NGT ORDER IN AIR POLLUTION CASE
MARCH 19, 2015
Teesta Setalvad v State of Gujarat referred to larger Bench.
MARCH 4
MARCH 1, 2015
FEB 6: DELHI HC JUDGMENT IN VIKAS YADAV V STATE OF U.P.
FEB 5, 2015
Krishnamorthy v. Sivakumar. Justice Dipak Misra dismisses petition filed by a former President of a Panchayat in T.N. against his disqualification on the ground of non-disclosure of his criminal antecedents. His plea of ignorance and contention that non-furnishing of information cannot be interpreted as non-disclosure was rejected.
FEB.3
SUBHAS DATTA V UOI (Preservation of national heritage case)
DEC.23
Delhi High Court Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw dismisses plea to make available medical treatment to general public at a reasonable cost.
DEC.19
Registrar SCI v. S.C.Agarwal
Delhi HC sets aside CIC order directing SCI to disclose information about Judges’ medical bills.
Kulvir Singh v UOI
Action of seeking political asylum abroad is not prejudicial to the sovereignty and unity of India, and therefore, cannot be held a ground for denying passport.
DEC.6
DR.SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (Dikshitars are a separate religious denomination, and therefore, have a right to administer the temple)
Kanchanben v state of Gujarat Appeal of mother-in-law convicted for dowry harassment dismissed, but sentence reduced.
NOV.20
CENTRE FOR PIL V. U0I
NOV.10
CHARU KHURANA V UOI
OCT. 31
ECHR REJECTS RIGHT TO REMAIN NAKED: LIVELAW
OCT 15
An interesting judgment on the use of DNA test to prove infidelity of wife in marriage dissolution proceedings.
SEP.26
BOMBAY H.C. JUDGMENT ON RIGHT NOT TO HAVE ANY RELIGION
SEP.25
SEP.24
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. State of Maharashtra
Manoharlal Sharma v. The Principal Secretary (cancellation of coal blocks)
SEP.11
Caste based crematoriums must end: RAJASTHAN HC
SEP.9
Surendra Koli v State of U.P.
SEP 5
BHIM SINGH V UOI (FREEING OF UNDERTRIALS) ORDER
SEP.2
MOHD. ARIF V. REGISTRAR (REVIEW PETITIONS IN DEATH PENALTY CASES TO BE HEARD IN OPEN COURT)
AUG.27
SC JUDG. IN MANOJ NARULA V. UOI
DELHI HC JUDG. IN LALIT KUMAR MODI V UOI
AUG.25
MANOHARLAL SHARMA V PRINCIPAL SECRETARY [COALGATE]
AUG.13
DELHI HC JUDGMENT IN CAG CASE
Suresh v.State (Read Paragraphs16-18)
AUG.11, 2014
Alfred Benddict v. Manipal Hospital (Medical negligence)
AUG.7
Manzoor Ali Khan v UOI (SC refuses to strike down Sec.19 of PCA)
Ju ly 7, 2014
Vishwa Lochan Madan v UOI ( Shariats and Fatwas have no legal sanctity)
JUNE 1
RAJA JOHN BUNCH V. UOI (Allahabad HC judgment on PIL seeking ban on a candidate contesting from two seats).(PIL 24206 of 2014) DOJ: 28.4.14
MARCH 13
STATE V RAM SINGH (DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGMENT)
FEB.3
SC ORDER IN BHULLAR CURATIVE PET. CASE
JAN.16
X v. Secretary General, Supreme Court
Swatantar Kumar v. Indian Express
DELHI HC JUDGMENT IN ASSOCIATION OF UNIFIED TELECOM SERVICE PROVIDERS OF INDIA
JAN. 7, 2014
STATE OF GUJARAT V. KISHANBHAI (ON THE NEED TO REVIEW ACQUITTALS)
Dec.12
**NEW : Deaf Employees welfare Association v. UOI
Scope of S.197 Cr.P.C.
Rajashree Rajasekaran has contributed the following summaries of recent judgments from the Supreme Court.
