The case deals with the issue of whether a resigned director of a company can be held liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 (“NI Act”) for cheques issued by the company after their resignation. The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's decision, clarifying that liability under Section 141 cannot be imposed on a person who was no longer a director at the time of the issuance of the cheque. Provisions: 1. Section 138, NI Act: Deals....
Read MoreThe Supreme Court, in this case, clarified the applicability of Section 12(3) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA). The bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, ruled that part performance of a contract cannot be claimed when the unperformed portion is substantial, non-segregable, and the plaintiff neither relinquishes claims for the unperformed part nor demonstrates readiness to perform the contract. Facts The case arose from an agreement to sell a property for Rs 84 Lakhs. The Plaintiff....
Read MoreIn the case of MK Ranjitsinh and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., the Supreme Court acknowledged freedom from the harmful effects of climate change as a distinct fundamental right. This decision expanded the scope of Articles 14 (equality before the law) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution. The petitioners argued that overhead power lines in Gujarat and Rajasthan's arid regions posed a grave threat to the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard (GIB).....
Read MoreThe Supreme Court of India's landmark decision in “Mr. X v. Hospital Z” (1998) deals with the balance between an individual’s “right to privacy” and society’s “need to protect public health”. The case raised key questions about medical confidentiality, the limits of privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, and the ethical responsibilities of healthcare organizations. This judgment has played a vital role in shaping the legal understanding of fundamental rights in sensitive health-related situations. I. Facts The patient, who....
Read MoreIssues.- Whether Article 31C (as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati) survives in the Constitution after the amendment to the provision by the forty-second amendment was struck down by this Court in Minerva Mills. Whether the interpretation of Article 39(b) adopted by Justice Krishna Iyer in Ranganatha Reddy and followed in Sanjeev Coke must be reconsidered. Whether the phrase ‘material resources of the community’ in Article 39(b) can be interpreted to include resources that are owned privately and not by the state.....
Read MoreAnti-Foreigners Agitation in Assam (1979–1985).- Led by the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) and All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP). The movement demanded.- identification and deportation of illegal migrants protection of Assamese cultural and political identity. Key Causes of the Assam Movement.- Illegal Immigration: The large influx changed the demographics of Assam, creating fears among the local Assamese population about losing their cultural and linguistic identity, as well as concerns over employment and resources. Electoral Manipulation: Illegal immigrants were....
Read MoreIntroduction The Supreme Court of India’s judgement in Supriyo v. Union of India is a landmark ruling with significant implications for constitutional interpretation, individual rights, and legislative limitations. This case focused on the constitutionality of a particular legal provision, addressing fundamental rights and the balance between state powers and personal liberties. Background of the Case The case of Supriyo v. Union of India emerged out of the petitioner Supriyo Chakraborty's challenge to the application of certain provisions of Indian law....
Read MoreSukanya Shantha vs Union of India (2024) is a landmark Supreme Court case addressing caste-based discrimination in Indian prisons. The case, filed by journalist Sukanya Shantha, was triggered by her investigative article that exposed how prison manuals in various Indian states allowed for practices perpetuating caste hierarchies. She sought to challenge these discriminatory practices, which violated the fundamental rights of equality and dignity enshrined in the Constitution. Background and Facts Sukanya Shantha, in her article titled “From Segregation to....
Read MoreKush Kalra vs. Union of India and Ors. 2021 BENCH: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice BR Gavai FACTS OF THE CASE: In the Delhi High Court, the PIL had been filed for the issuance of writ of mandamus to the respondents i.e. Union of India and Indian Army. The writ petition had been filed by the appellant for inclusion of women Indian Territorial Army at par with men. The criterion for selection to the Indian Territorial Army was possible if women....
Read MoreSHAKTI VAHINI vs. UNION OF INDIA [AIR (2018) SC 1601: 7 SCC 192] BENCH- Dipak Mishra, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud BACKGROUD OF THE CASE- The National Commission for Women authorised the petitioner, an organization to conduct a research on “Honour Killings in the areas of western U.P., Punjab and Haryana’. The organization asserted that there has been a significant increase in both the honour crimes as well as the fear among young people who are willing to marry....
Read More
