was approached regarding the invocation, and the respondent sought to refer disputes to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 
• The Commercial Court's rejection of the application prompted a revision petition to the Bombay High Court, which upheld the application’s maintainability. 
• The matter escalated to the Supreme Court. 

Supreme Court Ruling

Justice K.M. Joseph, Justice Aniruddha Bose, and Justice C.T. Ravikumar:

• An arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is subject to stamp duty. 
• If the agreement is not stamped or insufficiently stamped, it cannot be acted upon as per Section 35 of the Stamp Act, unless it is impounded and the requisite duty is paid. 

Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Hrishikesh Roy:

• The non-stamping or insufficient stamping of the substantive instrument does not render the arbitration agreement unenforceable. 
• Stamp deficiency is a curable defect and does not make the arbitration agreement void. 

Relevant Legal Provisions:

• Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Defines an arbitration agreement and its forms, emphasizing that it must be in writing. 
• Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Grants judicial authority the power to refer parties to arbitration when an arbitration agreement exists. 

54. Shakeel Ahmed v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain, 2023

• Date of Judgement/Order - 01.11.2023
• Bench Strength - Judges
• Composition of Bench - Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Rajesh Bindal

Case In Brief

• The appellant is the one who was originally defendant in a lawsuit about owning and mesne profits from a property. 
• The respondent instituted the original suit claiming the right to the property based on a Power of Attorney, an agreement to sell, an affidavit, and a will in their favor.
• The person who is now appealing (the appellant) had been on the property because he received it as a gift from their brother.
• They contested the lawsuit on various grounds, but the court ruled in favor of the person who started the original lawsuit (the respondent), granting them possession of the property and any profits made from it.
• The appellant disagreed with this decision and took the case to the High Court of Delhi, but the High Court upheld the earlier ruling.
• The appellant brought an appeal to the Supreme Court, against the order of the HC. 

Verdict

• SC observed no title could be transferred with respect to immovable properties on the basis of an unregistered Agreement to Sell or on the basis of an unregistered General Power of Attorney.

• The Court further states that even if these documents were registered, it could not be said that the respondent would have acquired title over the property in question. At best, on the basis of the registered agreement to sell, he could have claimed relief of specific performance in appropriate proceedings. In this regard, reference may be made to Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 and Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (TPA).

• The Court, while allowing the appeal, noted that the law is well settled that no right, title or interest in immovable property can be conferred without a registered document.

Relevant Provision

• Section 54 of TPA - Sale
• Sale Defined - Sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised.
• Sale How Made- Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument.
• In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property.
• Contract for Sale—. contract for the sale of immoveable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.

55. Premchand v. State of Maharashtra

Supreme Court Ruling on Section 313 of CrPC in Criminal Case

• Date of Judgment: March 3, 2023 
• Bench: Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta 

Background:

• A murder occurred in 2013, with three others sustaining stab injuries. 
• The mother of the deceased filed a report, leading to charges under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC. 
• The post-mortem indicated a stab injury to the neck as the cause of death. 
• After investigation, charges were framed against the accused. 
• The Additional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of murder and attempted murder. 
• This decision was upheld by the High Court, prompting the current appeal to the Supreme Court. 

Supreme Court's Observations:

• The Court emphasized the importance of the accused's written statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. 
• It noted that the written statement should be considered in light of the prosecution evidence. 
• The Court referenced previous cases to highlight the relevance of the accused's statements in determining the truth. 
• The statements made by the accused under Section 313, although not under oath, are important for assessing the prosecution's case. 

Verdict:

• The Supreme Court found the accused guilty under Section 304 of the IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). 
• Considering the time already served (9 years) and the accused's age (late sixties), the Court ordered his release. 

Relevant Legal Provisions:

• Section 313 of the CrPC: Empowers the court to examine the accused during trials to explain circumstances appearing in evidence against them. 
• Section 302 of the IPC: Pertains to punishment for murder. 
• Section 307 of the IPC: Deals with attempt to murder. 

56. Gagan Baba v. Samit Mandal

Overview

• The Supreme Court, on July 4, 2023, addressed the concerning trend of misusing criminal law to target financial institutions and lenders in civil disputes. The Court emphasized the need to protect the integrity of economic health in the country. 