Manoj@Panu
vs. State of Haryana
the SC in the instant case (found here)
attempts to draw a distinction as regards circumstances that warrant concurrent
and consecutive punishment. This Appeal has been filed by the Appellant against
the final judgment and order dated 13.05.2013 passed by the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana for the offences punishable under sections 307 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced the
appellant to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years, 3 years and another 3 years
respectively under the above mentioned provisions. The sentences were ordered
to run consecutively in terms of Section 31 of Cr.P.C.
the shooting of one Mr.Satender on 23.08.2005 in the premises of the District
Court in Bhiwani, Haryana. One important factor that was considered by the HC
in concluding that the sentences were to run consecutively and not concurrently
is the fact that the Appellant herein was a previous convict for committing an
identical offence. The HC was also of the opinion that the Appellant herein has
the tendency of repeating commission of similar offences in the court premises.
submitted by the Appellant that the lower courts have committed a grave error
of law as the punishment and sentence for offences under a single transaction
should have run concurrently as held in the case of Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias
Ibrahim Ahmed Bhatti v. Asst. Collector
of Customs (Prevention), Ahmedabad &
Anr. (1988) 4 SCC 183. Reliance was also placed on the decisions of State
of Maharashtra v. Najakat Alia Mubarak
Ali (2001) 6 SCC 311 and Chatar Singh v. State of M.P (2006) 12 SCC 37
to substantiate the argument that if a given transaction constitutes two offences under two enactments generally, it is wrong to
have consecutive sentences.
note of the tender age of the Appellant at the time of committing the offence
and the fact that he had already undergone 6 years of imprisonment, has held
that the sentences are modified to run concurrently and not consecutively and
that it must be reduced to 10 years in total with regard to the aforesaid
settled position of law.
of relevance to mention the decision of this court in Saibanna v State of Karnataka
in 2005 (found here).
The appellant Saibanna was convicted for the murder of his wife Nagamma, aged about
22 years, and his daughterVijayalakshmi, aged about 1year. The appellant had
earlier committed murder of his first wife Malakawwa for which he was
convicted. The High Court took the view
that the case at hand was a “rarest of rare case” involving
pre-planned brutal murders without provocation and, hence concluded that it was
a fit case for the confirmation of the death sentence awarded by the Sessions
Court. Initially Saibanna was charged under section 303 of the IPC. But upon
the Sessions Court being informed of the fact that this section was no longer
operative as a result of the judgment in Mithu vs. State of Punjab, he was
consequently charged under Section 302.
to decide on the appropriate punishment to be imposed. The two-Judge Bench had
observed that imposing a second life term on him would be a meaningless
exercise. It was held that in the teeth
of Section 427(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is doubtful
whether a person already undergoing sentence of imprisonment for life can be
visited with another term of imprisonment for life to run consecutively with
the previous one. Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. requires that the subsequent life
sentence imposed on a convict shall run concurrently with the previous life
sentence. The question of starting the
second life sentence consecutively after the first one is complete can never
arise because life sentence means imprisonment for the remainder of the single
life of the prisoner, unless the state remits the first life sentence.
one glaring example of injustice as it resulted in the awarding of the death
sentence for his second offence of murder for the only reason that he was
already under life sentence for his first offence. This judgment in effect
paves the way for the indirect application of Section 303, thus defeating the
protective safeguard of the judgment in Mithu.
Sahara & Ors
(found here), has issued a notice of show cause to Subrata
Roy, Sahara Chief (Respondent 1), Upendra Rai, Editor and News Director of
Sahara India (Respondent 2) and Subodh Jain, Reporter, Sahara TV (Respondent
3); as to why proceedings not be initiated against them for
interfering with the court monitored
criminal investigation in the 2G case.
consequence of a Contempt Petition that was instituted before the SC by Mr. Rajeshwar
Singh (Petitioner herein), who is the Assistant Director of the Enforcement
Directorate, who was entrusted with the investigation of the 2G spectrum case.
