Be on the other side of The Court Room

Training Programme forJUDICIAL SERVICE EXAMS

Classes at Connaught PlaceC 25/5 Connaught Place, Middle Circle, Between Odeon and PVR Plaza Cinemas, New Delhi 110001. Tel: 011-45792253Email: info@unilawinstitute.com Website: www.unilawinstitute.com

Counsellors helpline: 9811124045, 9212077152

Join Universal’s

This Supplement contains: LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

UNIVE

R

SAL GRO

U

PUNIVE

R

SAL GRO

U

P

In the Service

of

Legal Profession

since

Years60

Law Students & Young Lawyers Join Classroom Programme

• Latest Judgements

• Landmark Judgements

• Previous Year Papers

• Bare Acts

• Mock Tests

• Current Affairs (Fortnightly)

• General Studies Updates

• Online Updates

• Online Mocks

Full coverage of Syllabus

For enrolled students

Specialised andExperiencedTeaching Faculty for different subjects

Regular Classroom Programme with online Supplements

........and much more!

FREE

Now visit and enroll online at www.unilawinstitute.com

Landmark Judgements of The Supreme Court of India

•A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras: 1950 – Scope and meaning of life and personal liberty under Article 21.

•Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay: 1951 – No retrospective effect for fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

•Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh: 1964 – Right to privacy an integral part of right to life.

•Golak Nath v. State of Punjab: 1967 – (Eleven Judge Bench). Parliament is a constituted body and not a constituent body; fundamental rights are immune from amendment by Parliament.

•P. Rajendran v. State of Madras: 1968 – Justifications for allowing caste based reservations.

•Madhav Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Union of India: 1970 – The order issued by the President of India derecognising the Rulers of former Indian states is ultra vires and illegal.

•Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala: 1973 – (Thirteen Judge Bench) An amendment to the Constitution is not “law”, and to the extent that it does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution, it is valid.

•Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab: 1974 – Neither the President nor the Governor is to exercise the executive functions personally.

•Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College Society v. State of Gujarat: 1974 – Right of minorities: Articles 29 and 30 are not mutually exclusive.

•Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain: 1975 – Right to free and fair elections is a basic feature of the Constitution.

•ADM Jabalpur v. S. Shukla: 1976 – Right to approach court under Articles 14, 21 and 22 would remain suspended during the Emergency.

•Rev Stainisiaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh: 1977 – Prohibition of conversion by force, fraud and inducement.

•Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India: 1978 – Fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution are not distinct and mutually exclusive.

•Minerva Mills v. Union of India: 1980 – Parliament’s amending power is limited and by amending the Constitution this power cannot be converted into an unlimited power.

•Khatri (II) v. State of Bihar: 1981 – State is constitutionally bound to provide free legal aid to poor or indigent accused who are incapable of engaging lawyers.

•S.P. Gupta v. Union of India: 1981 – Independence of judiciary in appointment of judges.

•Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab: 1982 – Protection through articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution against arbitrary and unreasonable actions of the executive and judiciary. Normally punishment for offence of murder is sentence of life imprisonment; the court can depart from that rule and impose death sentence if there are special reasons for doing so. Such reasons must be recorded in writing.

•D.S. Nakara v. Union of India: 1983 – On fairness and equity of treatment as per Article 14.

•Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab: 1983 – Categories of rarest of rare cases deserving death sentences.

•Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India: 1985 – Nature and extent of restrictions possible on freedom of speech and expression.

•State of Himachal Pradesh v. A Parent of a Student: 1985 – If in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), even letter can be treated as a writ petition.

•Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum: 1985 – State’s initiative demanded in making a uniform civil code.

•Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala: 1986 – Religious beliefs permits one not to sing the national anthem.

•Kehar Singh v. Union of India: 1986 – President of India’s clemency power under Article 72; Power of the President to even review the decision of the Supreme Court.

•A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak: 1988 – The power to enlarge jurisdiction is legislative in character, so also the power to confer the right of appeal or take away a right of appeal.

•Sodan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Corporation: 1989 – On the legitimate use of roads by citizens; street trading is a fundamental right.

•Indra Sawhney v. Union of India: 1992 (2) – For the purpose of reservation, backward classes can be identified on the basis of caste; creamy layer must be excluded; reservation shall not exceed 50%; no reservation in promotions.

•Kihotta Hollohan v. Zachillhu: 1992 – Anti-defection law is not violative of any rights or freedom or the basic structure of parliamentary democracy.

•Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India: 1993 – Role of the Supreme Court and independence of the judiciary in appointment of judges.

•S.R. Bommai v. Union of India: 1994 – Conditions under which state governments may be dismissed.

•L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India: 1995 – Power for review by the Supreme and High Courts is part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

•C. Masilamani Mudaliar v. Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami Swaminathaswami Thirukoil: 1996 – Right of women to elimination of gender based discrimination particularly in respect of property.

•Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab: 1996 – Right to life does not include right to die.

•Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India: 1996 – On curbing industrial pollution and the enforcement of “polluter pays” principle.

•Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India: 1997 – Illegally collected tax is not the property of the state and is not within the disposing power of the state. Assessee has the right to seek refund of taxes illegally and unauthorisedly collected.

•D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal: 1997 – Guidelines to be followed in all cases of arrest or detention.

•Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan: 1997 – Right of working women to dignity and safety. Guidelines to prevent harassment of women at their place of work.

