26-11-2019 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

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.

06-11-2019 - 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

14-01-2019 - Supreme Court of India

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

27-09-2018 - 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.
 

31-10-2017 - 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.”

22-08-2017 - 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".

23-03-2017 - Supreme Court of India

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

09-03-2017 - Supreme Court of India

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

03-01-2017 - Supreme Court of India

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.

02-01-2017 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

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