The main allegation of the petitioner herein is that the Respondents have
indulged in activities with a clear intent to dissuade the Petitioner from
proceeding in his investigation again the Sahara Group, especially in the 2G
case. This petition stems as an off shoot from two orders of the SC in the 2G case
(found here
and here). The current petition has been preferred under
Articles 129 and 142 of the Indian Constitution, read with Section 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act 1971 and Rule 12 of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings
for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975. The main issue that was considered by
the SC was the maintainability of this Petition.
registration of a case by the CBI and an inquiry by the Central Vigilance Commission
(CVC) as regards the grave irregularities in the grant of licences in the “2G
scam”, the SC had ordered for a Court monitored investigation. By its order
dated 16.12.2010, the Court entrusted the investigation of the 2G case to be
carried out by the integrated investigation of the CBI, the Enforcement Directorate
and the Central Vigilance Commission(CVC). On 10.02.2011, the SC passed an
order that since this Court is monitoring the investigation of 2G Spectrum Scam
no court shall pass any order which may, in any manner, impede the
investigation being carried out by the CBI and the Directorate of Enforcement.
this petition
Petitioner that during the course of his investigation, he found that various
concerns of the Sahara Group were involved not only in the 2G scam but also what
is popularly known as the Madhu Koda Scam. It was submitted that these
investigations undertaken by the petitioner has irked the Sahara Group and more
particularly the respondents. It is the allegation of the Petitioner that he is
being personally attacked by the Respondents with intent of hindering his
investigation against them. Mr.Singh also stated that he received a letter on
05.05.2011 purported to be sent by the
Respondent No.3, which contains a wielded threat to start a campaign against
the him with a view to intimidate and,
thus, interfere in the ongoing
investigations against the Sahara Group companies in the 2G Spectrum case. The petitioner thus
contends that the respondents are attempting to interfere and obstruct the
administration of justice, thereby bringing their conduct within the scope of
criminal contempt under section2(c) of the 1971 Act.
stated that firstly, the petition is not maintainable since it has been filed
without the consent of the Attorney General of India or other officer mentioned
in Section 15 of the Act; secondly, that the power conferred on this Court to issue
suo motu notice is limited and could be exercised only in exceptional
circumstances and thirdly, that they have nothing to do with the service tenure
in the Enforcement Directorate or the cases relating to the 2G Scam.
appearing on behalf of the CBI has submitted that no sanction from the Attorney
General is necessary when this Court suo motu initiates the contempt proceedings
in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 129 read with Article 142 of
the Constitution, irrespective of the provisions of the Act and the Rules to
Regulate proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975.
submissions, the SC has concluded that prima facie there has been an attempt by
the respondents to interfere with an investigation undertaken by the petitioner
which is being monitored by this Court. The decision of Delhi Judicial Service
Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi v.
State of Gujarat and others (1991) 4 SCC 406 has been cited to support
this conclusion. Discussing Article 129, it was held in this case that the power
of the SC under this Article is an inherent power and the jurisdiction vested
is a special one not derived from any other statute but derived only from
Article 129 of the Constitution of India and therefore the constitutionally
vested right cannot be either abridged by any legislation or abrogated or cut
down. The SC has also endorsed the view that that the power conferred on this
Court under Article 129 is a constitutional power which cannot be circumscribed
or delineated either by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or Rules or even the
Rules to Regulate Proceedings for
Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975, as held in I. Manilal Singh v. Dr. H.
Borobabu Singh and another (1994) Suppl. (1) SCC 718.
sustained its conclusion by placing reliance on the decision of Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper
Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and another (1996) 4 SCC 622, which held that
the Court’s power under Article 142 to do complete justice is not confined by
any statutory provision.
has come to the conclusion that the consent of the Attorney General is not
necessary in the light of the above mentioned Constitutional provisions and has
thus held that the petition is perfectly maintainable and that the court has a
constitutional obligation to examine the truth of the allegations as to whether
the respondents are attempting to derail the investigation which is being
monitored by this Court.
Dec 10
NOV.22
State as model employer:State of Jharkhand v. Harhar Yadav
Double murder convict gets life sentence
Nov.22
FULL TEXT OF THE BAN BY THE LUCKNOW BENCH OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ON THE FILM RAM LEELA IN U.P.
Court No. – 27
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. – 10845 of 2013
Petitioner :- C/M Shri Maryada Purshottam Bhagwan Ramleela Committee,Bahra
Respondent :- Union Of India Thr.Secy.Ministry Of Information & Broadcasti
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.S.G.
Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh,J.
Hon’ble Ashok Pal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr I.P. Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. and Mr. Raj Kumar Singh for the Union of India.
The petitioner, a Society, plays ‘Ram-Leela’ every year during Dasshera period in District Bahraich. The petitioner is aggrieved by the use of word, “Ram-Leela” in a film, produced and promoted by the respondents 4 and 5. The name of the film, it appears, was later on changed as ‘Goliyon ki Raasleela-Ram Leela’.
According to the petitioner’s counsel, the word, ‘Ram-Leela’ relates to Lord Ram and co-relates with thousand years of Indian Civilization. Every year, not only in all over the country but in different parts of the world, ‘Ram Leela’ is staged depicting the life and character of Lord Ram and battle fought by Him with demon Ravan. Thus, Ram Leela co-relates to an event which relates to stage the life of Lord Ram. Similarly, Raasleela is an event which relates to dance stage by Lord Krishna with spiritual sentiments. In Encyclopedia Britannica (Vol. 27), words, ” ramlila and raslila” have been discussed as under :
“In the ramlila and raslila, the principal characters-Rama and Krishna- are always played by boys under 14, because tradition decreed they must be pure and innocent. They are considered representatives of the gods and are worshipped on these occasions. In the ramlila the vyas (“director”), present on the stage throughout the performance, prompts and directs the characters loudly enough for the audience to hear. This is not regarded as disturbing because it is an accepted part of the tradition. Adult roles such as Ravana and Hanuman are sometimes played by the same individual throughout his life.
Of the nonreligious forms, the jatra and the tamasha are most important. The jatra, also popular in Orissa and eastern Bihar, originated in Bengal in the 15th century as a result of the bhakti movement, in which devotees of Krishna went singing and dancing in processions and in their frenzied singing sometimes went into acting trances. This singing with dramatic elements gradually came to be known as jatra, which means “to go in a procession.” In the 19th century the jatra became secularized when the repertoire swelled with love stories and social and political themes. Until the beginning of the 20th century, the dialogue was primarily sung. The length has been cut from all night to four hours. The jatra performance consists of action-packed dialogue with only about six songs. The singing chorus is represented by a single character, the vivek (“conscience”), who can appear at any moment in the play. He comments on the action, philosophizes, warns of impending dangers, and plays the double of everybody. Through his songs he externalises the inner feelings of the characters and reveals the inner meaning of their outer actions. ”
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further invited attention with specific pleading in para 13 of the writ petition that United Nations Educational Social and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) has recognised Ram-Leela as a cultural heritage of India which relates to reenactment of the life of Lord Ram. Further, attention of this Court has been invited to an order dated 14.11.2013, passed by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.20008 of 2013. The operative portion of the order (supra) is reproduced as under :
“In the aforesaid circumstances, we direct all the respondents to permit the exhibition of the film but without using the word ‘Ram-Leela’ in the title of the film and if the film is exhibited without using the word ‘Ram-Leela’, the respondents shall permit exhibition of the film as has been scheduled. In case, the respondents insisted for exhibition of the film with the use of word ,Ram-Leela’ then exhibition of the said film shall not be permitted by the respondents till next date of hearing.
Issue emergent notices to the respondents. Steps during the course of the day by speed post. Respondents be served by the petitioners positively before the next date of hearing.
Apart from this, notice be also issued to respondent Nos. 5 to 7 of the writ petition and respondent Nos. 4 to 9 of M.C.C. No.1395/2013.
Notices be also issued to the respondents by e-mail today itself, if such e-mail address is furnished by the petitioners in the Registry.
Be listed for hearing on 22nd of November, 2013.
Certified copy as per rules today.”
The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Clause (xii) of Para 2 of the Guidelines for Certification of Films for Public Exhibition provides that visuals or words which promote communal, obscurantist, anti-scientific and anti-national attitudes are not to be presented. Para 6 further provides that the Board shall scrutinise the titles of the films carefully and ensure that they are not provocative, vulgar, offensive or violative of any of the above-mentioned guidelines.
