Posts

Landmark Judgments of 2020

-
Image
In 2020 Supreme Court of India has already pronounced about 10 constitution bench decisions. Half of 2020 is almost over and Supreme Court has already delivered large number of judgments in covid - 19 lockdown time when court is having restricted functioning. Generally SC judges pronounces judgments after every vacations and substantial numbers of decisions just after summer vacations. This year it seems that due to sudden corona outbreak around the world and restricted functioning of Apex court many judgments have been pronounced already in first half of the 2020. Here is list of most important judgments of 2020.



Here is list of 20 Supreme Court of India decisions of 2020: 

Pandurang Ganpati Chaugale v. Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari Bank Ltd- SARFAESI Act applicable to Co­operative BanksChebrolu Leela Prasad Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh - Andhra Pradesh’s 100% reservation for Scheduled Tribe candidates for the post of teachers without rhyme or reasonNew India Assurance v. Hilli …
Post a Comment
Read more

Brij Bhushan vs State of Delhi - RSS Publication Organizer Pre Censorship Case

-
Brij Bhushan vs State of Delhi - RSS Publication Organizer Pre Censorship Case
Brij Bhushan And Another vs The State Of Delhi  Equivalent citations: 1950 AIR 129, 1950 SCR 605  Author: S Fazal Ali Bench: Fazal Ali, Saiyid 
PETITIONER: BRIJ BHUSHAN AND ANOTHER  Vs.  RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF DELHI.  DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/05/1950 
BENCH: FAZAL ALI, SAIYID BENCH: FAZAL ALI, SAIYID KANIA, HIRALAL J. (CJ) SASTRI, M. PATANJALI MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND DAS, SUDHI RANJAN MUKHERJEA, B.K.
The imposition of censorship on a journal previous to its publication would amount to an infringement of Article 19(1)(a). The question of validity of censorship came up for consideration in the case the Chief Commissioner of Delhi, in pursuance of Section 7 of the East Punjab Safety Act, 1949, as application in Delhi, issued an order against the printer, publisher, editor of an English Weekly of Delhi, called the Organizer, directing them to submit for scrutiny in duplicate before publication till further orders, a…
Post a Comment
Read more

Citizen for Democracy vs State of Assam

-
Citizen for Democracy vs State of Assam Case Point
COURT: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA BENCH: BENCH: KULDIP SINGH & N. VENKATACHALA PETITIONER: CITIZENS FOR DEMOCRACY  RESPONDENT: STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.  DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/05/1995 
In the case of Citizen for Democracy vs State of Assam the Supreme Court of India expressed serious concern over the violation of the law laid down by the Court in Prem Shankar Shukla case against handcuffing of under trial or convicted prisoners by the police authorities. In the present case Mr. Kuldip Nayar who was an eminent journalist in his capacity as president of "Citizen for Democracy" through a letter brought out the notice of the Supreme Court that the seven TADA detenues lodged in the hospital in the State of Assam were handcuffed and tied with a long rope to check their movement. Security guards were also posted outside the hospital. The Court treated the letter as a letter petition in its epistolary jourisdiction under Article 32 of…
1 comment
Read more

Sunil Gupta vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Handcuffing and parading of offenders

-
Sunil Gupta vs State of Madhya Pradesh Case Point:
In the case of Sunil Gupta vs State of M.P. the petitioners were educated persons and social workers, who were remanded to judicial custody were taken to court from jail and back from court to the prison by the escort party handcuffed. They had staged a dharna for a public cause and voluntarity submitted themselves for arrest. They had no tendency to escape from the jail. In fact, they even refused to come out on bail but chose to continue in prison of the public cause. It was held that this act of the escort party was violative of article 21 of the Indian Constitution. There was no reason recorded by the escort party in writing for this inhuman act. The Court directed to the Government to take appropriate action against the erring escort party for having unjustly and unreasonably handcuffing the petitioner.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 - Handcuffing and parading  of offenders; escort party to record and  intimate reasons …
Post a Comment
Read more

