Here are brief summaries for every landmark judgment


### **Arrest, Detention & Police Powers**
 * **1. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997):** Established strict, mandatory guidelines for police to follow during arrests and detentions to prevent custodial torture and deaths.
 * **2. Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994):** Ruled that no arrest can be made merely because it is lawful; the police must have a reasonable justification to make the arrest.
 * **3. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014):** Aimed to prevent unnecessary arrests under Section 498A IPC (dowry harassment), making it mandatory for police to issue a notice of appearance (Section 41A CrPC) for offenses carrying a sentence of fewer than seven years.
 * **4. K.V. Rajendran v. CBI (2013):** Held that transferring an investigation to the CBI is an extraordinary power that should only be used in rare and exceptional cases.
### **Bail Jurisprudence**
 * **1. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980):** Clarified that the power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is broad, linked to the Right to Life and Liberty (Article 21), and should not be unnecessarily restricted.
 * **2. Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2023):** Laid down exhaustive guidelines and categorized offenses to streamline the bail process and prevent unnecessary arrests, especially in cases where the accused cooperated during the investigation.
 * **3. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979):** Recognized the Right to a Speedy Trial as a fundamental right under Article 21, leading to the release of thousands of undertrials who had been in jail longer than their maximum possible sentence.
### **Criminal Trial & Evidence**
 * **1. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984):** Established the "Panchsheel" (five principles) test for convicting an accused based purely on circumstantial evidence, requiring the chain of evidence to be entirely complete.
 * **2. State of UP v. Krishna Gopal (1988):** Highlighted that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a "reasonable" doubt, noting that doubts must be actual and substantial, not imaginary or trivial.
 * **3. State of Punjab v. Balwinder Singh (2012):** Clarified the evidentiary value of circumstantial evidence and the reliability required to base a conviction on extra-judicial confessions.
### **Rape Laws & Sexual Offences**
 * **1. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996):** Directed courts to handle rape trials with extreme sensitivity, stating that the testimony of a rape survivor is inherently reliable and does not require corroboration like that of an accomplice.
 * **2. Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana (2013):** Clarified the legal distinction between rape and consensual sex on a false promise of marriage, noting that the intention to deceive must exist from the very beginning.
 * **3. Swami Shraddhananda v. State of Karnataka (2008):** Introduced a special category of sentencing where the death penalty is substituted with life imprisonment that explicitly means the "remainder of natural life" without the possibility of remission.
 * **4. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018):** Decriminalized adultery by striking down Section 497 of the IPC, ruling it unconstitutional and violative of the right to equality, dignity, and privacy.
### **Death Penalty & Sentencing**
 * **1. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980):** Upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty but established the landmark "rarest of rare" doctrine, ensuring it is only awarded in the most extreme cases.
 * **2. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983):** Expanded on *Bachan Singh* by laying out specific categories and guidelines to help courts determine what constitutes a "rarest of rare" case.
 * **3. Swami Shraddhananda v. State of Karnataka (2009):** Re-emphasized the principle of awarding "life imprisonment without remission" as an alternative to the death penalty when a case falls just short of the rarest of rare threshold.
### **Public Order, Terrorism & National Security**
 * **1. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994):** Upheld the constitutional validity of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA), while issuing guidelines to ensure fairness in recording confessional statements.
 * **2. Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra (2015):** Dealt with the sentencing in the 1993 Mumbai blasts, emphasizing the strict legal procedures required for executing a death warrant in terrorism cases.
 * **3. NIA v. Zahoor Watali (2019):** Laid down strict parameters for granting bail under the UAPA, ruling that courts must rely on the prosecution's chargesheet to assess if the accusations are "prima facie true" without conducting a mini-trial.
### **Corruption & Public Servants**
 * **1. P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019):** Established that economic offenses constitute a "class apart" and that anticipatory bail in money laundering cases (PMLA) should be granted only in exceptional circumstances.
 * **2. Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh (2012):** Ruled that there must be a strict time limit (usually 3 months) for the competent authority to grant sanction to prosecute a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
### **Criminal Liability Doctrine**
 * **1. R. v. Govinda (1876):** A foundational classic case that laid out the legal distinction between "culpable homicide not amounting to murder" (Section 299 IPC) and "murder" (Section 300 IPC).
 * **2. Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (1958):** Defined the ingredients of Section 300 "Thirdly" of the IPC, stating that if there is an intention to cause a bodily injury, and that injury is objectively sufficient to cause death, it amounts to murder.
 * **3. Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009):** Stressed the absolute necessity for courts to deeply consider the socio-economic background and rehabilitation potential of the accused before imposing the death penalty.
### **Custodial Violence & Encounter Killings**
 * **1. Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta (2011):** Held that police officers committing fake encounters are carrying out cold-blooded murder and can be liable for the death penalty, stating they act like contract killers.
 * **2. Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Assn (EEVFAM) v. Union of India (2012):** Directed thorough investigations into alleged extra-judicial killings in Manipur, ruling that the armed forces cannot use excessive or retaliatory force even in AFSPA-notified areas.
 * **3. Strict guidelines to scrutinize encounter deaths in Manipur:** Stemming from the EEVFAM petitions, this mandates standard operating procedures (SOPs) and independent probes for every police/military encounter resulting in death.
### **Article 21 Expansion in Criminal Jurisprudence**
 * **1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):** Radically expanded Article 21 (Right to Life) by ruling that any "procedure established by law" to deprive a person of life or liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable, not arbitrary.
 * **2. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010):** Ruled that the involuntary administration of Narcoanalysis, Brain Mapping, and Polygraph tests violates the fundamental right against self-incrimination (Article 20(3)) and the right to privacy (Article 21).
 * **3. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015):** Struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act as unconstitutional, securing online free speech and protecting citizens from arbitrary arrests for internet posts.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

GOVT JOB OR PRIVATE JOB

Image
Lokayukta raid in Karnataka , where a former clerk, Kalakappa Nidagundi, from the Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited (KRIDL) was found to possess assets significantly disproportionate to his known income.  Here's a summary of the findings: Disproportionate Assets: Despite a modest monthly salary of ₹15,000, Nidagundi, a former daily-wage clerk in Koppal, was found to own assets worth over ₹30 crore during a Lokayukta raid. Seized Properties: The raid unearthed a vast amount of property including 24 residential houses, four plots, and 40 acres of agricultural land, registered in his name and those of his wife and brother. Other Valuables: Officials also seized 350 grams of gold, 1.5 kilograms of silver ornaments, and four vehicles (two cars and two two-wheelers) from his residence. Allegations of Fraud: Nidagundi, along with a former KRIDL engineer ZM Chincholkar, is accused of orchestrating a ₹72 crore scam by creating fake documents and bills for 96 incomplete infr...
Read more

That Res-judicata is a mixed question of law & fact and hence it cannot be decided as a preliminary issue under order XIV Rule 2 (2) of CPC.

Image
 *Headnotes*  - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Order XIV Rule 2 - The plea of res judicata in appropriate cases may be determined as preliminary issue when it is neither a disputed question of fact nor a mixed question of law and fact - Preliminary issues can be those where no evidence is required and on the basis of reading of the plaint or the applicable law, if the jurisdiction of the Court or the bar to the suit is made out, the Court may decide such issues with the sole objective for the expeditious decision. [Referred to Ramesh B. Desai and Ors. v. Bipin Vadilal Mehta and Ors (2006) 5 SCC 638 ] (Para 20, 30) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Order XIV Rule 2 , Order XX Rule 5, Order XLI Rules 24 & 25- To avoid the possibility of remanding back the matter after the decision on the preliminary issues, it is mandated for the trial court under Order XIV Rule 2 and Order XX Rule 5, and for the first appellate court in terms of Order XLI Rules 24 and 25 to rec...
Read more

How to become advocate on record complete procedure

Image
How to become advocate on the record complete procedure To become an **Advocate on Record (AOR) at the Supreme Court of India**, one must meet specific qualifications, undergo mandatory training, pass the AOR Examination, and fulfill a set of procedural requirements[1][2][3]. ## Eligibility Criteria - **Enrolment as Advocate:** Must be enrolled with any State Bar Council and be a practicing advocate[1][4][2]. - **Experience:** A minimum of 4 years of continuous practice is required before starting AOR training; total experience should be at least five years before applying for AOR status[1][2]. - **Training:** Must complete 1 year of training under a designated Advocate on Record after completing four years of practice[1][2][3]. ## Training Requirements - The candidate must work under an existing AOR for one year, learning Supreme Court procedures and practices[1][2][3]. - At the end of training, obtain a certificate from the AOR mentor[5]. ## Application and Examination Process - **Ap...
Read more