Attention of this Court has been further invited to Section 5-B of Cinematograph Act which provides that exhibition shall be subject to decency or morality. Writ petition contains pleading with factual narration of Rasleela and Ramleela co-relating it to Indian civilization and culture.
Article 13 Clause (3) provides that law includes any Ordinance, order, bye law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usages having in the territory of India the force of law.
Thus, while interpreting statutory provisions, custom, culture and usage may also be taken into account as a part and partial of decency.
Apart from above, by catena of judgments, Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that right to life includes right to quality of life, dignity of life, right to privacy, religious rights etc.
A Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us (Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh, J) was a member, while entertaining a writ petition No.5483(M/B) of 2011 Vinod Shanker Misra, Secretary General & Another versus Salman Khan Hero of Hindi Feature Film ‘Ready’ & others has framed certain questions for adjudication. For convenience, paras 2, 3 and 4 of the order dated 8.6.2011 are reproduced as under :
“2.The petitioner are aggrieved by the film “Ready” whereby, the language and songs of films is vulgar polluting the minds of immature youths and also hurting religious sentiments of the citizens of the country. Writ Petition No.4446 (M/B) of 2011:In Re Suo Moto On The Complaint Of Lady Advo.[P.I.L] Crimin Vs. Union Of India Through Secy., Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ors., by the order dated 6.5.2011 passed by the Division Bench of which one of us (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Devi Prasad Singh) was a member, following questions have been framed:
1.Keeping the cultural difference between India and Western Civilization, whether such photographs may be published in Indian newspaper, affecting the religious sentiments of citizens.
2.Whether Ministry of Foreign Affairs should interfere with such photographs, where religious sentiments are hurt by any action in foreign country? If yes, then in what manner ?
3.Whether Press Council of India may frame appropriate guide-lines to regulate the Electronic and Press Media.
4.In case, offence is made out in India because of publication of such photographs in newspapers of India or anywhere in the world, whether action may be taken on criminal side, and in what manner ?
5.What remedial measures may be taken by the Government to prevent such offending acts in foreign country as well as to prevent the publication of such photographs in the Indian newspaper or electronic media?
3.Now, in the present writ petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by the word, “Raas Lila” in the song “Ishq Ke Naam Par Karte Sabhi Ab Rass Lila Hain, Hum Karen to Kahte Hai Character Dhila Hai” of a film “Ready” by name, which depicts Lord Krishna in derogative manner on the ground that the word, “Raas Lila” indicates and co-relates to the life sketch of Lord Krishna and it cannot be used in a vulgar manner in the promo of the film “Ready”. It has been submitted that the film “Ready” has already been released.
4.While framing the questions, the Division Bench (supra) had taken note of the fact that there is difference in the Indian civilization vis-a-vis Western civilization so far as the life style is concerned. Indian civilization regulates its conduct in such a manner which does not permit the use of derogative words against the religion and religious sentiments of its people. Section 5 (B) of the Cinematography Act, 1952 provides guidelines which prima facie seems to be applicable in the present case. Why the Central Board of Film Certification has failed to take appropriate decision while clearing the film, is a matter of deep concern before this Court. In Chapter XV, Section 295 and 295-A of Indian Penal Code, provide that no person has got right to act deliberately or maliciously intending to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting religion or religious sentiments. Needless to say that under Hindu religion, Rass Lila co-relate with Lord Krishna. Prima facie, the word, cannot be used in derogative sense”.
Subject to aforesaid factual narration, statutory mandate and constitutional provision and the argument advanced by the petitioner’s counsel, it appears to be a fit case which may be admitted for adjudication.
Mr. I.P. Singh, learned Chief Standing Counsel invited attention to a judgment of Apex Court with regard to the film ‘Aarakshan’ which was banned by the State Government and the writ petition was allowed by Hon’ble Supreme Court by judgment and order dated 19.8.2011.
We are conscious of the right of the citizens with regard to fundamental right of expression. Fundamental Right of Expression is always subject to morality, law and order and statutory mandate.
