WELCOME TO AASHAYEIN LAW EDUCATION CENTER

06 Dec 2024

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

Daniel Latifi v. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 3958

The landmark case of Daniel Latifi v. Union of India (2001) dealt with important issues related to the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. It focused on interpreting Section 125 of the CrPC, which ensures maintenance for a dependent wife. The case resolved the conflict between personal religious laws and constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Act while ensuring that divorced Muslim women receive a fair and reasonable settlement. It managed....

Read More
29 Nov 2024

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani AIR 1978 SC 1025

The 1978 case of Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani is a landmark judgment in Indian law, particularly concerning The Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). It addressed key issues related to the protections during police questioning under Section 161(2) of the CrPC and the Right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. Nandini Satpathy, the former Chief Minister of Odisha, refused to answer certain police questions, claiming they were self-incriminating. This judgment is significant for safeguarding individual....

Read More
28 Nov 2024

Posted by: Manas Shrivastava

VIJAYA MANOHAR ARBAT VS. KASHIRAO RAJARAM SAWAI AND ORS

Introduction In the landmark case of Vijaya Manohar Arbat vs. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai and Ors (1987), the Supreme Court of India examined Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, which deals with providing maintenance to dependents. The Court interpreted the use of the term "he" in the section and ruled that both sons and daughters have an obligation to support their parents if the parents are unable to take care of themselves. Brief fact of the case....

Read More
12 Nov 2024

Posted by: Oshin Pandey (Oct 2024)

Property Owners Association & Ors. Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2024

Issues.- Whether Article 31C (as upheld in Kesavananda Bharati) survives in the Constitution after the amendment to the provision by the forty-second amendment was struck down by this Court in Minerva Mills. Whether the interpretation of Article 39(b) adopted by Justice Krishna Iyer in Ranganatha Reddy and followed in Sanjeev Coke must be reconsidered. Whether the phrase ‘material resources of the community’ in Article 39(b) can be interpreted to include resources that are owned privately and not by the state.....

Read More
01 Nov 2024

Posted by: Sourabh Kartikey (2024)

K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2018): A Landmark Judgment on Privacy and the Legality of Aadhaar

Introduction The K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India case, also known as the Aadhaar judgment, stands as a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court of India on the right to privacy and the constitutionality of the Aadhaar scheme. Delivered on September 26, 2018, the judgment has had far-reaching implications for individual privacy rights, data security, and the interaction between state powers and personal freedoms in India.   Background of the Case The Aadhaar project, initiated in 2009 by the Unique....

Read More
30 Oct 2024

Posted by: Sourabh Kartikey (Oct 2024)

Section 6A Citizenship Act 1955

Anti-Foreigners Agitation in Assam (1979–1985).- Led by the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) and All Assam Gana Sangram Parishad (AAGSP). The movement demanded.- identification and deportation of illegal migrants protection of Assamese cultural and political identity.   Key Causes of the Assam Movement.- Illegal Immigration: The large influx changed the demographics of Assam, creating fears among the local Assamese population about losing their cultural and linguistic identity, as well as concerns over employment and resources. Electoral Manipulation: Illegal immigrants were....

Read More
21 Oct 2024

Posted by: Sourabh Kartikey (2024)

Supriyo v. Union of India (Same-Sex marriage) 2023

Introduction The Supreme Court of India’s judgement in Supriyo v. Union of India is a landmark ruling with significant implications for constitutional interpretation, individual rights, and legislative limitations. This case focused on the constitutionality of a particular legal provision, addressing fundamental rights and the balance between state powers and personal liberties. Background of the Case The case of Supriyo v. Union of India emerged out of the petitioner Supriyo Chakraborty's challenge to the application of certain provisions of Indian law....

Read More
18 Oct 2024

Posted by: Sourabh Kartikey (2024)

R v. Dudley and Stephens(1884)

  Introduction R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884) is one of the most famous and controversial cases in English criminal law. This landmark case involved the grim reality of survival cannibalism at sea and brought to light the legal principle that necessity cannot be a defence to a charge of murder. The ruling set a precedent in criminal law regarding the limits of necessity as a defence. For Judiciary Aspirants - Start your judiciary preparation with the right program: Foundation....

Read More
16 Oct 2024

Posted by: Sourabh Kartikey (Oct 2024)

Sukanya Shantha vs Union of India (2024)

Sukanya Shantha vs Union of India (2024) is a landmark Supreme Court case addressing caste-based discrimination in Indian prisons. The case, filed by journalist Sukanya Shantha, was triggered by her investigative article that exposed how prison manuals in various Indian states allowed for practices perpetuating caste hierarchies. She sought to challenge these discriminatory practices, which violated the fundamental rights of equality and dignity enshrined in the Constitution.   Background and Facts Sukanya Shantha, in her article titled “From Segregation to....

Read More
16 Oct 2024

Posted by: Sourabh Kartikey (Oct 2024)

Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)

Introduction: Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India is a landmark case in Indian jurisprudence, where the Supreme Court decriminalized consensual homosexual relations, marking a significant victory for LGBTQ+ rights. The case challenged Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a colonial-era law that criminalized "carnal intercourse against the order of nature," effectively making homosexual acts illegal. This judgment overruled previous rulings and upheld the principles of equality, dignity, and privacy under the Constitution of India. For Judiciary Aspirants....

Read More