13-09-2015 - Supreme Court of India

HELD - NO LINIENCE TO THOSE INVOLVED IN CORRUPTION CASE -

"we perceive, the delinquent employee has harboured the notion that when the cancerous growth has affected the system, he can further allow it to grow by covering it like an octopus, with its tentacles disallowing any kind of surgical operation or treatment so that the lesion continues. The whole act is reprehensible and such a situation does not even remotely commend any lenience."

11-09-2015 - Supreme Court of India

HELD - No Compromise in Rape Cases

08-09-2015 - Supreme Court of India

HELD - SECTION 164, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - During the investigation of any crime the complainant , accused witnesses or anybody else cannot request the Magistrate for his statement being recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C . Only investigating officer is empowered  in law to move an application to the magistrate for recording of statements of the witnesses , accused or of any other person u/s 164 Cr.P.C

13-08-2015 - Supreme Court Of India

HELD - " It is not only an offence but such an act creates a scar in the marrows of the mind of the victim. Anyone who indulges in a crime of such nature not only does he violate the penal provision of the IPC but also right of equality, right of individual identity and in the ultimate eventuality an important aspect of  rule of law which is a constitutional commitment.   The Constitution of India, an organic document, confers rights.  It does not condescend or confer any allowance or grant.   It recognises rights and the rights   are   strongly   entrenched   in   the   constitutional framework, its ethos and philosophy, subject to certain limitation. Dignity of every citizen flows from the fundamental precepts of the equality clause engrafted under Articles 14 and right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, for they are the “fon juris” of our Constitution.   The said rights are constitutionally secured. "

31-07-2015 - Supreme Court of India

We agree therefore with the conclusion reached by the majority of the Bench that there is no infringement of Article 20(3) of the Constitution by compelling an accused person to give his specimen handwriting or signature; or impressions of his fingers, palm or foot to the investigating officer or under orders of a court for the purpose of comparison under the provisions of s.73 of the Indian Evidence Act; though we have not been able to agree with the view of our learned brethren that ,to be a witness" in Art.20(3) should be 'equated with the imparting of personal knowledge or that an accused does not become a witness when he produces some document not in his own hand- writing even though it may tend to prove facts in issue or relevant facts against him.

25-07-2015 - Supreme Court of India

SUPREME COURT HELD - " In our opinion honour killings, for whatever reason, come within the category of rarest of rare cases deserving death punishment.   It is time to stamp out these barbaric, feudal practices which are a slur on our nation.  This is necessary as a deterrent for such outrageous, uncivilized behaviour.  All persons who are planning to perpetrate ‘honour’ killings should know that the gallows await them."

12-07-2015 - Supreme Court of India

Sec 9- Evidence Act- Dock Identification- Absence of Test Identification Parade -

Where the accused was not known to the witness from before the incident, first time identification of accused by the witnesses in the court during trial has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as sufficient and acceptable identification of the accused.

12-07-2015 - Supreme Court of India

POWER OF SUPERIOR COURTS TO ORDER CBI INVESTIGATION WITHOUT CONSENT OF STATE IS VALID IN LAW

"In the final analysis, our answer to the question referred is that a direction by the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within the territory of a State without the consent of that State will neither impinge upon the federal structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of separation of power and shall be valid in law. Being the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, this Court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly."

29-05-2015 - Delhi High Court

Section 376 IPC- Sexual Relation on pretext of marriage by Married Man is not a Rape-The woman consents to have a sexual relations with a married man who promises to marry her, continues the relationship and gets impregnated, then it is an act of "promiscuity" on her part and cannot be said as one induced by a misconception of fact and does not amount to Rape.

27-04-2015 - Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

The problem with which these appeals are concerned is that many Hindus have changed their religion and have become convert to Islam only for purposes of escaping the consequences of bigamy. For instance, Jitendra Mathur was married to Meena Mathur. He and another Hindu girl embraced Islam. Obviously because Muslim Law permits more than one wife and to the extent of four. But no religion permits deliberate distortions. Much misapprehension prevails about bigamy in Islam. To check the misuse many Islamic countries have codified the personal Law, `Wherein the practice of polygamy has been either totally prohibited or severely restricted. (Syria, Tunisia, Morocco, Pakistan, Iran, the Islamic Republics of the Soviet Union are some of the Muslim countries to be remembered in this context'. But ours is a Secular Democratic Republic. Freedom of religion is the core of our culture. Even the slightest deviation shakes the social fibre. `But religious practices, violative of human rights and dignity and sacerdotal suffocation of essentially civil and material freedoms, are not autonomy but oppression'. Therefore, a unified code is imperative both for protection of the oppressed and promotion of national unity and solidarity. But the first step should be to rationalise the personal law of the minorities to develop religious and cultural amity. The Government would be well advised to entrust the responsibility to the Law Commission which may in consultation with Minorities Commission examine the matter and bring about the comprehensive legislation in keeping with modern day concept of human rights for women.

03-04-2015 -

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. 1872 2 QB 484 is the important case on the concept of general offer. In the year 1890 an infuenza broke our in the london. The Carbolic Smoke Ball company prepared a medicine called "the carbolic smoke ball" and advertised the reward of 100 to anyone who contacted influenza after having taken the doze three times daily for two weeks. The company deposited sufficient money in the bank to show thier sincerity in the subject matter. A lady Mrs Carlill bought this medicine on the faith of the advertisement and used it in the manner and period specified but even then contacted infuenza. She asked for the money. But when refused she filed a case against the company. It was held that all the essential elements of the contract were present in that case , hence she is entitiled to the amount as mentioned by the company. Held- Although the offer is made to the world, the contract is made with the limited portion of the public who come forward and performed the condition on the faith of the advertisement.