So far as displaying of the film along with contents, as passed by the Sensor Board is concerned, there appears to be no reason to interfere with it. We are only concerned with the use of word, ‘Ram-Leela’ in the title of the film which hurts the sentiments of billions of peoples not only in India but all over the world. The meaning assigned to Ram-Leela and Rasleela in Encyclopaedia Britannica is a well researched meaning and prima facie no film-maker has right to use the title, ‘Ram Leela, Ras Leela or alike words which are used in India since ages for a particular purpose. Meaning assigned to a particular word by the peoples since thousand years of civilization cannot be given a different meaning by film makers. Obviously, use of film for a different purpose as a measure of cheap popularity or promotion is not permissible since it hurts the sentiments of the people.
Accordingly, we admit the writ petition.
Learned chief Standing Counsel has accepted notice for the opposite party No.3 while on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2, Assistant Solicitor General of India has accepted notice.
Issue notice to the opposite parties 4 and 5. Let a counter affidavit be filed within four weeks, rejoinder thereto within the next two weeks. List immediately thereafter for peremptory hearing.
In the meantime, as an interim measure, we direct the state of U.P. to stop display of film in the State of U.P., titled ‘Goliyon ki Raasleela-Ram Leela’ forthwith. It shall be open for the respondents to display the film in the State of U.P. without using the title Ram-Leela and Raas-Leela.
Order Date :- 21.11.2013
kkb/
Nov.19
Beenu Rawat v UOI (NHRC ORDERED TO PROBE RIGHT VIOLATION OF POLITICAL WORKERS)
Nov.8
Navendra Kumar v UOI (CBI is ultra vires) Courtesy: Livelaw.in
Navendra Kumar (Gauhati High Court) v. UOI
Sep.9:
Union of India v. Namit Sharma
Gurvail Singh Gala v. state of Punjab
Aug.24
Consensual sex with minors not crime: Delhi court
Aug.7
August 1, 2013
Jan chowkidar v.CEC (Patna HIGH court judg. dated April 30, 2004. (Courtesy: Indiankanoon.org)
March 22
Vijay Singhal vs. Govt of NCT (Delhi HC on media reporting of gangrape case)
March 14
State of Maharashtra v. Kamal Ahmed (2006 Mumbai train blasts case)
What are relevant facts? Admissibility of confessions.
Bombay HC judg. in the same case.
March 13
P.P.Rao: a relief which was not even prayed for by the writ petitioners could not be granted by the
Court whatever may have been the compulsion of equity, justice and
good conscience. Court rejected this contention, saying the Court has the power to mould relief. Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. HC order directing holding of reexamination set aside, and reevaluation of answer scripts on the basis of the correct key ordered.
March 11
GAMBHIRSINH R. DEKARE … APPELLANT
VERSUS
FALGUNBHAI CHIMANBHAI PATEL. Criminal Appeal. Defamation. HC order overruled. Editor liable for defamation matter.
Goudappa v. State of Karnataka. Criminal appeal dismissed. Life imprisonment. Section 34 IPC. Joint liability.
State of Rajasthan v. Hindustan Zinc. Civil Appeal. Mines and Minerals Act. Appeal filed by company allowed, but one by the State dismissed.
March 6
P.Radhakrishna Murthy v. NBCC. Civil Appeal. Arbitration case. Appeal dismissed.
Ayurveda shastra seva mandal v. UOI. SLP. CJI. GOI’s refusal to permit colleges to admit students upheld.
State of Orissa & Ors. v.M/s Mesco Steels Ltd. & Anr. Civil Appeal. HC had directed State to issue mining lease to the company. SCallowed the appeal, directed the company to respond to the State’s show-cause notice, and the State to issue a reasoned order.
Rajamani v. state of Kerala. Crim. appeal. Accused sentenced for carrying contraband. SC said he was not the kingpin, and reduced the sentence.
State of U.P. V. Mahesh Narain. Civil appeal. Held:If the delay in promotion takes place at the instance of the employer, an employee cannot be made to suffer on account of intervening events. Appeal dismissed.
March 4
Voluntary Health Assn. of India v. UOI: issues a set of orders to ensure effective ban on medical tests to reveal the sex of the unborn child. (WP(C). CONTINUING MANDAMUS -EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL RIGHT JURISDICTION )
March 1
Mahalaxmi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Etc. ..
