Important Court Cases in India

Cases in which the court found that the electoral commission was obliged to hold free and fair elections. The court ruled that the state government, in agreement with the relevant university, the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council and other relevant bodies or persons, should take the necessary measures to ensure high standards in order to achieve excellent legal education. The Court explains the different roles that laws and anti-discrimination protections play in the history of Indian democracy. Acharya Jagdishwaran and Avadhuta v. Comm`r of Police, A.I.R. 1984 P.C. 51, p. 17. Cases in which the court ruled whether certain religious acts constituted an “essential practice” of religion.

“In India, the issue of the death penalty has been submitted to Parliament, although our social scientists have not yet conducted an in-depth sociological or statistical study. Legally, there has been a significant change since India became free. Under Article 367(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by Act No. 26 of 1955, the rule was to sentence to death a person convicted of murder and to impose the lightest penalty on grounds to be recorded in writing. An amendment removed this provision so that the court would now be free to impose the death penalty or life imprisonment, unlike in the past when death was the rule and life imprisonment the exception. In the new Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973, a major change went beyond the law. Article 354(3) provides: Where a conviction is based on an offence punishable by the death penalty or, in the alternative, life imprisonment or several years` imprisonment, the judgement shall state the reasons for the sentence imposed and, in the case of the death penalty, the specific grounds for that penalty. The unmistakable change in the emphasis of the legislation is that life imprisonment for murder is the rule and the death penalty is the exception. The court found that social and economic factors played a role in the commutation of the death sentences to life imprisonment and decided that the sentence could be commuted in this case. While the petition was still before the courts, many changes had already been made by the government after the fall of Golaknath v.

State of Punjab. The Union of India and women`s rights organisations such as Bebaak Collective and Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA) supported Shayara Bano`s call. They agreed that such practices should be considered unconstitutional. The Supreme Court formed a constitutional bench with 5 judges after the trial was accepted. SC stated that Triple Talaq is illegal in any form. He also declared the immediate triple talaq unconstitutional. On August 22, 2017, the Supreme Court legally banned Triple Talaq with up to three years in prison for the husband. This is a unique solution for you if you are looking for landmark decisions of the Supreme Court of India.

This site will grow over time, as I will include India`s historical judgments that have impacted the lives of over a billion people. The list and names of the cases given here are not in any particular order and have been listed randomly. I will list the names of landmark judgments or cases of principle and the citation and service of a particular judgment. The Court stated: “In view of the President`s Order of 27 June 1975, no person has standing to make a written application for habeas corpus or any other application or order under section 226 to the Supreme Court for habeas corpus or any other application, order or order challenging the lawfulness of a detention order on the ground that such order is not in accordance with the law. or that it is illegal or tainted by unhealthy acts. or legal or based on extraneous considerations. In this case, the fundamental rights of detainees were examined, particularly those awaiting the death penalty. More specifically, it was about the living conditions of the prisoners. It ruled that under the Penal Code, solitary confinement cannot be authorized by a prison officer.

It can only be approved by mandate of the court. In these cases, the Court approached the issue of gender-based violence on the basis that the international legal standard of gender-based violence is a matter of equality and that its freedom is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. In particular, the Court sought to include the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in its analysis. This is one of the most prominent cases in the country because the protests that followed the verdict forced significant changes to India`s rape laws. Mathura, a young tribal woman, was raped by two police officers on the grounds of Desai Ganj police station in Chandrapur district, Maharashtra. The judge of the Sessions court found the accused not guilty. The reason was (believe it or not) that Mathura was used to sex. This, the judge said, clearly implied that the sexual act at the police station was consensual. The changes to the law brought about by the protests have done a good thing – submission does not mean consent.

The applicant is of the view that the “Code of Conduct for Bihar State Employees”, which states that “no employee of the State shall participate in any demonstration or resort to any form of strike in connection with matters relating to his conditions of employment” is unconstitutional. The court ruled that the party prohibiting “any form of demonstration” violated the plaintiff`s rights under Article 19 of the Constitution. However, the law cannot be repealed because it prohibits a strike because there is “no fundamental right to strike.” It states: “No one shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with a procedure established by law. One component of a “fair trial” is natural justice. In general, and subject to fair exceptions, at least a right of appeal against the facts, when a criminal conviction involves a long loss of liberty, is fundamental to civilized justice. It is an integral part of a fair trial, natural justice and normative universality, except in special cases such as the original court, which is a high chamber sitting on a collegial basis. In short, a first appeal of the Sessions Court to the High Court, as provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure, manifests this in art. Therefore, the state must serve the prisoner with a copy of the judgment in time to appeal and provisions for “free legal services to a prisoner who is destitute or otherwise disabled to obtain legal assistance where the purposes of justice require such service.” S.R. Bommai was the chief minister in the Janata Dal government. He was deployed to Karnataka from 13 August 1988 to 21 April 1989. On April 21, 1989, the state government was removed under Article 356 of the Constitution, which is a state of emergency or widely known as the presidential rule.