Law Notes

Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191   Table Of Contents Case Name-    Budhan Choudhry And Other vs The State Of Bihar CITATION-  AIR 1955 SC 191 DECIDED ON - 2nd Dec .1954 BENCH-  Mahajan, Mehar Chand (Cj), Mukherjea, B.K., Das, Sudhi Ranjan, Bose, Vivian, Bhagwati, N.H. & Jagannadhadas, B. & Aiyyar, T.L.Venkatarama  FACTS IN BRIEF The present case involved a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.). It provided that in certain states where there were Deputy Commissioners or Assistant Commissioners, the State Government may, invest the District Magistrate or any Magistrate of the first class, with power to try as a Magistrate all offences not punishable with death. Under Section 34, he can try a case and sentence the convict, except a sentence of death or of transportation for a term exceeding seven years or imprisonment for a term exceeding sev...

L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125 Table Of Contents Case Name-   L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India CITATION-  AIR 1997 SC 1125 DECIDED ON- 1 8 th  Mar. 1997 BENCH-  A.M. Ahmadi CJI & M.M. Punchhi & K. Ramaswamy & S.P. Bharucha & S. Saghir Ahmad & K. Venkataswami & K.T. Thomas FACTS IN BRIEF This seven judge bench was constituted to decided upon a controversial issue relating to the power of judicial review of the High Courts and Supreme Court as under Article 226 (along with Article 227) and 32 of the Constitution respectively vis-à-vis clause (1) of Article 323A and clause (2) of Article 323B, wherein power was conferred on the Parliament and the State Legislatures to exclude this power of judicial review. Though the principal facts and issues in consideration in the matters pending before the various High Courts as regards the two clauses were diverse, yet the Bench was only concerned wit...

  Danial Latifi v. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 3958  Table Of Contents Case Name-  Danial Latifi vs Union of India CITATION-  AIR 2001 SC 3958 DECIDED ON-  28 th  Sept. 2001 BENCH-  G.B. Pattanaik, S. Rajendra Babu, D.P. Mohapatra, Doraiswamy Raju, Shivraj V. Patil  FACTS IN BRIEF In this case, the constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Act was passed to appease a particular section of the society and with the intention of making the decision in case of Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum ineffective.   In the Shahbano’s case , the husband had appealed against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had directed him to pay to his divorced wife Rs. 179/- per month, enhancing the paltry sum of Rs. 25 per month originally granted by the Magistrate. The parties had been married for 43 years before the ill and...

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1982) 3 SCC 24 Table Of Contents  FACTS IN BRIEF One day Bachan Singh was tried and convicted and sentenced to death under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of Desa Singh, Durga Bai and Veeran Bai. The death penalty imposed on him was confirmed by the High Court. Appealing by special leave, he (along with other prisoners) challenged the constitutional validity of the death penalty provided in the Section and the sentencing procedure provided in Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.  ARGUMENTS It was argued by the Appellant that the imposition of death penalty under Section 302 of IPC, read with Section 354 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was arbitrary and unreasonable because   (a) it was cruel and inhuman, disproportionate and excessive,  (b) it was totally unnecessary and did not serve any social purpose or advance any constitutional value and  (c) ...

Sakshi v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 3566  Table Of Contents  FACTS IN BRIEF This writ petition was filed by Sakshi, a woman organization, in the Apex Court to issue a writ declaring that “sexual intercourse” as contained in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) included all forms of penetration such as penile/vaginal penetration, penile/oral penetration, penile/anal penetration, finger/vaginal and finger/anal penetration and object/vaginal penetration and for issue of a direction for registration of all such cases to be falling under Sections 375, 376 and 376A, 376D of the IPC.   ARGUMENTS It was contended by the petitioner organization that the existing trend of respondent authorities to treat sexual violence, other than penile/vaginal petitioner as lesser offences falling under either Section 377 or 354 IPC and not as a sexual violence under Section 375/376 IPC was without any justification. It was also submitted that limiting und...

 I.C. Golak Nath v . State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643  (Overruled by Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461)  Table Of Contents  FACTS IN BRIEF  The question before the Supreme Court was a challenge to the constitutional validity of an Act passed by the legislature taking away the fundamental rights in an estate. The precise issue was whether any part of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution could be abrogated or changed by a constitutional amendment even if it was passed by the requisite two-thirds majority of Parliament, as provided for in Article 368. Earlier, in Sankari Prasad Singh v. Union of India (AIR 1951 SC 458) a Constitutional Bench of 5 Judges had unanimously held that Parliament had unfettered power to amend the Constitution and in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1965 SC 845) the Court had upheld the power of Parliament to amend any part of the Constitution including one affec...

