- 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 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 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 MoreIntroduction A significant judgment concerning the setting aside of a compromise decree passed under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC). The Court's ruling emphasized the need for strict compliance with the procedural requirements for recording a compromise and established the grounds for recalling a decree based on fraudulent or unlawful compromise. Facts A suit was filed by Banwari Lal (Appellant) on 14th September 1990 concerning disputed land. A compromise petition was filed, stating that both....
Read MoreIntroduction The case dealt with the constitutional validity of Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (Now Section 104 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023), which prescribes a mandatory death sentence for anyone who, being under a sentence of imprisonment for life, commits murder. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case marked a pivotal moment in the history of Indian criminal law by declaring Section 303 as unconstitutional. The Court held that the provision was arbitrary and violated the right....
Read MoreIntroduction: The Supreme Court of India addressed a critical issue regarding freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The case revolved around the imposition of restrictions on Romesh Thappar’s magazine, Crossroads, by the Madras government, under the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949. This case highlighted the balance between individual rights and state interests, particularly in a nascent democratic India. Facts of the Case: Romesh Thappar, a prominent communist leader, faced a government-imposed ban on....
Read MoreIntroduction: The case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs State of Maharashtra (2014) addressed jurisdictional issues under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning dishonoured cheques. The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction where the complaint was filed, as the cheques were issued in one location but the complaint was filed in another. Facts: The petitioner, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod, issued dishonoured cheques in one location, but the complainant filed the case in a different jurisdiction. The main issue was whether complaints....
Read MoreBench comprising of Justice KN Wanchoo, Justice RS Bachawat and Justice V Ramaswami. Introduction: This is a landmark judgment that laid down that in suits of partition more than one preliminary decree can be passed. It deals deals with the dispute over the partition of family property, highlighting significant issues regarding the validity of a will, the rights of a limited owner to sell property, and the court's ability to amend shares post a preliminary decree in a partition....
Read More
