List of Important Leading Judgements

Upload Date - - DELHI HIGH COURT

Arshad Ahmad and Other v. State of NCT of Delhi and another, 2nd June 2022

Quashing of FIR under section 482 Cr.PC / Articles 226 of Constitution of India u/s 376, 377, 498 A of Indian Penal Code possible in matrimonial disputes

View Judgement
Arshad Ahmad and Other v. State of NCT of Delhi and another, 2nd June 2022 -Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

Rishipal @ Rishipal Singh Solanki Versus Amardeep and Others

Para 29-The principles relating to the determination of the claim of juvenility under the Juvenile Justice Act 2015.

View Judgement
Rishipal @ Rishipal Singh Solanki Versus Amardeep and Others -Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Ramgopal & Anr v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Dated 29-09-2021 -SC

High Courts has a power to quash FIR of non-compoundable offences if it has no impact or depraving effect on the society at large, on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the victim or ­complainant.

View Judgement
Ramgopal & Anr v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Dated 29-09-2021 -SC-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

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

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

View Judgement
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Versus State of Maharashtra and others , CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 330 OF 2021 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

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

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

View Judgement
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 27 Nov 2020-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

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

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

View Judgement
Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020 (Decided on 04/11/2020)-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

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

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

View Judgement
Sushila Aggarwal and others Versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another, SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NOS.7281­7282/2017, Dated -January 29, 2020, New Delhi;-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

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

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

View Judgement
ANURADHA BHASIN VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1031 OF 2019 -Dated- JANUARY 10, 2020, New Delhi -Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

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

Held - No Absolute Right Of Appointment For Minority Educational Institutions

View Judgement
Sk. Md. Rafique v. Managing Committee, Contai Rahamania High Madrasah and Others, Civil Appeal No.5808 OF 2017, Dated-January 6, 2020, New Delhi-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Mypreferred Transformation vs The District Collector on 26 November, 2019

There are no laws or regulations forbearing unmarried persons of opposite sex to occupy hotel rooms, as guests. While live-in-relationship of two adults is not deemed to be an offence, terming the occupation of hotel room by an unmarried couple, will not attract a criminal offence.

View Judgement
Mypreferred Transformation vs The District Collector on 26 November, 2019-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

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

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

View Judgement
DELHI POLICE NON-GAZETTEDKARMCHARI SANGH & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Dated - 20/11/1986 -Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

Ashish Jain versus Makrand Singh and Others, 2019

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

View Judgement
Ashish Jain versus Makrand Singh and Others, 2019-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

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

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

View Judgement
Joseph Shine vs. Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No.194/2017-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - DELHI HIGH COURT

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

Mere Physical Contact does not amount to Sexual Harassment-

Delhi High Court held -"The Complaint Committee concluded that respondent no.3 might have held the petitioner’s arm and thrown the material in her hand in a fit of anger; although, the said incident may be a case of harassment and is deplorable, the same would not qualify as a sexual harassment. Plainly, all physical contact cannot be termed as sexual harassment and only a physical contact or advances which are in the nature of an “unwelcome sexually determined behavior” would amount to sexual harassment.”

View Judgement
SHANTA KUMAR Versus COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC ANDINDUSTRIAL RESEARCH (CSIR) & ORS -Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

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

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

View Judgement
Shayara Bano Versus Union of India and others, Writ Petition (C) No. 118 of 2016-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

Ram Kishan Fauji Versus State of Haryana and Ors.

The Supreme Court has held that an intra-court appeal cannot be filed before a division bench of the high court if a single judge has passed the order in a criminal case

View Judgement
Ram Kishan Fauji Versus State of Haryana and Ors.-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

Hussain And Anr vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2017

Bail application shall not remain pending in subordinate court for more than one week and in high court for not more than 2-3 weeks

View Judgement
Hussain And Anr vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2017-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

Kishore Bhadke vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 January, 2017

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

View Judgement
Kishore Bhadke vs State Of Maharashtra on 3 January, 2017-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Abhiram Singh V. C.D. Commachen (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS , New Delhi, January 02, 2017

SEEKING VOTES ON GROUND OF RELIGION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL -

Hon'ble Supreme Court ban on seeking votes over religion, race or caste. Held- “religion, race, caste, community or language would not be allowed to play any role in the electoral process”. Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act defines as “corrupt practice” appeals made by a candidate or his agents to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of “his” religion, race, caste, community or language.  The Constitution forbids state from mixing religion with politics,” ruled a seven-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice T.S. Chief Justice Thakur, judges S.A. Bobde, Adarsh Kumar Goel and L. Nageswara Rao and Madan B. Lokur formed the majority opinion. Three judges—Adarsh Kumar Goel, U.U. Lalit and D.Y. Chandrachud—argued against it maintaining this was the prerogative of Parliament

View Judgement
Abhiram Singh V. C.D. Commachen (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS , New Delhi, January 02, 2017 -Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View Judgement
SHYAM NARAYAN CHOUKSEY Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s) -Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

MUKARRAB ETC. Versus STATE OF U.P.

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

View Judgement
MUKARRAB ETC. Versus STATE OF U.P.-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

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

CONVICTION DESPITE WITNESS TURNED HOSTILE-

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

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

View Judgement
RAMESH AND OTHERS V. STATE OF HARYANA , CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2526 OF 2014-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

RAJA AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1767 OF 2011 - JUDGEMENT DATED-OCTOBER 4, 2016.

Sex Workers cannot lodge a sexual assualt (Rape) complaint against their customers if they refuse to pay money. Further held though the evidence given by a woman alleging rape must get importance from the trial court, but it could not be taken as 'GOSPEL TRUTH'

View Judgement
RAJA AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1767 OF 2011 - JUDGEMENT DATED-OCTOBER 4, 2016. -Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

SHARAD BIRDICHAND SARDA V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA; AIR 1984 1622

IMPORTANT SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT-

GOLDEN PRINCIPLES IN CASE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES-

1.The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.

3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.

4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and;

5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not o leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

View Judgement
SHARAD BIRDICHAND SARDA V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA; AIR 1984 1622-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

Youth Bar Association of India Vs. Union of India

Copy of first information report shall be made available online except heinous offences

View Judgement
Youth Bar Association of India Vs. Union of India -Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Savelife Foundation & ANR. Vs. Union of India & ANR.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ISSUED GUIDELINES TO SAVE LIFE OF VICTIMS OF ROAD ACCIDENTS BY SAMARITANS i.e ByStanders who are helping them. The petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in public interest for the development of supportive legal framework to protect Samaritans i.e. bystanders and passers-by who render the help to the victims of road accidents. These individuals can play a significant role in order to save lives of the victims by either immediately rushing them to the hospital or providing immediate life saving first aid

View Judgement
Savelife Foundation & ANR. Vs. Union of India & ANR.-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. …..Appellants Versus The State Information Commission & Anr. ….Respondents

Examiners Identity cannot be revealed under Right to Information Act- Held by Supreme Court of India

View Judgement
Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. …..Appellants Versus The State Information Commission & Anr. ….Respondents-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry -16th Dec 2015

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA COMES WITHIN THE AMBIT OF RTI ACT-

"RBI being the Central Bank is one of the instrumentalities available to the public which as a regulator can inspect such institutions and initiate remedial measures where necessary. It is important that the general public, particularly, the share holders and the depositors of such institutions are kept aware of RBI’s appraisal of the functioning of such institutions and taken into confidence about the remedial actions initiated in specific cases. This will serve the public interest. The RBI would therefore be well advised to be proactive in disclosing information to the public in general and the information seekers under the RTI Act, in particular. The provisions of Section 10(1) of the RTI Act can therefore be judiciously used when necessary to adhere to this objective."

View Judgement
Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry -16th Dec 2015-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

Selvi v. State of Karnataka AIR 2010 SC 1974

Whether Polygraph Test to accused is an intrusion to personal liberty of accused person or investigative use is justifiable. ? Evidentary Value of polygraph Test

View Judgement
Selvi v. State of Karnataka AIR 2010 SC 1974-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

Sarla Mugdal, President, kalyani v. Union of India

HELD- Conversion to Islam and marrying again would not, by itself , dissolve the hindu marriage. The second marriage by a convert without having first marriage dissolved under the law would therefore be in violation of the act and as such void in terms of section 494 IPC

View Judgement
Sarla Mugdal, President, kalyani v. Union of India-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

Riju Prasad Sarma v. State of Assam

Judiciary is not STATE within the purview of article 12 of Constitution of India.- the judiciary in India, acting on its judicial side cannot be considered as a State under Article 12 of the Constitution, and that only when the courts deal with their employees or act in other matters purely in administrative capacity, they may fall within the definition of the State for attracting writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court also ruled that writs against the judiciary would lie against their administrative actions alone.

