LATEST JUDGEMENTS OF SUPREME COURT

1. Right To Privacy is a Fundamental Right.

#ADHAAR VERDICT - Not Compulsory (restricted use in PAN card, to file ITR, Govt schemes and subsidies )

#CASE :- 

JUSTICE K S PUTTASWAMY (RETD.),AND ANR.VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.(2018, SC) ( 9 judges const bench unanimus judgement headed by CJI Dipak mishra )*Right to privacy is protected as intrinsic part of right to life and liberty....

*overruled the judgments in MP Sharma and Kharak Singh cases (privacy is not a fundamental right)...

2. Tripple Talaq Unconstitutional

#CASE:-

SHAYARA BANO VERSUS UNION OF INDIA (2018, SC ) (3:2 Majority )

*Unconstitutional and violative of Art 14 (Right to Equality)

*Against Shariyat and basic tenets of Quran

3,Women's Right To Love and to Reject

#CASE :-

PAWAN KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF HP (2017, SC ) (Full bench headed by CJI Dipak Mishra )

*Right to life with Dignity and Freedom

*Individual Choice

*No one can compel a woman to love.

*She has Absolute right to Reject.

4. Sex With Minor Wife Is Rape...

#CASE :-

INDEPENDANT THOUGHT VERSUS UNION OF INDIA (2017 ,SC ) ( DB )

HELD :-

*Sexual intercourse with minor wife ( below 18 years of age ) is Rape.

*Cognizance can be taken nly in accordance with the provisions of S,198(6) Cr.PC which will apply

now  to cases of rape of 'wives' below 18 years of age.

*Age of consent has been made 18 yrs frm 15.

5. Placing Ordinance before Legislature Mandatory : Re-Promulgation Fraud on Constitution.

#CASE :-

KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR (2017, SC ) (7 Judges bench )

HELD :-

*Re-Promulgation of Ordinances is fraud on the Constitution and subversion of democratic legislative processes.

*Satisfaction of Oresident under Art. 123 and of the Governor under Art. 213 while issuing Ordinances is not immune from Judicial Review.

6. Decriminalizing Gay Sex and repealing S.377 IPC.

#CASE :-

NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA (SC,2018 ) ( 5 Judges bench )
decided on 06 sept 2018 headed by CJI Dipak Mishra .

HELD :-

*Consensual sexual realationship between two adult(homosexual, heterosexual or lesbians ) is no more offence under S.377 IPC.

*Violative of Art. 14 of Constitution being discriminatory and unequal treatment to LGBT Community.

*Violative of Art .19(1)(a) of Constitution on account of unreasonable restriction on freedom of expression and choice of LGBT Community.

*Sexual activity by any human being with animal is punishable under s.377 and this portion is still constitutional.

*Each individual has an equal right to love whoever they want to..

7. Passive Euthanasia is permissible ...

#CASES :-

COMMON CAUSE (NGO) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA (2018, SC ) (5 judges bench headed by CJI Dipak Mishra )

HELD :-

*Right to Die with dignity is a fundamental right.

*Permitting "living will" by patients on withdrawing medical support if they slip into irreversible coma.

8.ADULTERY is now NO CRIMINAL  OFFENCE.
#CASE :-

JOSEPH SHINEVERSUS UNION OF INDIA (2018, SC )

(5 JUDGES BENCH HEADED BY CJI Dipak mishra )

HELD :-

*Violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution

*S.497 IPC will be struck down

*Every woman has her sexual choice.

*It can be a ground for civil issues like Divorce.

*Husband is not master of a wife.

9.Live Telecast of Supreme Court Proceeding..
#CASE :-
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI AND INDIRA JAISING (Sr.Adv.) VERSUS REGISTRAR OF SUPREME COURT AND OTHERS (2018,SC ) (3 Judges bench headed by CJI Dipak mishra )

HELD :-

*Live streaming of Court proceedings would serve as an instrument for greater accountability and formed part of the code of criminal procedure,1973.

*Intrinsic value of right to be heared under Art. 21 of Constitution.

*It is need of hour ( it will increase access to justice )

*It will encourage the principle of Open Court.

*Transparency.

10.MOSQUE is not part of ISLAM.

#CASE :-

M.SIDDIQUI AND OTHERS VERSUS MAHANT SURESH DAS (2018, SC )

HELD :-

*A mosque is not essential part of the practice of the religion of the Islam nd Namaz (prayer) by

Muslims can be offered anywhere even in Open .

11. SABARIMALA CASE :-

#CASE :-

YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION VERSUS UNION OF INDIA (2018).
➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖
1. Right To Privacy is a Fundamental Right.

