WELCOME TO AASHAYEIN LAW EDUCATION CENTER

ALEC for Judiciary

16 Apr 2026

Posted by: Aashayein

Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana (1988): Important Judgment Under Evidence Law Simplified

Facts of the Case Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana is an important judgment on the admissibility of statements made by a deceased person under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which is now reflected in Section 26 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The case clarified when statements by deceased persons can be treated as relevant evidence in criminal proceedings. The case arose out of a criminal trial in which the prosecution relied on a statement allegedly....

Read More
10 Apr 2026

Posted by: Aashayein

Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979) Important Facts, Issues & Judgement

Facts of the Case Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar is one of the most important judgments in Indian constitutional law because it recognised the right to speedy trial as an essential part of Article 21. The case came before the Supreme Court after a series of newspaper reports highlighted the miserable condition of under trial prisoners in the State of Bihar. Many prisoners had been kept in jail for years without trial. In several cases, the period....

Read More
07 Apr 2026

Posted by: Aashayein

ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976) – Habeas Corpus Case

Facts of the Case ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla, popularly known as the Habeas Corpus Case, is one of the most controversial decisions in Indian constitutional history. The case arose during the period of Internal Emergency declared by the Government of India on 25 June 1975 under Article 352 of the Constitution. During the Emergency, several political leaders, activists, journalists, and dissenters were arrested and detained under the provisions of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, commonly known as MISA.....

Read More
06 Apr 2026

Posted by: Aashayein

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)

Facts of the Case Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation is one of the most important judgments in Indian constitutional law because it expanded the scope of Article 21 and recognised the right to livelihood as part of the right to life. The case arose when the Government of Maharashtra and the Bombay Municipal Corporation decided to remove slum dwellers and pavement dwellers from different parts of Bombay, now known as Mumbai. Large numbers of poor people had settled on....

Read More
01 Sep 2025

Posted by: Rishika Chouhan

Chetan v. State of Karnataka (2025): Landmark case on circumstantial evidence

In Chetan v. State of Karnataka (2025), the accused Chetan killed his friend Vikram Sinde over a dispute of Rs. 4,000. He called Vikram for hunting and then shot him with a gun. There were no direct witnesses, so the case depended fully on circumstantial evidence, like both being last seen together, recovery of the weapon, stolen items with the accused, forensic reports, and the fact that Chetan ran away after the crime. Issue before the Court The main question....

Read More
01 Sep 2025

Posted by: Rishika Chouhan

BOULTON VS JONES: A LANDMARK JUDGEMENT ON PRIVITY OF CONTRACT

In this case, Jones was in the business of selling building materials and often bought supplies from Brocklehurst. Over time, they became friendly. One day, Jones placed a written order for goods at Brocklehurst’s shop, but he did not know that the shop had been sold to Boulton. Without telling Jones about the change, Boulton accepted the order and sent the goods. Jones received and used them, thinking they came from Brocklehurst as usual. Later, when Boulton sent him an....

Read More
19 Jun 2025

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

Lily Thomas vs. Union of India Case

Mrs. Sushmita Ghosh and Mr. Gyan Chand Ghosh got married on 10th May 1985 following Hindu rituals and traditions. However, after just a few months, on 22nd April 1992, Mr. Ghosh informed his wife that he no longer wished to stay with her and insisted on getting a divorce by mutual consent. Since it was a new marriage, Mrs. Sushmita Ghosh was unwilling to consent to a divorce and expressed her desire to continue living with her husband. Later, Mr.....

Read More
19 Jun 2025

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847

  In this case, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre (Hereinafter Dunlop), a tire manufacturing company, had an agreement with its dealers that the tires should not be sold below a fixed recommended retail price (RRP). The dealers were also required to ensure that their own retailers like Selfridge in this case followed the same pricing condition. Under the agreement, if Selfridge sold the tires below the RRP, they would have to pay £5 per tire as damages to Dunlop. Even though this....

Read More
19 Jun 2025

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

Lalman Shukla vs. Gauri Dutt, 1913 40 ALJ 489

In this case, the defendant's nephew had gone missing, and the defendant sent his servants to search for him. One of the servants, Lalman Shukla, the plaintiff, went from Kanpur to Haridwar to look for the missing boy. During the journey, he was given money by the defendant to cover his travel and related expenses. While Lalman was away searching, the defendant made a public announcement offering a reward of Rs. 501 to anyone who found and brought back his....

Read More
16 Jun 2025

Posted by: Manas

State of Rajasthan v Vidyawati (1962)

This case is about an accident involving Lokumal, a temporary driver working for the State of Rajasthan. He was assigned to drive a government-owned jeep used by the Collector of Udaipur. On February 11, 1952, while returning the jeep from a repair workshop, Lokumal drove negligently and hit a pedestrian named Jagdishlal, who was walking on the footpath. As a result, Jagdishlal suffered serious injuries, including skull and spinal fractures, and died three days later in the hospital. The suit....

Read More

Categories