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