#ADHAAR VERDICT - Not Compulsory (restricted use in PAN card, to file ITR, Govt schemes and subsidies )

#CASE :- 

JUSTICE K S PUTTASWAMY (RETD.),AND ANR.VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.(2018, SC) ( 9 judges const bench unanimus judgement headed by CJI Dipak mishra )*Right to privacy is protected as intrinsic part of right to life and liberty....

*overruled the judgments in MP Sharma and Kharak Singh cases (privacy is not a fundamental right)...

2. Tripple Talaq Unconstitutional

#CASE:-

SHAYARA BANO VERSUS UNION OF INDIA (2018, SC ) (3:2 Majority )

*Unconstitutional and violative of Art 14 (Right to Equality)

*Against Shariyat and basic tenets of Quran

3,Women's Right To Love and to Reject

#CASE :-

PAWAN KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF HP (2017, SC ) (Full bench headed by CJI Dipak Mishra )

*Right to life with Dignity and Freedom

*Individual Choice

*No one can compel a woman to love.

*She has Absolute right to Reject.

4. Sex With Minor Wife Is Rape...

#CASE :-

INDEPENDANT THOUGHT VERSUS UNION OF INDIA (2017 ,SC ) ( DB )

HELD :-

*Sexual intercourse with minor wife ( below 18 years of age ) is Rape.

*Cognizance can be taken nly in accordance with the provisions of S,198(6) Cr.PC which will apply

now  to cases of rape of 'wives' below 18 years of age.

*Age of consent has been made 18 yrs frm 15.

5. Placing Ordinance before Legislature Mandatory : Re-Promulgation Fraud on Constitution.

#CASE :-

KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR (2017, SC ) (7 Judges bench )

HELD :-

*Re-Promulgation of Ordinances is fraud on the Constitution and subversion of democratic legislative processes.

*Satisfaction of Oresident under Art. 123 and of the Governor under Art. 213 while issuing Ordinances is not immune from Judicial Review.

6. Decriminalizing Gay Sex and repealing S.377 IPC.

#CASE :-

NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR VERSUS UNION OF INDIA (SC,2018 ) ( 5 Judges bench )
decided on 06 sept 2018 headed by CJI Dipak Mishra .

HELD :-

*Consensual sexual realationship between two adult(homosexual, heterosexual or lesbians ) is no more offence under S.377 IPC.

*Violative of Art. 14 of Constitution being discriminatory and unequal treatment to LGBT Community.

*Violative of Art .19(1)(a) of Constitution on account of unreasonable restriction on freedom of expression and choice of LGBT Community.

*Sexual activity by any human being with animal is punishable under s.377 and this portion is still constitutional.

*Each individual has an equal right to love whoever they want to..

7. Passive Euthanasia is permissible ...

#CASES :-

COMMON CAUSE (NGO) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA (2018, SC ) (5 judges bench headed by CJI Dipak Mishra )

HELD :-

*Right to Die with dignity is a fundamental right.

*Permitting "living will" by patients on withdrawing medical support if they slip into irreversible coma.

8.ADULTERY is now NO CRIMINAL  OFFENCE.
#CASE :-

JOSEPH SHINEVERSUS UNION OF INDIA (2018, SC )

(5 JUDGES BENCH HEADED BY CJI Dipak mishra )

HELD :-

*Violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution

*S.497 IPC will be struck down

*Every woman has her sexual choice.

*It can be a ground for civil issues like Divorce.

*Husband is not master of a wife.

9.Live Telecast of Supreme Court Proceeding..
#CASE :-
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI AND INDIRA JAISING (Sr.Adv.) VERSUS REGISTRAR OF SUPREME COURT AND OTHERS (2018,SC ) (3 Judges bench headed by CJI Dipak mishra )

HELD :-

*Live streaming of Court proceedings would serve as an instrument for greater accountability and formed part of the code of criminal procedure,1973.

*Intrinsic value of right to be heared under Art. 21 of Constitution.

*It is need of hour ( it will increase access to justice )

*It will encourage the principle of Open Court.

*Transparency.

10.MOSQUE is not part of ISLAM.

#CASE :-

M.SIDDIQUI AND OTHERS VERSUS MAHANT SURESH DAS (2018, SC )

HELD :-

*A mosque is not essential part of the practice of the religion of the Islam nd Namaz (prayer) by

Muslims can be offered anywhere even in Open .

11. SABARIMALA CASE :-

#CASE :-

YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCIATION VERSUS UNION OF INDIA (2018).
➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖➖

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

अनुयोज्य दावा (Actionable Claim) -

Remand and its Kinds ( Cr.PC)

 सभी प्रकार की संपत्ति अंतरित की जा सकती है, केवल अपवादों को छोड़कर ? निर्णीत वादों की सहायता से वर्णन कीजिये |