Supreme Court of India Judgements

46670 Judgements hosted as on 9/12/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Constitution

Constitution

RIGHT TO PRIVACY – LANDMARK JUDGEMENT – 9 JUDGES BENCH -Right to Privacy—It is a fundamental right, subject to reasonable limitations. Constitution of India,1950, Article 21–Right to Privacy-It is a fundamental right-Right to privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the freedoms guarded by part III of the Constitution-All the 9 judges of Constitution Bench were of same view-Earlier view in Kharak Singh case (6 judges bench in 1964) and M.P. Sharma (8 judges bench in 1954) overruled.

Nov 12, 2017 sclaw

2017(3) Law Herald (SC) 1803 (LB) : 2017 LawHerald.Org 1337 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’bte Mr. Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. Chelameswar Hon’ble…

Constitution

Letter Patent Appeal—An order passed by the single judge in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution relating to criminal jurisdiction, cannot be made the subject matter of intra-court appeal—It is not provided for and it would be legally inappropriate to think so. Quashing—Letter Patent Appeal against order of single judge under criminal jurisdiction is not maintainable.

Nov 11, 2017 sclaw

2017(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2079 (SC) : 2017 LawHerald.Org 1214 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar Hon’ble Mr. Justice…

Constitution

Letter Patent Appeal—An order passed by the single judge in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution relating to criminal jurisdiction, cannot be made the subject matter of infra-court appeal—It is not provided for and it would be legally inappropriate to think so. Quashing—Letter Patent Appeal against order of single judge under criminal jurisdiction is not maintainable.

Oct 6, 2017 sclaw

2017(2) Law Herald (SC) 1556 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 1214 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Befor.e Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan…

Constitution

Resettlement of stranded persons – The learned Attorney General apart from reiterating the stand taken in their affidavit assured this Court that the Government of India is fully committed to provide all required financial assistance as well as security measures for the immediate and permanent relief to the stranded and affected persons

Aug 20, 2017 sclaw

  (2013) 11 SCALE 676 : (2013) 9 SCC 328 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA MOHD. HAROON AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ANOTHER — Respondent (…

Constitution

Service Law—Sporting a beard—Muslim Airman—Religion of personnel does not prohibit the cutting off the hair or shaving off the face of its members-Permission held to be rightly declined, Service Law-Sporting of beard-Armed Forces-Appellant, an Airman belonging to Muslim Religion sought permission to sport a broad on religious grounds-Permission declined-Order upheld-Held;

Aug 9, 2017 sclaw

2017(1) Law Herald (SC) 351 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 2533 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice T.S. Thakur The Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud The…

You missed

C P C

A party should not suffer due to the negligence of their counsel, and a restoration application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC can serve as an application for condonation of delay if it explains the reasons for the delay, so that courts should focus on the merits of a case rather than being hindered by procedural technicalities A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 9 Rule 13 — An application under Order 9 Rule 13 can also serve as an application for condonation of delay — The court cites Bhagmal and Ors Vs. Kunwar Lal and Others, to support its finding that where the delay in filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC is explained within the application itself, there is no need for a separate application for condonation of delay — The court emphasizes that the procedure is a handmaid of justice, and hyper-technical interpretations of rules should not stand in the way of achieving a just outcome.

Dec 28, 2024 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail

Anticipatory bail should not be granted routinely, especially in serious offenses like murder, and that courts must consider the severity of the charges, the evidence, and the materials on record, including the charge sheet Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 — Murder — The Supreme Court overturned the Patna High Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail to respondents in a murder case — The case originated from an incident where the appellant’s nephew was allegedly set on fire by the respondents — The court emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted mechanically, particularly in severe offenses like murder, and the High Court had erred in not considering the gravity of the charges and the evidence, including the charge sheet which stated that the case against the accused persons was found to be true — The Supreme Court directed the respondents to surrender to the trial court and apply for regular bail, to be considered on its merits — The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of a thorough review of case details and allegations before granting anticipatory bail, especially in cases of serious crimes.

Dec 28, 2024 sclaw
Service

Service Law — Regularization of services for long-term, part-time employees — The court found that the appellants’ continuous service for over a decade, performing essential duties, should not be disregarded simply because their initial appointments were labeled as part-time or contractual — The court noted the indispensable nature of their work, the lack of any performance issues, and that their duties were similar to those of regular employees — The court emphasized that the nature of their work was perennial and fundamental, requiring their classification as regular posts — The court also found that the appellants’ abrupt termination was unjustified and violated principles of natural justice, and the argument against their regularization based on educational qualifications was untenable — The court noted discriminatory practices as other employees with similar or shorter service had been regularized — The court clarified that the Uma Devi judgment was not intended to penalize employees who have served long years in essential roles and that “irregular” appointments should be considered for regularization, especially when they are not “illegal” and the employees have served continuously against sanctioned functions.

Dec 28, 2024 sclaw
Child Custody Matrimonial

For best interest and welfare of the child are the paramount considerations when determining visitation rights A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The paramount consideration when determining visitation rights is the best interest and welfare of the child — This principle takes precedence over the rights of the parents — The court emphasizes that a child’s health and well-being must not be compromised in the process of adjudicating parental rights. B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Both parents have a right to the care, company, and affection of their child — However, this right is not absolute and must be balanced with the need to protect the child’s welfare — In this case, the court acknowledges the father’s right to visit his daughter but ensures that these visits do not negatively impact the child. C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Matrimonial disputes and serious allegations between parents should not impede a child’s right to the care and company of both parents — The court separates the child’s welfare from the conflict between the parents. D. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Visitation arrangements must not cause undue hardship to the child — The court modified the High Court’s order, which required the child to travel 300 kilometers every Sunday, as it was deemed detrimental to the child’s health and well-being. E. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The location for visitation must be convenient and in the best interest of the child — The court changed the visitation location from Karur to Madurai, which is closer to the child’s residence, in order to prioritize the child’s comfort and convenience. F. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Supervised visitation may be necessary, especially for young children — The court directed that the father’s visits should occur in a public place, with the mother present (though at a distance), due to the child’s young age and unfamiliarity with the father.

Dec 28, 2024 sclaw