View Judgement
Riju Prasad Sarma v. State of Assam -Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Allahabad High Court

Satish Kumar Singh, Advocate Vs Dr Anil Kumar Yadav, Chairman UPPSC Allahabad & Ors

Appointment of Dr Anil Kumar Yadav as Chairman of UPPSC is ultra vires, arbitrary and in breach of provisions of Article 316 (1) of the Constitution.

View Judgement
Satish Kumar Singh, Advocate Vs Dr Anil Kumar Yadav, Chairman UPPSC Allahabad & Ors -Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Allahabad High Court

Sant Ram Sharma Vs State of U P & Ors-- Year 2015

Constitutional validity of UP Panchayat Raj(Reservation & Allotment of Seats & Offices) (10th Amendment) Rules 2015 re election of Gram Pradhan upheld

View Judgement
Sant Ram Sharma Vs State of U P & Ors-- Year 2015-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

Birad Mal Singhvi vs Anand Purohit

HELD - "in the scholar’s register and the secondary school examination have no probative value, as no person on whose information the dates of birth of the aforesaid candidates were mentioned in the school record was examined.”

View Judgement
Birad Mal Singhvi vs Anand Purohit-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

U.P. State Road Transport Corp. & Anr Versus Gopal Shukla & Anr.

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."

View Judgement
U.P. State Road Transport Corp. & Anr Versus Gopal Shukla & Anr. -Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

State of M.P. v. Madanlal

HELD - No Compromise in Rape Cases

View Judgement
State of M.P. v. Madanlal-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

Jogender Nahak v. State of Orissa , 1999 (4) Crime 12 (SC)

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

View Judgement
Jogender Nahak v. State of Orissa , 1999 (4) Crime 12 (SC)-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court Of India

Parhlad and Anr. v. State of Haryana - CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 983 OF 2015

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. "

View Judgement
Parhlad and Anr. v. State of Haryana - CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 983 OF 2015-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

The State Of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad And Others on 4 August, 1961

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.

 

 

View Judgement
The State Of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad And Others on 4 August, 1961-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

Bhagwan Dass versus State (NCT) of Delhi 2011

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."

View Judgement
Bhagwan Dass versus State (NCT) of Delhi 2011-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

Mahabir v. State of Delhi AIR 2008 SC

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.

View Judgement
Mahabir v. State of Delhi AIR 2008 SC-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. VERSUS THE COMMITTEE FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS, WEST BENGAL & ORS.-- Dated-FEBRUARY 17, 2010

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."

View Judgement
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. VERSUS THE COMMITTEE FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS, WEST BENGAL & ORS.-- Dated-FEBRUARY 17, 2010-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Delhi High Court

GAURAV MAGGO versus THE STATE OF NCT, DELHI

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.

View Judgement
GAURAV MAGGO versus THE STATE OF NCT, DELHI -Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - 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.

View Judgement
-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - -

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1872) 2 QB 484

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.

View Judgement
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. (1872) 2 QB 484-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan AIR 1951 SC 226

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.

View Judgement
State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan AIR 1951 SC 226-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

National Legal Services Authority v. Union 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. 

View Judgement
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

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

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

View Judgement
Indra Sarma Versus V.K.V. Sarma , New Delhi, November 26, 2013 -Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

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

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

View Judgement
Indra Sarma vs V.K.V.Sarma on 26 November, 2013-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations
Upload Date - - Supreme Court of India

Dayal Singh & Ors. Versus State of Uttaranchal

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

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

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

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

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

View Judgement
Dayal Singh & Ors. Versus State of Uttaranchal-Important landmark Supreme Court Leading Cases-Judgements for various judicial services examinations