1. Laxmibai Chandaragi v. The State of Karnataka - Consent of family not needed once two adults decide to marry. The Court observed that educated younger boys and girls are choosing their life partners which is a departure from traditional norms of society. The consent of the family or the community or the clan is not necessary once two adult individuals agree to enter a wedlock and their consent has to be piously given primacy.
2. Devilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh - Juvenile offender under 18 years and above 16 years to be remitted to jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board. In this case, the Court considered to what extent could the benefit under the Juvenile Justice Act be extended where the offender was above 16 years and less than 18 years of age on the day the offence was committed. The Court held that in such a case, even if the accused were guilty, the matter must be remitted to the jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board.
3. The Chief Election Commissioner of India v. MR Vijayabhaskar - Freedom of press relating to Court proceedings. The Court held that freedom of speech and expression also extends to reporting the proceedings that happen in courts including oral observations made by judges.
4. Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana - Guidelines drafted for Dowry Death Trials. The Court held that Section 304-B IPC must be interpreted keeping in mind the legislative intent to curb the social evil of bride burning and dowry demand. The Bench, therefore, laid down guidelines for Dowry Death trials in the lower courts.
5.Rahul Sharma v. National Insurance Company Ltd. - If deceased was self-employed and below the age of 40 years, 40% addition would be made to their income as future prospects. This judgement reiterated the ratio of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi.
6. Jayamma v. State of Karnataka - Admissibility of Dying Declaration
The Supreme Court held that dying declarations are admissible in evidence on the principle of necessity as there is little hope of the maker surviving. Dying declaration can form the basis of conviction if recorded in accordance with law and if it gives a cogent and plausible explanation of the occurrence, it can be relied on as the solitary piece of evidence to convict the accused.
7. Pravakar Mallick & Anr v. State of Orissa - Regarding reservation in promotions. The Court followed the law laid down in M Nagaraj v. Union of India and reiterated that the State is not bound to make reservations for SCs/STs in matters of promotion. However, if they wish to do so, they have to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment, keeping in mind maintenance of efficiency, as indicated by Article 335 of the Constitution of India.
8. Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao v. State of AP - Government order providing 100% reservation for tribal teachers in Scheduled Areas unconstitutional. The Court held that the Government Order issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh providing 100% reservation to Scheduled Tribe candidates in posts for teachers in schools located in scheduled areas was unconstitutional and that there was "no rhyme or reason" for the State government to resort to 100% reservation.
9. Chief Information Officer v. High Court of Gujarat- Regarding right to access court records through RTI. The Supreme Court restricted the application of the Right to Information Act, 2005 when it came to obtaining court records at the Gujarat High Court. A three-judge Bench held that citizens cannot file RTI requests to obtain copies of pleadings, judgments, documents, decrees or orders, deposition of the witnesses, etc. Instead, citizens must resort to using the procedure established by the Gujarat High Court Rules.
10. Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma - Daughters shall have coparcenary rights irrespective of whether their father was alive when Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 came into force
A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the amended Section 6 of the 2005 Act confers the status of coparcener on daughters born before or after amendment in the same manner as sons, with the same rights and liabilities. It also held that since the coparcener right is by birth, it is not mandatory that the father coparcener should be living as on November 9, 2005, when the amended provision came into force.
11. Abhilasha v. Prakash & Ors - Unmarried Hindu daughter can claim maintenance from her father till she is married. The Court held that an unmarried Hindu daughter can claim maintenance from her father till she is married, relying on Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, provided she proves that she is unable to maintain herself. For enforcement of the right, her application/suit has to be under Section 20 of the Act.
12. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India - Access to Internet as a Fundamental Right. The Supreme Court ruled that the freedom of speech and expression through the internet, and the freedom to practice any profession, occupation, trade and commerce through the internet is a fundamentally guaranteed right, under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1) (g) of the Indian Constitution. The Court also added that indefinite suspension of the internet is not permissible, and banning the internet repeatedly by orders under Section 144 CrPC, is an abuse of power. The ruling came in a plea challenging internet shutdowns in Kashmir.
13. Prithviraj Chauhan v. Union of India - Constitutional validity of SC/ST Act, 1989. A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court upheld the Constitutional validity of Section 18-A of The Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018 (no need of preliminary enquiry before registration of FIR or requirement of seeking approval of any authority prior to arrest of an accused).. It was further held that no anticipatory bail can be given for offences under the SC/ST Amendment Act.
14. Mukesh Kumar & Anr v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors - Reservation is not a fundamental right. The Court held that there is no fundamental right to claim reservation in promotions in public posts. The judgment highlighted that Article 16(4) and Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution are enabling provisions and that state governments are not bound to make reservations. The courts have no authority to compel the State government to do so.
15. Amish Devgan v. Union of India - Regarding what constitutes "hate speech". The Court made several pertinent observations on what constitutes hate speech while refusing to quash FIRs against TV anchor Amish Devgan for allegedly hurting religious sentiments after he used the words 'Lootera Chishti’ while referring to the Sufi saint Moinuddin Chishti in one of his TV debates. Merely referring to feelings of one community or group without any reference to any other community or group 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment