Indian Constitution

  Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2015 -  Supreme Court Procedure related Case -  On 2nd September, 2014, in the case of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India & Others [Writ Petition (Crl.) No.77 of 2014], a Constitution Bench per majority held that "in review petitions arising out of those cases where the death penalty is awarded, it would be necessary to accord oral hearing in the open Court.

 Manoj Narula v. Union of India - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2015 -  Case Law Case Summary   On 27th August, 2014, in the case of Manoj Narula v. Union of India [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 289 of 2005], while dealing with the issue of choice of Ministers, a Constitution Bench per majority held that "it can always be legitimately expected, regard being had to the role of a Minister in the Council of Ministers and keeping in view the sanctity of oath he takes, the Prime Minister, while living up to the trust reposed in him, would consider not choosing a person with criminal antecedents against whom charges have been framed for heinous or serious criminal offences or charges of corruption to become a Minister of the Council of Ministers. This is what the Constitution suggests and that is the constitutional expectation from the Prime Minister. Rest has to be left to the wisdom of the Prime Minister."

Manohar Lal Sharma v. The Principal Secretary  - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2015 -  Case  Law Case Summary  Decision in Coal Block Allocation Case - On 25th August, 2014, in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma v. The Principal Secretary & Ors. [Writ Petition (Crl.) No.120 of 2012], it was held that the allotment of coal blocks by the Screening Committee of the Government of India, as also the allotments made through the Government dispensation route for the period 1993 to 2010 were arbitrary and illegal.

Vishwa Lochan Madan v. Union of India   - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2015   On 7th July, 2014, in the case of Vishwa Lochan Madan v. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 386 of 2005], it was held that issuance of Fatwa on rights, status and obligation of individual Muslim would not be permissible, unless asked for by the person concerned or in case of incapacity, by the person interested.

 Jeeja Ghosh & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors. - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 12th May, 2016, in the case of Jeeja Ghosh & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012], the Supreme Court asked Respondent no.3 [SpiceJet Ltd] to pay Rupees Ten Lakhs to Jeeja Ghosh, an eminent activist involved in disability rights, for forcibly de-boarding her by the flight crew, because of her disability. The Court held that “a little care, a little sensitivity and a little positive attitude on the part of the officials of the airlines would not have resulted in the trauma, pain and suffering that Jeeja Ghosh had to undergo. This has resulted in violation of her human dignity and, thus, her fundamental right, though by a private enterprise (respondent No.3).” On the “finding that respondent No.3 acted in a callous manner, and in the process violated the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and Civil Aviation Requirements(CAR),2008 guidelines resulting in mental and phy

 Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India, Ministry of Law  - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 13th May, 2016, in the case of Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India, Ministry of Law & Ors. [Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 184 of 2014], while examining the law on criminal defamation, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was held that “the right to reputation is a constituent of Article 21 of the Constitution” and that reputation of “one cannot be allowed to be crucified at the altar of the other’s right of free speech. The legislature in its wisdom has not thought it appropriate to abolish criminality of defamation in the obtaining social climate.” It was further held that the “right to freedom of speech and expression is a highly valued and cherished right but the Constitution conceives of reasonable restriction. In that context criminal defamation which is in ex