- Home
- About ALEC
- Course Offered
- About Exam
- Blog
- Judgements
- Enquiry
- Syllabus
- Online Class
- Terms
- Enroll Now
In this case, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court raising concerns about noise pollution caused by loudspeakers, and firecrackers during religious events, including bhajans and other performances, in busy commercial areas. The petitioners argued that these loudspeakers, especially when used on weekly holidays, created a serious nuisance for residents living nearby. They claimed that the excessive noise disrupted daily life and made it difficult for people to enjoy peace and rest in their homes. Issues....
Read MoreBench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan Introduction The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment clarified that the contents of a FIR are inadmissible as evidence if the informant dies a natural death and cannot be proved through the investigating officer. The Court ruled that a FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used to corroborate or contradict statements under the Evidence Act, 1872. It further stated that a FIR may be treated as a....
Read MoreFacts of the case The case involved admissions to undergraduate (UG) and postgraduate (PG) medical courses across various states and union territories in India. The general policy followed by these institutions was to give preference to students who either held domicile status or had been permanent residents of the state for a significant period, ranging from 3 to 20 years, or had completed their education in that state for a period between 4 to 10 years. The dispute arose when....
Read MoreBench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice SVN Bhatti Introduction The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment ruled that the mere mention of Section 307 IPC (Now Sec 109 of BNS, 2023) (attempt to murder) in a FIR does not prevent the High Court from quashing criminal proceedings based on a settlement if the facts do not substantiate the charge. The Court emphasized that the nature of the injury, weapon used, conduct of the accused, and societal impact must be....
Read MoreA.K. Chopra, the respondent, was employed as a private secretary to the chairman of the Apparel Export Promotion Council (the appellant). On August 12, 1988, he used his position of authority to compel a female employee, Miss X, to accompany him to the Business Centre at the Taj Palace Hotel for dictation, despite her lack of training in taking dictation. Taking advantage of the secluded setting, Chopra attempted to molest her by sitting too close and touching her inappropriately, despite....
Read MoreIntroduction The Supreme Court, in this case, addressed the admissibility of a FIR when the informant dies a natural death before trial. The Court held that such a FIR is not substantive evidence unless it qualifies as a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872(Now Section 26 of BSA,2023). It ruled that an investigating officer cannot prove the contents of the FIR in such circumstances. Facts of the Case The appellant’s daughter was married to the....
Read MoreThe dispute arose when Lata, a postgraduate student, voluntarily married Bramha Nand Gupta, which angered her brothers as it was an inter-caste marriage. In retaliation, her brothers falsely accused her husband and his relatives of kidnapping, leading to their arrests and legal proceedings. Despite Lata affirming in court that she had married of her own free will, her brothers continued to pursue legal action, including obtaining warrants and filing a protest petition. Additionally, Lata and her husband’s family faced continuous....
Read MoreBench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice N Kotiswar Singh Introduction The Supreme Court, in this case, ruled that an arrest is illegal if the arrested person is not informed of the grounds for arrest as mandated under Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution. The Court held that in such cases, the accused must be granted bail despite statutory restrictions. It further emphasized that magistrates must ensure compliance with constitutional safeguards during remand proceedings. Facts of the Case The petitioner,....
Read MoreBench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan Introduction: The Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, stating that a director who is "in charge of" a company and one who is "responsible to" the company for its business operations are distinct legal aspects. The Court emphasized that both conditions must be present in a complaint to hold someone liable under this section. Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Deals with the....
Read MoreThe petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) raising concerns about the dominance of multinational corporations in India's pharmaceutical industry. These corporations, originally based in countries such as the U.S.A., U.K., Germany, Sweden, Japan, and France, were alleged to have vast financial resources and generate enormous profits. The petitioner argued that the Indian government exercised minimal control over these foreign corporations, allowing them to exploit the Indian market, particularly given the country's high vulnerability to diseases. The petitioner referred to....
Read More
