30-11-2016 - Supreme Court of India

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.

30-11-2016 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

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"

22-11-2016 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

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.

04-10-2016 - Supreme Court of India

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'

21-09-2016 - Supreme Court of India

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.

07-09-2016 - Supreme Court of India

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

30-03-2016 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

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

04-02-2016 - Supreme Court of India

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

16-12-2015 - Supreme Court of India

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."

15-12-2015 - Supreme Court of India

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