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

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Held - No Absolute Right Of Appointment For Minority Educational Institutions

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

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

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

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

Supreme Court of India

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

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

Supreme Court of India

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.

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

Supreme Court of India

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

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

Supreme Court of India

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

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

Supreme Court of India

Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are violative of Articles 14, 15(1), and 21 of the Constitution of India.
 

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

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

WHAT ARE MINORITY INSTITUTION- REQUIREMENT TO ESTABLISH MINORITY INSTITUTIONS- All citizens have a right to establish and administer educational institutions under Articles 19(1)(g) and 26, but this right is subject to the provisions of Articles 19(6) and 26(a). However, minority institutions will have a right to admit students belonging to the minority group.

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

Supreme Court of India

Hon'ble Supreme Court held "Talaq is manifestly arbitrary in the sense that the marital tie can be broken capriciously and whimsically by a Muslim man without any attempt at reconciliation so as to save it. This form of Talaq must, therefore, be held to be violative of the fundamental right contained under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, therefore, the 1937 Act, insofar as it seeks to recognize and enforce Triple Talaq, is within the meaning of the expression “laws in force” in Article 13(1) and must be struck down as being void to the extent that it recognizes and enforces Triple Talaq".

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

DELHI HIGH COURT

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.”