03-04-2015 - Supreme Court of India

Mrs Dorairajan file a writ to Hon'ble HC, Madras under article 226 of Contitution of India for fundamental rights u/a 15(1) and u/a 29(2) of the constitution and pleaded to issue madamus. She Prayed she came to know that she would not be able to  take admission in the Madras Medical College as she belonged to the Brahmin community. No, objection was taken to the maintainibility of her petition on the grounds of absence of any actual application of admission made by her. On the contrary, state had agreed to reserve the seat for her, should her application before the HC succeed. In the peculiar circumstances, the court did not consider it necessary to pursue this matter any further. Held- The G.O of the govt was considered to be inconsistent and the provision of article 29(2) in part III of the constitution is void under article 13.

15-04-2014 - Supreme Court of India

Held - "Trans-gender persons" to be persons of "third gender" - (1) Hijras, Eunuchs, apart from binary gender, be treated as “third gender” for the purpose of safeguarding their rights under Part III of our Constitution and the laws made by the Parliament and the State Legislature. (2) Transgender persons’ right to decide their self-identified gender is also upheld and the Centre and State Governments are directed to grant legal recognition of their gender identity such as male, female or as third gender.  We direct the Centre and the State Governments to take steps to treat them as socially and educationally 110 backward classes of citizens and extend all kinds of reservation in cases of admission in educational institutions and for public appointments. (4) Centre and State Governments are directed to operate separate HIV Sero-survellance Centres since Hijras/ Transgenders face several sexual health issues. (5) Centre and State Governments should seriously address the problems being faced by Hijras/Transgenders such as fear, shame, gender dysphoria, social pressure, depression, suicidal tendencies, social stigma, etc. and any insistence for SRS for declaring one’s gender is immoral and illegal. (6) Centre and State Governments should take proper measures to provide medical care to TGs in the hospitals and also provide them separate public toilets and other facilities. (7) Centre and State Governments should also take steps for framing various social welfare schemes for their betterment. (8) Centre and State Governments should take steps to create public awareness so that TGs will feel that they are also part and parcel of the social life and be not treated as untouchables. (9) Centre and the State Governments should also take measures to regain their respect and place in the society which once they enjoyed in our cultural and social life. 

26-11-2013 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

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

26-11-2013 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

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

03-08-2012 - Supreme Court of India

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

1.  Where acts of omission and commission, deliberate  or  otherwise,  are committed by the investigating agency or other significant  witnesses instrumental in proving the offence, what approach,  in  appreciation of evidence, should be adopted?

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

3. Whenever there is some conflict in the eye-witness version  of  events and the medical evidence, what effect will it have on the case of the prosecution and what would be the manner in which  the  Court  should appreciate such evidence?

HELD- WHERE THERE IS AN INCONSISTENCY WITH MEDICAL EVIDENCE (POST MORTEM) AND EYE WITNESS, THE RELIABLE TESTIMONY OF EYE WITNESS SHALL PREVIAL - REFER PARA 11 AND 12 OF JUDGMENT

09-05-2011 - Supreme Court of India

Honour Killing comes within the purview of rarest of the case, so deserve death penalty.

31-10-2010 - 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.

20-02-2010 - Bombay High Court

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

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

12-07-2006 - Supreme Court of India

A bare reading of Section 375 makes the position clear that rape can be committed only by a man.  The section itself provides as to when a man can be said to have committed rape.  Section 376(2) makes certain categories of serious cases of rape as enumerated therein attract more severe punishment.  One of them relates to "gang rape".  The language of sub-section(2)(g) provides that "whoever commits  'gang rape" shall be punished etc. The Explanation only clarifies that when a woman is raped by one or more in a  group of persons acting in furtherance of their common intention each such person shall be deemed to have committed gang rape within this sub-section (2).  That cannot make a woman guilty of committing rape.  This is conceptually inconceivable.   A woman cannot be said to have an intention to commit rape.

21-03-2006 - Supreme Court of India

 Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is a ground for the grant of divorce-  Supreme Court of India in its landmark judgment held  that -Before we part with this case, on the consideration of the totality of facts, this Court would like to recommend the Union of India to seriously consider bringing an amendment in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to incorporate irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for the grant of divorce. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, Government of India for taking appropriate steps.

04-07-2003 - Andhra Pradesh High Court

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

15-02-2002 - Supreme Court of India

Evidence Act- Effect of Two Dying Declarations

In case of two dying declaration first indicating that deceased died of accidental burns while second indicating she died as she was unable to bear dowry demands and harassment meted out by acussed committed suicide by setting herself ablaze. Court relied on second DD and rejected first. It was held placing a reliance on the dying declaration recorded after adopting proper procedure and taking necessary precautions and which appears trustworthy.

24-04-1992 - Supreme Court of India

The medical officer should mention the negative facts in his report, but should not give his opinion that no rape had been committed. Rape is crime and not a medical condition. Rape is a legal term and not a diagnosis to be made by the medical officer treating the victim. The only statement that can be made by the medical officer is that there is evidence of recent sexual activity. Whether the rape has occurred or not is a legal conclusion, not a medical one.