Important cases from 2021
Laxmibai Chandaragi v. The State of Karnataka -A family permit is not required if two adults decide to get married
The Court found that educated young boys and girls choose their partners for a life that is alienated from social norms. Family or community or family consent is not required if two adults have consented to the marriage and their consent must be validated first.
Devilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh – A juvenile offender under the age of 18 and over 16 will be arraigned in juvenile justice court.
In this regard, the Court considered the extent to which the benefits under the Youth Justice Act could be extended to the extent that the offender was over the age of 16 and under the age of 18 on the date of the offense.
The Court held that in such a case, even if the defendant was guilty, the matter should be referred to the Juvenile Justice Board.
Chief Election Commissioner of India v. MR Vijayabhaskar – Freedom of the press in court
The Court held that freedom of speech and expression also led to the reporting of court proceedings, including verbal representations made by judges.
“Article 19 (1) (a) includes freedom of the press. Freedom of speech and expression includes the freedom to cover and court cases. To prevent a new way of reporting further.
Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana – Guidelines for Dowry Death Trials
The Court held that Section 304-B IPC should be interpreted to take into account the legal purpose of preventing public misconduct by burning brides and demanding bribes. The Bench, therefore, has set guidelines for the Dowry Death trial in the lower courts.
Rahul Sharma v. National Insurance Company Ltd. – If the deceased was self-employed and under the age of 40, 40% of their salary will be added as a hope for the future.
The decision doubled the Supreme Court rating on National Insurance Co Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi.
Jayamma v. Karnataka State – Acceptance of Death Declaration
The Supreme Court held that the death notices were accepted as evidence in the order of necessity as there was little hope that the perpetrator would survive. A death sentence may form the basis for a conviction if it is legally recorded and if it provides a plausible and reasonable explanation for what happened, it can be relied upon as the sole independent evidence of the defendant’s conviction.
Mohammad Salimullah v. Union of India – ‘The right to deportation’ is in accordance with Article 19 and is only available to Indian citizens
The Supreme Court, while hearing a case challenging the decision to deport Rohingya refugees, held while the basic rights under Articles 14 and 21 are available to all people whether citizens or not, the ‘right not to be deported’ is accompanied by the right to reside or occupy any part of India guaranteed under of Article 19 (1) (e) and is only available to citizens.
Farzana Batool v. Union of India – The Right to Higher Education
The Court held that although the right to a higher education has not been defined as a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution, it emphasizes that access to professional education is not a public problem, and that the State has a duty to facilitate access to education at all levels.
Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. The Chief Minister – Reservation for the Maratha community
The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court overturned the reservation of bookings in Maratha and ruled that no exceptions were allowed for the granting of reservations to the Maratha community over 50 per cent of the roof as set out in the Indra Sawhney ruling.
Vikas Krishan Rao Gawali v. State of Maharashtra – OBC reservations cannot exceed 50 percent
The Supreme Court also set a three-pronged test to be followed by the State before booking seats on local OBC structures.
The three conditions are:
(1) to establish a Commission dedicated to conducting in-depth investigations into the nature and effects of the recurrence of local themes, within the State;
(2) specify the portion of the booking required for the provision of a local body in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission; and
(3) in any such reservation shall not exceed 50% of the total number of seats reserved for assembled SCs / STs / OBCs.
Guru Dutt Pathak v. State of UP – Non-investigation of independent witnesses who do not murder in prosecution
The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Allahabad High Court that where there was evidence of eyewitness testimony, non-investigation of other witnesses or the absence of independent witness examination would not be detrimental to prosecutors’ case.
Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh – Madhya Pradesh High Court ruling has decided to arrest Rakhi as a bail bond set aside
The Court found that the use of Rakhi’s bond as bail bonds transforms the abuser into a brother in the jurisdiction and is totally unacceptable. It has the effect of reducing and eliminating sexual harassment. Bench also issued guidelines on dealing with bail in cases of sexual harassment and stressed that empathy should be shown by judges in such cases.
The Court directed the training and sensitivity of the judges by prescribing a gender promotion module as part of the basic training for all judges.
Kerala Union of Working Journalists v. Union of India – The Basic Right to Life unconditionally includes even trials
In deciding the application for the release of Kerala journalist Sidique Kappan, the Supreme Court held that a basic right to life is available to a prisoner.
Vikas Kumar v. Union Public Service Commission – A ruling that excludes people with a visual / hearing impairment of more than 40 percent in the justice service is no longer binding
The Court ruled that a person with a vascular disease, the author’s crab, has the right to be a Secretary for the Civil Service exams.
The Court also held that the previous decision of V Surendra Mohan v. The state of Tamil Nadu which had raised the disability of 40 percent of the disabled to be appointed as a community judge, is no longer a good law.
Most importantly, the Court held that the ‘equilibrium disability’ as defined in the Act is not an obligation to obtain an author.
Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency – Power of Court ordering house arrest
The Court held that under Section 167 of the CrPC, in appropriate cases, the courts would also be opened to detain house arrest. In addition, in order for a person to be detained in the home, the courts may consider such factors as age, health status and adjectives of the suspect, the nature of the case, the need for alternative means of arrest and the ability to enforce house arrest terms.
Re: Distribution of Essentials and Services During the Epidemic – Central Government Immunization Policy
Among other things, the Court noted that paying for a vaccine in the case of the State / UT government and private hospitals for people between the ages of 18-44 is unreasonable and unreasonable.
Union of India v. KA Najeeb – Bail in UAPA cases where suspects are being held for extended periods of time
Emphasizing the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court granted bail to a defendant who had spent more than five years in prison as a trial under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
The Court accepted that there is a bar under Section 43D (5) of UAPA opposing the granting of bail. However, the Court has made it clear that this law does not take away the power of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights.
L Raghumani Singh v. Imphal West District Manipur – NSA charges against Manipuri activist Erendro Leichombam dropped
In response to his father’s application, the Supreme Court ordered the immediate release of Manipuri activist Erendro Leichombam, who had been booked under the National Security Act (NSA) by Facebook, which criticized Barrat Janata party leaders for promoting cow and cow dung – urine as a COVID-19 treatment.
Important cases from 2020
Dr. Shah Faesal v. Union of India- References to the Central Bank in the event of Article 370 of the Constitution are denied
A five-judge panel of the Supreme Court ruled that there was no need to refer to a larger bench for applications that challenged the Presidential Decree to abolish the special status granted to Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of the Constitution.
Pravakar Mallick & Anr v. State of Orissa – About booking on promotions
The Court followed the law imposed on the case of Nagaraj v. The Union of India reiterated that the State is not obliged to book SCs / STs in promotions. However, if they wish to do so, they must collect unparalleled data showing the severity of the class and insufficient representation of that grade in public works, keeping in mind the maintenance of efficiency, as set out in Article 335 of the Indian Constitution.
Pawan Kumar Gupta v. State of NCT of Delhi – Plea in 2012 The Delhi gang rape case has been dropped
The Court has rejected a medical application that was convicted of rape in Delhi in 2012 and rejected an application for further murder. After the Court dismissed the final appeal against the rejection of the detainees’ applications by the President of India, the detainees were hanged to death at Tilongo Jail at 5:30 am on March 20.
Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao v. State of AP – Government order to provide 100% bookings of foreign teachers in unconstitutional designated areas
The Court held that the government’s order issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh, which provides 100% of Transched Tribe registrars for teaching positions in designated schools, was unconstitutional and that there was “no rhythm or reason” for the State government to use 100% bookings.
Skill Lotto Solutions v. Union of India- Constitution of GST tax on lottery and betting is maintained
The Court reaffirmed the imposition of Customs and Taxation (GST) on lottery sales, declaring that the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and notices issued under the same lottery delivery and gambling under the GST net were valid.
Christian Medical College Vellore Association v. Union of India – Rights under Article 30 of the Constitution are incomplete, they can be exercised in accordance with State law
The Court held that the right granted to minority religions and languages to govern the educational institutions of their choice was not absolute and did not constitute a state law. Section 30 does not preclude the State from setting appropriate measures to make the administration of minority institutions transparent.
Chief Information Officer v. Gujarat High Court – About the right to access court records through RTI
The Supreme Court barred the application of the Right to Information Act, 2005 when it came to obtaining court records in the Gujarat High Court. The three-judge bench stated that citizens could not apply for RTI to obtain copies of appeals, judgments, documents, decisions or orders, to place witnesses, etc. Instead, citizens must apply the procedure established by the Rules of the Supreme Court of Gujarat.
Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka – Booking of Persons with Disabilities
A three-judge panel ruled that the granting of a reservation for the promotion of persons with disabilities is not permitted under Article 16 (1)of the Constitution, and that people with disabilities (PWDs) are fully capable of performing the required functions.