V. Ashabhai Atmaram Patel (D) Th.Lrs. SLP – Civil Appeal from Guj. HC. Order XXIII, Rule 3 of
the CPC. Trial court order upheld.
K.S.Panduranga v. State of Karnataka. SLP (Crml) PCA
Feb 28:
Esha Ekta Apartments Co-operative
Housing Society Limited and others …versus
Municipal Corporation of Mumbai and others. Justice G.S.Singhvi holds that unauthorised constructions cannot be condoned in violation of municipal laws. (SLP)
State of Orissa v. Panda
Disagrees with the HC view that ex-cadre posts must be regularised. SLP
State of A.P. v. State of Maharashtra (Original suit)
on sharing of Godavari river water
Jan.28
E.Edwig v. T.N.Legislative Assembly (Justice Chandru on whether an accused before the Privileges Committee is entitled to be represented by an advocate)
OCT 3
Environ. Consumer Protection Foundation v. Delhi Admn (School Toilets)
30
Speaker Haryana Vidhan Sabha v Kuldip Bishnoi
27:
Presidential ref. in 2G
Sep.26
Maoists are political prisoners: Calcutta HC
Sep.13
Namit Sharma v Union of India (Information Commissioner case)
Sep.11
Supreme Court judgment in the Media Guidelines case
August 31
Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali vs The State (Govt. Of Nct) Delhi
August 29
Supreme Court confirms death sentence for Kasab
Saluluddin Ahmed v. Samta Andoloan (holds Rajasthan Govt not guilty of contempt for delaying action on reservations)
August 26
Supreme court’s clean chit to Chidambaram
July 30, 2012
Supreme Court’s order in the ship breaking case
July 12
Delhi High Court judgment in Union of India v. CIC (petition seeking disclosure of correspondence between President and PM dismissed)
June 14
Delhi HC Judgment in President’s Secretariat v. Nitish Kumar Tripathi (RTI matter – court held that President’s secretariat
May 10
SC asks Centre to examine allegations against EX CJI
May 7
SC’s no to toxic US ship’s entry into Indian ports
SC gives Sanyal Bail, suspends his life term
Bombay HC allows man to go for sex change
May 1
General Officer Commanding vs. CBI
L.K.Venkat v. Union of India (Transfer of mercy petition case of RG convicts from Madras High Court) Case details: TRANSFER PETITION (CRIMINAL) NOS. 462-464 OF 2011
Javid Iqbal & others Vs.V. Sriharan @ Murugan and others order available on the SC’s website.
April 29
U.P.Power Corporation Ltd. v.Rajesh Kumar.
(on Reservation in promotions for SCs and STs)
April 28
CBI vs. Bangaru Laxman CC No.1/2011. Conviction and sentencing judgments by Kanwaljeet Arora
Sessions Case. Available on delhidistrictcourts.nic.in judgments dated April 27 and 28. India’s first sting case has resulted in conviction and sentencing of the accused. Laxman has been sentenced to four years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1 lakh for “accepting” the bribe from fictitious arms dealers for a fictitious supply, and therefore committing an offence under section 9 of PCA.