Background of the Case

• The petitioner highlighted a growing trend where malafide criminal proceedings are initiated against financial institutions and lenders. 
• It was argued that officers, representatives, and managers of such institutions are being coerced into halting recovery proceedings of enforceable debts or are being forced into settlement agreements. 
• The petitioner pointed out that FIRs are being filed to bypass the statutory regime of SARFAESI, misrepresenting civil financial disputes as criminal matters to intimidate and abuse the criminal process. 

Supreme Court's Observations

• The Supreme Court found the trend of misrepresenting civil financial disputes as criminal issues to be highly disturbing. 
• Citing the case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015), the Court noted that using criminal law to bypass statutory remedies against financial institutions poses a threat to the economic health of the nation. 

Relevant Legal Provision

• The Supreme Court referred to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which empowers High Courts to quash FIRs in certain circumstances. This section allows High Courts to prevent abuse of the court process and secure the ends of justice. 
• Section 482 - Saving of inherent powers of HC — This section ensures that the inherent powers of the High Court are not limited by the Code, allowing the Court to make necessary orders to give effect to the Code, prevent abuse of the process, or secure justice. 

57. Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority & Ors

Case Summary: Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute

Background

• The Uttar Pradesh State Government issued a notification to acquire land for the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 
• The appellants' land was among those acquired, with possession taken between August 1993 and May 1994. 

Market Value Determination

• The Special Land Acquisition Officer set the market value at different rates per square yard. 
• Aggrieved, the appellants sought higher compensation based on nearby land values. 

Legal Proceedings

• The District Judge awarded a market value of Rs. 400 per square yard with deductions. 
• The Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority appealed, with the appellants cross-appealing for higher compensation. 
• The High Court upheld the District Judge's decision. 
• The appellants' review for better consideration of their cross-objections was dismissed, leading to the current appeal. 

Supreme Court Verdict

• The Supreme Court, led by Justices Krishna Murari and Bela M. Trivedi, ruled in favor of the appellants. 
• It emphasized the High Court's duty to consider the appellants' cross-objections. 
• The case was remanded for fresh evaluation of the cross-objections, referencing a similar past case. 

Legal Provision Involved

• The relevant legal provision is from the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, specifically Order 41 Rule 22, which allows respondents to raise cross-objections in appeals. This rule enables respondents to challenge findings against them in the lower court as if they had filed a separate appeal, provided they do so within a specified timeframe. 

58. Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi & Anr.

• In 2019, Rahul Gandhi, a Congress leader and former MP, made a controversial remark during a political rally in Kolar, Karnataka, suggesting a link between the Modi surname and corruption. 
• This led to a legal battle initiated by Purnesh Modi, a BJP MLA, under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 

Legal Proceedings

• In March 2023, a trial court in Surat convicted Gandhi and sentenced him to two years in prison, the maximum penalty for defamation. 
• The Chief Judicial Magistrate later suspended the sentence but not the conviction, leading to Gandhi's disqualification from the Lok Sabha under Article 102(1)(e) of the Constitution and Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 
• Gandhi appealed the conviction in the Sessions Court, which granted him bail but did not stay the conviction. 
• His subsequent petition to the Gujarat High Court was dismissed, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court. 

Supreme Court's Decision

• On August 4, 2023, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court stayed Gandhi's conviction, temporarily halting his disqualification as a Member of Parliament. 
• The Court acknowledged that Gandhi's remarks were not in "good taste" and emphasized the need for public figures to exercise caution in their statements. 

Legal Context

The case involved key provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, particularly Sections 499 and 500, which deal with defamation and its penalties. 

• Section 499 outlines the criteria for defamation, including the intent to harm someone's reputation through false statements. 
• Section 500 prescribes the punishment for defamation, which can include simple imprisonment for up to two years, fines, or both. 
• The Representation of the People Act, 1950, specifically Section 8(3), was also relevant, as it pertains to the disqualification of individuals convicted of certain offenses from holding public office. 
• Article 102(1)(e) of the Constitution of India further supports this disqualification process.