- Home
- About ALEC
- Course Offered
- About Exam
- Blog
- Judgements
- Enquiry
- Syllabus
- Online Class
- Privacy Policy
- Enroll Now
This case revolves around the petitioner’s challenge to the government’s decision to impound her passport under Section 10(3)(c) of the Passports Act, 1967, citing "public interest" as the reason. The petitioner was informed by the Regional Passport Officer, Delhi, to surrender her passport but was denied access to the reasons behind the government's decision. Dissatisfied with the government's refusal to disclose the reasons, she filed a petition questioning both the legality of the impounding action and the refusal to provide....
Read MoreBench comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Introduction The Supreme Court clarified the evidentiary value of disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (Now section 23 of BSA), stating that such statements, without supporting evidence, cannot solely be relied upon for convicting an accused. The Court acquitted the appellant, who was convicted for murder, after examining the inadequacy of the prosecution's evidence. Facts of the Case The appellant, Vinobhai, allegedly stabbed the deceased, Ramakrishnan,....
Read MoreIntroduction: The case deals with the issue of adverse possession and the rights of citizens over their property via the State. The Court clarified that the State cannot claim adverse possession against its own citizens, reinforcing the importance of respecting private property rights in a democratic system governed by the rule of law. Facts: Amin Lal and Ashok Kumar filed a civil suit in 1981, claiming ownership of 18 Biswas Pukhta land near National Highway 10, Bahadurgarh, Haryana, alleging unauthorized....
Read MoreThis case involves a legal dispute concerning the competence of a person of unsound mind to enter into a contract. The issue centers around whether insanity or mental incompetence can be used as a defense to void a contract. The case arose from a property transaction where the title of a disputed property was sold by the son, who was alleged to be mentally incapacitated, to a landowner at a significantly lower price than its actual value. The mother of....
Read MoreFacts of the case A seven-judge bench was set up to decide whether Parliament and State Legislatures could take away the power of judicial review from the High Courts and Supreme Court. This issue involved Article 226 (with Article 227) and Article 32, which give courts this power, against Article 323A(1) and Article 323B(2), which allow the legislature to limit it. The bench also had to reconsider an earlier ruling in S. P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India (1987),....
Read MoreA Bench comprising of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan Introduction: The Supreme Court, in its decision addressed the issue of whether a pendente lite transferee (someone who acquires property during the pendency of a suit) has an automatic right to be impleaded in a suit. The Court ruled that a transferee pendente lite has no inherent right to be impleaded as a party to the suit and can only be allowed to do so in exceptional cases where their....
Read MoreA Bench comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan Introduction: The case raises important questions regarding the legality and implications of an ex parte stay granted by the Delhi High Court on an order discharging an accused in a murder case. Facts: Sudershan Singh Wazir, a Sikh leader and former President of the Jammu and Kashmir State Gurdwara Parbandhak Board, was accused of being involved in the 2021 murder of former National Conference MLC Trilochan Singh Wazir. On....
Read MoreIntroduction: The landmark case addresses the interpretation of the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Specifically, it explores whether this constitutional provision protects an accused from being compelled to provide a voice sample during the course of a criminal investigation. Facts: On December 7, 2009, the FIR was lodged at Sadar Bazar Police Station in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, alleging that Ritesh Sinha and Dhoom Singh collected money by falsely promising jobs in the police force.....
Read MoreIntroduction: In a significant judgment that revisits and redefines the scope of legislative immunity granted under Article 105(2) and Article 194(2) of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court, in a seven-judge bench, reviewed the earlier decision in P.V. Narsimha Rao v. Union of India (1998) and clarified whether a legislator enjoys immunity for accepting bribes to vote in Parliament or a State Assembly. This judgment has broader implications for the functioning of democracy, particularly in addressing corruption within the....
Read MoreA Bench comprising of Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan Introduction: The Supreme Court of India set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment which had upheld the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the rape and murder of a 23-year-old woman in 2014. The appellant was acquitted due to the failure of the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly relying on circumstantial evidence. Facts: In 2014, the body of a 23-year-old woman was....
Read More