April 27
Delhi HC (Division Bench) judgment in N.D.Tiwari paternity case
February
Vodofone International v UOI
February 9, 2012
February 1, 2012
*State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh
January 29, 2012
Social Jurist vs. Govt.NCT of Delhi (Delhi High Court judgment holding schools can admit kids under 4)
January 18, 2012
Justice Sahai’s judgment on Gujarat Lokayukta
November
Times Global Broadcasting Co.Ltd. v. Parshuram Babaram Sawant
Delhi High Court’s order granting bail to Kanimozhi
October 7
Anuj Sharma v University of Delhi (Delhi HC judgment directing diversion of unfilled OBC seats to general category)
Sep.20
Haresh Mohandas Rajput v State of Maharashtra (Not a rarest of rare case – death penalty reversed)
Sep.12:
Jakia Nasim Ahesan v State of Gujarat
Sep.4:
Mayilswamy v. President’s secretariat (CIC decision on mercy pleas)
August 30:
Gujarat HC judgment in Haren Pandya murder case
August 26:
Justice P.D.Dinakaran v. Judges Inquiry Committee
August 23
Devender Kumar Tyagi v State of UP (land acquisition)
August 19
*M/s Prakash Jha Productions v UOI (Aarakshan case)
August 18
SUPREME COURT
*P.V.Indiresan v Union of India
*Rajender Singh Pathania v. Delhi (Preventive Detention)
August 17
*State of Uttaranchal v Sunil Kumar Vaish
AUGUST 10
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
*Gajanan P.Lasure v Central Board of Film (Petition challenging the legality of film certificaton to Aarakshan rejected)
SUPREME COURT
*Mohd. Arif v State of NCT of Delhi
*Constitution Bench on Roerich case
AUGUST 9
*Supreme Court:
State of Tamil Nadu v. K.Shyam Sundar
*Students can use RTI to see answer sheets
*Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay
*CBSE v Aditya Bandopadhyay
Bombay HC:
Denying money to wife is abuse
AUGUST 3
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
* Commodore Lokesh K. Batra v CPIO, Supreme Court
* Subhash Chandra Agrawal v CPIO, Supreme Court
SUPREME COURT
*State of M.P. v. Medha Patkar
*Budhadev Karmaskar v State of West Bengal
JULY 26
NBA v Stat of Delhi
JULY 24
*A.Subash Babu v State of A.P. The judgment says SC has sky-high powers in chasing injustice.
JULY 15, 2011
*Delhi Jal Board v. National Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied Workers. This judgment has been widely covered in today’s papers as suggesting the Court’s anguish over the criticism that the Judiciary is overreaching.
JULY 9, 2011
*Nandini Sundar vs. State of Chhattisgarh
* Ram Jethmalani vs. Union of India
*Justice P.D.Dinakaran vs. Hon’ble Judges Inquiry Committee
JULY 4:
* Ramrameshwari Devi v Nirmala Devi. In this case, Supreme Court laments frivolous litigation.
In Re: Destruction of Public and Private Properties v. State of A.P. & Ors., WP(Crl.) No. 77 of 2007
This case has been disposed of now by this judgment. It was a suo moto proceedings initiated by the Supreme Court taking note of the frequent incidents where in the name of bandhs, protests and hartals and the like, large scale damage was caused to public and private properties. Two high level committees were appointed by the Court which gave various recommendations on this issue. Substantial number of these recoomendations was accepted by the Court and the Court declared them to be operative immediately. It held these guidelines shall cease to be operative as and when they are replaced by effective legislation not inconsistent with the said guidelines. The case being a classic example of judicial legislation, the Court also revisited the law on its own powers to give binding directions/guidelines.
Previous post on LOAT is here.
* Indian Medical Association v. Union of India delivered on May 12, 2011.
*Dr.K.Krishnamurthy v. Union of India
*B.P.Singhal v. Union of India
*State of Uttaranchal v.Balwant Singh Chaufal (PIL Guidelines)
*In Re Destruction of Public and Private Property vs. State of A.P.
*Subhash Chandra v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
HIGH COURTS
JUNE 21, 2011
*Shanti Bhushan v. Commissioner of Income Tax For the news report on this judgment, read this story
in Mail Today.
JUNE 16, 2011
*Indian Harm Reduction Network vs. Union of India. (Please refer to Court News for details)
From the Archives
**A Raja v. P.Srinivasan (Madras HC free speech judg)
***Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment holding encounters as murders
***Gujarat High Court judgment in Godhra case 12.2.09
***Judges assets case
**Delhi High Court makes marriage under SMA easy
*A.P.High Court quashing quota for Muslims
*Gujarat High Court order on compensation for carnage victims
*Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
JULY 2, 2011:
* CIC slams government for including CBI under the exempted organisations under RTI Act. Text of the decision by Information Commissioner, Shailesh Gandhi.
JUNE 20, 2011:
* Why was Anderson not questioned, CIC to CBI
*CIC orders disclosure of Sonia Gandhi’s foreign visits.
The order of the CIC can be accessed here.