•Dinesh Trivedi v. Union of India: 1997 – Citizens’ right to know about decisions and actions of the government.

•M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath: 1997 – Public Trust Doctrine is part of the Indian law (Ecology).

•PUCL v. Union of India: 1997 – Right under Article 19(1)(a) includes right to hold telephone conversations in privacy.

•West Bengal Housing Board v. Brijendra: 1997 – Supreme Court not to interfere in matters of policy unless the action of the government is unconstitutional or ultra vires or arbitrary, irrational or in abuse of power.

•“X” v. “Z” Hospital: 1998 – AIDS patient does not have right to marry till cured; right to privacy is not absolute.

•Gita Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, 1999 – Mother’s right to be the natural guardian inspite of the father being alive.

•State of Karnataka v. State of AP: 2000 – Right of water is a right to life.

•Danial Latifi v. Union of India: 2001 – On the constitutional validity of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

•N. Adithyan v. Travancore Devaswom Board: 2002 – On whether only Brahmins could be ordained as priests in certain temples in Kerala.

•TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka: 2002 – States/Universities cannot regulate admission of students and staff recruitment by minority unaided educational institutions. States/ Universities can specify qualifications for ensuring academic standard.

•Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra: 2002 – On allowing curative petition after the dismissal of the review petition on the final judgement of the Supreme Court.

•Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology: 2002 – Multiple test for determining whether a particular Corporation or Body can be held to be included within the definition of “state” under Article 12 of the Constitution.

•P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra: 2005 – Right to impart education is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g); rights of minority unaided educational institutions.

•Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka: 2006 – Rights of minorities under article 30(1) is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions.

•I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu: 2007 – Power of the judiciary to review laws which destroy or damage the basic structure of the Constitution even when such laws are inserted in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution.

•Ashok Kumar Thakur v. UOI: 2008 – On the validity of the Constitution Amendment (93rd) Act reserving 27% seats to OBC students in institutions of higher learning.

•All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam v. State of Tamil Nadu: 2009 – Impermissibility of bandh.

•Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee: 2009 – Hospitals knowingly failing in providing amenities that are fundamental to the patients would amount to medical malpractice.

•State of Maharashtra v. Sangharaj Damodar Ruparwate: 2010 – Guidelines to be followed while passing orders for forfeiture/impounding of books.

•Selvi v. State of Karnataka: 2010 – Meaning and scope of “self incrimination,” Marco analysis, polygraph and BEAP tests are methods of interrogation violative of Article 21.

•S. Kushboo v. Kaniammal: 2010 – Morality and criminality not to be treated as coextensive. Morally provocative statements which does not make out any offence cannot be subjected to interference under criminal law.

•Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women: 2010 – DNA test to be allowed only when a strong prima facie case and an eminent need is made out for such a course.

•CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyaya: 2011 – Interpretation of the Right to Information Act. Examinee’s right includes the right to inspection of his evaluated answer books.

•Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh: 2011 – Appointment of illiterate tribal youth as Special Police Officers to fight ‘salwa judum’ to counter Maoists unconstitutional; violate Articles 14 and 21.

•Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug v. Union of India: 2011 – Guidelines for passive euthanasia.

•Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India: 2012 – While distributing natural resources, the State is bound to act in consonance with principles of equality and public trust and ensure that no action is taken which may be detrimental to public interest.

•Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India: 2012 – Indian tax authorities does not have jurisdiction to impose tax on off – shore transaction between two non – resident companies even when the purpose of the transaction is to acquire Indian assets of the foreign company.

•Novertis AG v. Union of India, AIR 2013 SC 1311 - Evergreening of Patents

•Suresh Kumar Koushal v. NAZ Foundation, Civil Appeal No. 10972 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15436 of 2009). Decided on 11-12-2013 - Constitutional Validity of Section 377 of IPC

•Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 470 OF 2005. Decided on 19-2-2014 - Rights of a Muslim to Adopt Child

•National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 400 of 2012. Decided on 15-4-2014 - Recognition of Transgender as Third Gender

•Indian Bank Association v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 18 of 2013. Decided on 21-1-2014 - Direction Issued for Disposal of Cases Relating to Dishonour of Chques

•Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) 13 of 2015. Decided on 16-12-2015 - National Judicial Commission (NJAC) Unconstitutional as it Violates Basic Structure of Constitution of India

•Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) 167 of 2012. Decided on 24-3-2015 - Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 relating to Restrictions of Online Speech Struck Down and Declared Unconstitutional on Grounds of Violating the Freedom of Speech Guaranted under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India

•Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 135 of 2015 - Memon’s Last Appeal before the Supreme Court Dismissed – President had rejected Mercy Petition after Due Consideration of All Relevant Facts.

•Dilawar Singh v. State of Haryana, 2016 – Sikhs can carry Kirpan while appearing in Court.

•Neetu Bala v. Union of India, 2016 – Denial of appointment of a woman in Army on ground of Pregnancy is violative of right to Equality.

•Yogesh Puri Goswami v. Pallavi Goswami, 2017 – Mental Disorder is ground for Annulment of Marriage.

•Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya v. Union of India, 2018 – Sitting Legislators can practice in Court.

•Rupesh v. Charandas, 2018 – Joseph Shine case given retrospective effect. Conviction under 497 IPC set aside.