M.C. MEHTA & ANR. vs. SHRI RAM FOODS AND FERTILISER INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS [AIR 1987 SC 965] - also known as ‘the Oleum Gas Leak Case’. DATE OF THE VERDICT- 17/02/1986 BENCH- P N Bhagwati, D P Madon, G L Oza BACKGROUND OF THE CASE- While the case of Bhopal gas tragedy awaited verdict of the Hon’ble SC, another gas disaster took place at Shri Ram Foods and fertiliser industries which was a subsidiary of the Delhi Textile Mills.....
Read MoreDanial Latifi & Anr. vs. Union Of India [AIR 2001 SC 3958] DATE OF THE JUDGMENT- 28.09.2001 BENCH- D. Raju, D P Mohapatra, G B Pattanaik, S R Babu, S V Patil BACKGROUND OF THE CASE- this case was filed to challenge the constitutional validity of the “Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986” [herein after referred to as MWPRD Act], which was enacted by the Government to nullify the verdict given by the SC in ‘Mohd. Ahmed....
Read MoreMohd. Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum AIR 1985 SCR (3) 844] DATE OF JUDGMENT- 23rd April, 1985. BENCH- D A Desai, E S Venkataramiah, Rangnath Mishra, O C Reddy, Y V Chandrachud. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE- The case revolves around a long battle fought by a muslim woman, Shah Bano (appellant) against the system of triple talaq for the price of hatred by the community as well as her husband. The appellant got married to the respondent in 1932,....
Read MoreSmt. 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 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 MoreShamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan (2015) Bench- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant Introduction- What is disturbing is that though the application for grant of maintenance was filed in the year 1998, it was not decided till 17.2.2012. It is also shocking to note that there was no order for grant of interim maintenance. It needs no special emphasis to state that when an application for grant of maintenance is filed by....
Read More