 Gaurav Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 3021  Table Of Contents  FACTS IN BRIEF Coming as a public interest litigation, the petition was filed by a public spirited advocate, Mr. Gaurav Jain, seeking a declaration that prostitutes in India had a (a) right to be free citizens, (b) right not to be trapped again, and (c) the right of readjustment by economic empowerment, social justice, self sustenance, equality of status, dignity of person in truth and reality and social integration.  Earlier in a similar case (Gaurav Jain v. Union of India, 1990 Supp SCC 709) the Court had not accept the plea for hostels of children of such prostitutes, though it agreed to the view that such children must be segregated from their mothers and environment thereto. Hence the issue addressed in this case was a two-fold aspect, firstly the rights of children of ‘fallen women’ especially girls; and secondly in this process eradication of the prostitution itsel...

  Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, AIR 1999 SC 625   Table Of Contents PARTIES PETITIONER: APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL Vs. RESPONDENT: A.K. CHOPRA DATE OF JUDGMENT : 20/01/1999 BENCH: V.N.Khare  FACTS IN BRIEF   The respondent was removed from his post as an employee of the appellant council after the relevant disciplinary authorities found him guilty of sexually harassing X, a junior female employee. He filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging his dismissal. A single judge allowed the petition, finding that the respondent’s dismissal was unjustified on the grounds that he had only tried to molest X and had not actually established any physical contact with her. The appellant was ordered to be reinstated. This was upheld by a Division Bench of the High Court. This judgment was challenged by the dismissing organization.   JUDGEMENT  The Supreme Court held a...

  Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209  Picture just for representation Table Of Contents संक्षेप में तथ्य( FACTS IN BRIEF) :-  भारतीय रेलवे ने 28 फरवरी, 1997 को इस आशय का एक परिपत्र जारी किया कि रोस्टर बिंदुओं पर पदोन्नत आरक्षित उम्मीदवार बाद में पदोन्नत किए गए वरिष्ठ सामान्य उम्मीदवारों पर वरिष्ठता का दावा नहीं कर सकते। यह सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निर्धारित कानून का पालन करते हुए किया गया था - कि यह "अनुमति" था कि रोस्टर बिंदुओं पर पदोन्नति पाने वाले आरक्षित उम्मीदवार पदोन्नति स्तर पर वरिष्ठता का दावा करने के हकदार नहीं होंगे, जबकि वरिष्ठ सामान्य उम्मीदवारों को पदोन्नत किया गया था। बाद में उसी स्तर पर और यह कि "यह राज्य के लिए खुला होगा" यह प्रदान करने के लिए कि जब और जब वरिष्ठ सामान्य उम्मीदवार को उस स्तर पर पदोन्नत किया जाता है जिस पर आरक्षित उम्मीदवार को पहले पदोन्नत किया गया था, तो सामान्य उम्मीदवार के पास होगा पदोन्नति के स्तर पर भी आरक्षित उम्मीदवार से वरिष्ठ के रूप में माना जाएगा, जब तक कि निश्चित रूप से, आरक्षित उम्मीदवार...

  Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209  Table Of Contents FACTS IN BRIEF :-  The Indian Railways issued a circular on February 28th, 1997 to the effect that the reserved candidates promoted at roster points could not claim seniority over the senior general candidates promoted later. This was done following the law laid down by the Supreme Court - that it was "permissible" to follow that reserved candidates who get promotion at the roster points would not be entitled to claim seniority at the promotional level as against senior general candidates who got promoted at a later point of time to the same level and that "it would be open" to the State to provide that as and when the senior general candidate got promoted to the level to which the reserved candidate was promoted earlier, the general candidate would have to be treated as senior to the reserved candidate at the promotional level as well, unless, of course, the reserve...

A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla (The Habeas Corpus Case), (1976) 2 SCC 521  Picture Just for representation Table Of Contents Case Name- Additional District Magistrate Jabalpur vs ShivKant Shukla CITATION- 1976 AIR 1207, 1976 SCR 172   DECIDED ON-  28 th  Apr. 1976 BENCH- A.N. (Cj.), Khanna, Hans Raj, Beg, M. Hameedullah, Channdrachd, Y.V., Bhagwanti, P.N.  FACTS IN BRIEF   On June 25th, 1975 the President in exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of Articles 352 (Proclamation of Emergency) of the Constitution declared that a grave emergency existed whereby the security of India was threatened by internal disturbances. On June 27th, 1975 in exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of Articles 359 the President declared that the right of any person including a foreigner to move any court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Article 14, Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution and all proceedings pending i...