Right Against Handcuffing - Prem Shankar vs Delhi Administration Case Summary

-
Right Against Handcuffing - Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration Case
In a landmark judgment (Prem Shankar vs Delhi Administration) Supreme Court added a projectile in its armoury to be used against the war for prison reform and prisoners rights. In this case the validity of some clauses of Punjab Police Rules were challenged as violation of Trinity i.e. Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Justice Krishna Iyer while delivering the majority judgment held that provisions that every under trial who was accused of a non bailable offence punishable with more than three years jail term would be handcuffed, were violative of articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution. Handcuffing should be resorted to only when there is a "clear and present danger of escape" breaking out the police control and for this there must be clear material, not merely an assumption. In special instances the application of iron is not ruled out. But even where in extreme cases, handcu…
Post a Comment
Read more

संविधान के अनुच्छेद 19 में मूल अधिकार | Fundamental Right of Freedom in Article 19 of Constitution

-
प्रश्न- निम्नांकित पर संक्षिप्त टिप्पणियां लिखिए- 1. सम्मेलन का अधिकार 2. संगम या संग बनाने का अधिकार 3. संचरण (भ्रमण) का अधिकार 4. निवास करने और बस जाने का अधिकार 5. व्यापार या कारोबार करने का अधिकार Write short notes to the following- 1. right to assemble 2. Right to Forum Association or Union 3. right to move 4. right to reside and settle 5. Right to carry on any trade of business.
उत्तर (1) सम्मेलन का अधिकार- संविधान के अनुच्छेद 19 (1)(ख) के अंतर्गत भारत के प्रत्येक नागरिक को शांतिपूर्वक निरयुध सम्मेलन करने का मूल अधिकार प्रदान किया गया है। इसके अधीन प्रत्येक नागरिक सभा एवं सम्मेलन आयोजित करने तथा जुलूस आदि निकालने के लिए स्वतंत्र है। वस्तुतः यह अधिकार भी वाक् एवं अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता के अधिकार से मिलता-जुलता है। लेकिन यहां यह उल्लेखनीय है कि सम्मेलन की स्वतंत्रता का अधिकार भी अबाध अर्थात निरपेक्षत नहीं है विधि पूर्ण सम्मेलन के लिए दो बातें आवश्यक है क. यह शांतिपूर्वक होना चाहिए। यानी पीसफुली ख. निरायुद्ध होना चाहिए।  यानी विदाउट आर्म्स संविधान के अनुच्छेद 19 (2) के अंतर्गत स…
Post a Comment
Read more

अपराधों के लिए दोष सिद्धि के संबंध में भारत के संविधान के अनुच्छेद 20 के संरक्षण

-
प्रश्न- अपराधों के लिए दोष सिद्धि के संबंध में भारत के संविधान के अनुच्छेद 20 के अंतर्गत प्रदत संरक्षण की विवेचना कीजिये? उत्तर- संविधान के अनुच्छेद 20 के अंतर्गत अपराधों के लिए दोष सिद्धि के संबंध में अभियुक्त को मुख्य रूप से तीन संरक्षण प्रदान किए गए हैं- 1. कार्योत्तर विधियों से संरक्षण 2. दोहरे दंड से संरक्षण 3. स्व- अभिशंसन से संरक्षण
1. कार्योत्तर विधियों से संरक्षण- संविधान के अनुच्छेद 20 में यह कहा गया है कि कोई व्यक्ति अपराध के लिए तब तक सिद्ध दोष नहीं ठहराया जाएगा जब तक कि उसने ऐसा कुछ करने के समय जो अपराध के रूप में आरोपित है किसी प्रकृत विधि का अतिक्रमण नहीं किया है या उससे अधिक शास्ति का भागी नहीं होगा जो उस अपराध के लिए किए जाने के समय प्रवृत्त विधि के अधीन अधिरोपित की जा सकती थी। अभिप्राय यह हुआ कि किसी भी व्यक्ति को केवल ऐसे कार्य के लिए दंडित किया जा सकता है जो उसे किए जाने के समय प्रवृत्त  किसी विधि के अधीन दंडनीय अपराध हो। यदि कार्य के लिए किए जाने के समय वह किसी विधि के अधीन दंडनीय अपराध नहीं है तो बाद में कोई विधि बनाकर उसे दंडनीय नहीं बनाया जा सकता है। इसका सीधा…
Post a Comment
Read more