09-10-2015 - Allahabad High Court

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

19-09-2015 - Supreme Court of India

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.”

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."