- Home
- About ALEC
- Course Offered
- About Exam
- Blog
- Judgements
- Enquiry
- Syllabus
- Online Class
- Terms
- Enroll Now
Smt. Selvi and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and another [2010 (7) SCC/263] DATE OF THE VERDICT- 05/05/2010 BENCH- J M Panchal, K G Balakrishnan (CJI), R V Raveendran BACKGROUND OF THE CASE- the present case is a compilation of various criminal appeals taken up the honourable SC challenging the prominent techniques used by the police personnel to interrogate people who are either accused or suspects or even the witnesses as well on the ground that these techniques are employed....
Read MoreLaxmi vs. Union Of India and Ors. [2014 SCC (4) 427]- DATE OF JUDGMENT- 10.04.2015 BENCH- M B Lokur, U U Lalit. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE- This is basically public interest litigation that was filed Laxmi, a survivor of an acid attack, who drives a campaign against preventing these attacks and runs an NGO named ‘Chaanv Foundation’ to support the victims and survivors. The victim Laxmi in this case at the age of 15 was attacked with acid in New Delhi, by three....
Read MoreRanjit D. Udeshi vs. State of Maharashtra [1965 AIR 881, 1965 SCR (1) 65] BENCH- P.B. Gajendragadkar (CJ), M Hidayatullah, K N Wanchoo, J C Shah, N.R.Ayyangar DATE OF JUDGMENT- 19th August, 1964. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE – the appellant Ranjit who being an owner of a book store along with four other partners were charged under Sec. 292 of the IPC (which penalizes the act of possessing, circulating and selling of obscene material) for possessing and selling off....
Read MoreVishakha and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others [(1997)6 SCC241, AIR 1997 SC 3011] Date of verdict: 13.08.1997 Bench: B N Kirpal, CJI S.V. Manohar BACKGROUND OF THE CASE- The verdict is the outcome of a petition filed by four women organisations along with Vishakha (which is a group dedicated towards female education and research) regarding the issue of sexual harassment of females at the workplace and their safety. Further to be simplified this petition was filed as a....
Read MoreBrief Facts Perusal of the orders passed from time to time will show that Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) had assured the Court toremove the illegal structure of the temple on thefootpath. Perusal of the record will show that on11th December 2019, Sri P.T. Prasanna Kumar, Assistant Executive Engineer, Jayanagar Sub-Division of BBMP has filed on record the noticesissued by BBMP. He has stated that the structureof the temple is on a footpath. A status reportwas filed on 8th January....
Read MoreJohnny Paul Pierce vs Union of India Case No : WP(c) No. 13263/2020 Coram : Justice C S Dias Appearances: Advocate S Saju, A V Sajan & Neelanjana Nair for petitioner; ASG P Vijayakumar for the respondents. Brief Facts of the Case Mr. Johnny Paul Pierce – the petitioner, an American National, came to India, on a tourist visa, on26.2.2020. The visa is valid till 26.1.2025. All of a sudden, the Country went into a lockdown due to the COVID -....
Read MoreBikramjit Singh Bajwa v. Union of India and Others Quorum: Chief Justice Ravi Shanker Jha and Justice Arun Palli Appearance: Petitioner in person; Addl. Advocate General PS Bajwa (for State of Punjab); Addl. Advocate General Deepak Balyan (for State of Haryana); ASG Satya Pal Jain with Standing Counsel Dheeraj Jain (for Union of India) Brief Facts of the Case There is an organizationwhich is known as “Sikh for Justice”. The organization is already banned. But recently, the organization is taking active initiative....
Read MoreQueen Mary School Northend v. Director Of Education Quorum: Justice Jayant Nath Appearance: Advocates RomyChacko, Shakti Chand Jaidwl and VarunMudgal (for Petitioner); Standing Counsel Ramesh Singh with Advocates SantoshTripathi and BhawnaKataria (for Respondent) Prayer of the Petitioner This petitioner filed the petition seeking an appropriate writ toquash the Circular dated 18.04.2020. The petitioner prayed to allow the petitioner School tocharge the actual expenditure incurred by it during the lockdown period inthe form of fees from the students. Other connected reliefs are also....
Read MoreD.K.Basu vs. State of West Bengal Real name of the case- [Shri D.K.Basu, Ashok K.Johri vs. State of W.B., State of U.P] Bench- Js. Kuldip Singh, Js. (Dr.) A.S. Anand. Date of Judgment- December 18th, 1996. Precedent considered- {Nilabati Behera vs. State of Orissa} [1993] Notable Fact- there were as many as approximately 51 number of Advocates involved in the present case with one “amicus curiae” (friend of court) Dr. A.M.Singhvi. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE- On 26thAugust, 1986 one Basu D....
Read MoreState of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad & Others. Bench: Total no.- 11 Majority: B.P. Sinha (CJI), J.R.Mudholkar, K.SubbaRao, K.N.Wanchoo, N.R.Ayyangar, RaghubarDayal, P.B.Gajendragadkar, Syed Jaffer Imam. Minority: A K Sarkar, K C Dasgupta, S K Das. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE- The precedent considered in this case was [M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra/(A.I.R. 1954/SC 300)] where it has been held by the court that the term, “to be a witness”mentioned in Art..20(3) of the Indian Constitution was equivalent to ‘furnish evidence’ and therefore....
Read More
