BENCH COMPRISING OF JUSTICE D.A DESAI, JUSTICE RB MISRA This case revolves around the question of circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof in criminal law. The appellant, Dudh Nath Pandey, was convicted for the murder of his cousin, Ram Prakash Pandey. The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, and the Supreme Court was called upon to address key issues of admissibility and sufficiency of such evidence to uphold the conviction. FACTS Ram Prakash Pandey was killed on the night....
Read MoreThe 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 MoreBench CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala The Supreme Court in Case Just rights for children alliance Vs S. Harish, a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala addressed critical issues concerning the possession and consumption of child sexual exploitative and abuse material (CSEAM) under Indian law. The Court's judgment clarified the legal interpretations of relevant provisions in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, emphasizing the stringent....
Read MoreThe case of Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra is a landmark judgment in India, shaping the course of juvenile justice and human rights. Social activist Sheela Barse played a pivotal role by raising her voice against the inhumane conditions prevalent in Indian jails and juvenile homes, bringing attention to the need for reform and justice. Facts of the case Journalist Sheela Barse, based in Bombay, sought permission to interview female inmates in Maharashtra prisons. She was told she could....
Read MoreThe petitioners challenged the validity of Article 323A of the Constitution, which was added by the 42nd Amendment in 1976. This article excluded the High Courts' jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 in service-related matters. Additionally, they contested Sections 4, 5, 6, and 28 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. These sections laid out the qualifications and appointment procedures for the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Administrative Tribunal. The case focused on two key issues: Whether removing the High Courts’....
Read MoreIn India, the death penalty is a highly debated topic, with some advocating for its complete abolition and others supporting its retention. Indian courts have generally upheld the validity of the death penalty but emphasize the need for fair and judicious use of the discretionary power granted to them. While courts strive to follow consistent principles in such cases, the application of these guidelines remains a critical challenge. The case of Machi Singh v. State of Punjab is significant as....
Read MoreIn this case, child labourers in the construction sector of Delhi filed a complaint, claiming that Article 24 of the constitution which prohibits assigning children under the age of 14 to hazardous jobs had been violated. Additionally, representatives of construction companies employed workers from impoverished areas in Orissa, Bihar, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, and Rajasthan to work on the stadiums and infrastructure, including as flyovers and hotels, on the ASIAD-82 sites. Facts of the Case During the ASIAD-82....
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 MoreBENCH: HON’BLE JUSTICE "ARIJIT PASAYAT" & JUSTICE S.H KAPADIA INTRODUCTION - The process of granting a pardon in India begins with the submission of a mercy petition to the President under Article 72 of the Constitution. The petition is initially reviewed by the Home Ministry, which consults with the relevant state government. Following the Home Minister's recommendations, the petition is forwarded to the President for consideration. The authority to grant pardons is an integral part of the constitutional framework. Article....
Read More