Rambabu Singh Thakur v. Sunil Arora – Political parties will publish criminal cases against candidates
The Court gave political parties both different directions at the State and State levels to authorize detailed information on candidates’ websites and criminal cases pending their submissions, stating the reasons for selecting candidates and why people without criminal objections could not be selected.
This information must be published in the local and national newspaper and on the official forums of the political party. Political parties must submit a report to the Electoral Commission within 72 hours of electing a candidate.
Case v. State through Inspector of Police – Suo Moto Extension of Limit Period during Covid-19 not to violate the right of suspects to be released on automatic bail
In an appeal to the Supreme Court, it was held that the order issued by the High Court of Madras in respect of the extension of the limitation period does not apply to the period specified under Section 167 (2) CrPC and will not preclude the defendant’s right of non-payment of bail
Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma – Daughters will have the right to detention regardless of whether their father was still alive under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005
The three-judge panel of the Supreme Court held that the amended Section 6 provides for the status of copies of daughters born before or after amendment in the same way as sons, with the same rights and liabilities. It further stipulated that since the copyright was inherent, it was not compulsory for the father of the copyright holder to live on November 9, 2005, when the amended law commenced.
Abhilasha v. Prakash & Ors – An unmarried Hindu daughter can pay maintenance to her father until she gets married
The Court held that an unmarried Hindu daughter can claim maintenance from her father until he marries, subject to Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, as long as it proves that he is unable to support himself. Enforcement of a right, his / her application / claim must be subject to Section 20 of the Act.
Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India – Access to the Internet as a fundamental right
The Supreme Court has ruled that freedom of speech and expression on the Internet, as well as freedom to do any work, work, trade and trade online is a fundamental right guaranteed, under Article 19 (1) (a) and Article 19 (1). (g) of the Constitution of India. The Court also added that the permanent suspension of the Internet was illegal, and that blocking the Internet repeatedly by orders under Section 144 CrPC, abuse of power.
The decision came in the form of an appeal against the ban on internet censorship in Kashmir.
Prithviraj Chauhan v. Union of India – Application of the SC / ST Act, 1989
The three-judge panel of the Supreme Court upheld the application of the Constitution of Section 18-A of the Ched & Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act (2018) to any officer prior to the arrest of the accused).
It was also maintained that no bail is expected to be granted for cases under the SC / ST Amendment Act.
Secretary, Department of Defense v. Called Puniya – Permanent Women’s Commission on Military and Military
The Court ruled that the female officers of the Short Service Commissioned (SSC) in the Indian military are entitled to a commission (PC) and that they must be supervised by a PC regardless of the age of fourteen years of service.
Dismissing the PC would be a violation of the right to equality under Article 14, the Court held.
Internet and Mobile Association v. RBI – RBI ban on cryptocurrency trading has been lifted
The Supreme Court has overturned a Reserve Bank of India (RBI) circular that barred banks and financial institutions from providing services to any companies or businesses in dealing with or resolving cryptocurrency, including Bitcoin.
It said the ban by the RBI even though the central bank found nothing wrong with the way in which virtual currency (VC) exchanges were conducted and although VCs were not prohibited by any law in India, violated the freedom to continue trading guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.
Mukesh Kumar & Anr v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors – Booking is not a basic right
The Court held that there is no fundamental right to demand a reservation for public office promotion. This decision emphasizes that Article 16 (4) and Article 16 (4-A) of the Constitution allow for provisions and that national governments are not obliged to book. The courts have no jurisdiction to compel the State government to do so.
Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police – You have the right to object
In an appeal filed against Delhi protests at Shaheen Bagh over the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that public places could not be permanently occupied.
The Court made a number of comments on the limited limits of the right to protest. Democracy and opposition go hand in hand, but protests against the opposition should be in isolated areas, the Court said. The nature and manner of the opposition to colonial rule cannot be compared to the anti-colonial rule, the Court said.
Amish Devgan v. Union of India – About what “hate speech” means
The Court made several inquiries into the hate speech during its refusal to dismiss FIR against TV founder Amish Devgan for allegedly damaging religious feelings after using the words ‘Lootera Chishti’ while referring to Sufi saint Meinuddin Chishti in one of his TV interviews.
I am simply referring to the feelings of one community or group without any reference to any other community or group that does not attract ‘hate speech’, the Court said. Among other observations, the Court also observed that freedom and rights cannot extend to create public disorder or incite violence.
