S No Year In two line

Gopal-suicide-madras-detention-rollno 50(1950)
Filed-Akgopalam-preventive detention-his A21(life) voilates
1 1950 SC: we dont see how law made, we see what law says- as per a22, arrest is
correct
Procedure establish by law superior

Romesh-chennai(madras)-seems like a reporter-news

2 1950 Romesh-press-freedom-precensor madras act-maintainence of public
order-1949-voilates A19-1a-speech-SC on romesh side.

siva sankar-1st meet-he curtails others FRs-(1951-1st)

Sankar-1st amendment challenge- 9th schedule why? No judicial review?
3 1951
Art368 can ammend FRS?
SC said yes,parliement can can

Kedarnath temple-no sedition-deva droham is raja droham

SC said sedition section 124aIPC only if critize whole govt with voilence,not
4 1962
as words
released kedar but not removed section124A

Balaji sakshihiga 50% kanna ekkuva reservation untey narikesta

 Berubari is not a person. its a police station in border forgotten by sir
ratcliff to draw line__POlice-PO=60=1960
5 1960 Article 3; Can parliement give indian part to others; No with art3(simple
maj), yes by amending art1 by modified indian boundary list of states n
uts(Spl majo)

Kedarnath-rajadroham, golaknath-bhomi droham

6 1967 Right to property-My FR, amended and taken my land, SC: Fr cant be
amended, Maintain BASIC STRUCTURE OF DOCTORINE

President and Governers are Rustums, their ordinence power A123 cant be
7 1970
questioned, but intension can be questioned.
 Aditya bharati-religious land-taken by govt-ceiling limit-Art31c intorduced
as judicial cant interfern. A26:religious affairs rights voileted also.
8 1973 SC said you cant curtail judiciary power, dont disturb BASIC STRUCTURE OF
CONSTITUTION. Dont amend FRs as u wish, give bharati land to gupta,
sorry, to her

Menaka- Ramba urvasi- we will fly to heaven, dont curtail our Art21
liberty,Art19 freedom of movement, Give VISA, SC SAID: You cant just
bring new art and add abcdf under it is not fair, we will see its
9 1978
RIGHT&JUST&FAIR.
Now onwards we will see DUE PROCESS OF LAW also.(Gopalan case
procedure establish by law followed), hence MENAKA GANDHI can FLY.
 My mills- My property-My right, Indira said to implement DPSP we will
disturb all(we will distribute resouces equally-DPSP art 39a&b)
Right to property shifted from a31 to A360, No judicial review if dpsp
10 1980
viewed amendment.
SC ruled off 368(4)-no judicial review and said both FRs and DPSPs should
have harmony but not fight.

Bachan- Bal bal Bachgaya- punjabi from death penalty

SC said death penalty should be rarest of rare case- give life imprisonment
11 1980 mostly
Death penalty is voilation of art 14 and 21, right to die peacefully is under
right to life & liberty

He is also punjabi singh- so bachhi gaya machhi

12 1983 Rarest of rare?
5 conditions-manner,motive, magnitude,personality, antisocial

Shah bano-maintainence after divorce

SC: irrespectie of religion, she should get more maintainence
13 1985 Also form a uniform civil code for all
Marriage starting me Bani (Bano) mitti kayna, ab end me Maintainence dev
ba.
 Indira=india--resservations
14 1993
Rules--creamy,50%cap, not in promortions,back&moreback
 SRBommai=Bomma=doll, all parts must be unite, then only perfect doll,
similarly Center state relations,(bommaiCM-failed to prove majority)
15 1994
PRD rule not by prd&governer wil, it should be by parliement discretion
and occasion

vidhilo krishnayya-intlo ramayya

krishnudi janmasthalam=jail,RAMAmurthy-prisoner-ltter to
16 1996
CJ-nowages/torture/clothing/hygine
Prisons-statelist-Modern prson manual-2016

Visaka-girls- womens rights in work place,

17 1997
SC: Visaka guidelines- sexual harrasment of woen in workplace act 2013
 Lilly said if you do 2nd marriage, i wont be calm, do you think i am lilly
flower, i am fire,flower-women-second marriage loophole-usage-a25
18 2000
freely converion into religion
SC said its illegal-form a uniform civil code like uniform criminal code

Tma pai_paina pataram_ loona lotaram_outsidd minority inside capitation

fee, foundation antey foundation la undali, enti e gudiseti panulu,Intlo
ramayya. vidhilo krishnayya outside Dr foundaition-inside capitation fee
19 2002
-using loophole-a27 minority instituions name-konakki language institute-
no govt funding but why govt rules,
SC: maynot govt funding, but all comes under LAW
20 2002 Democracy means right to freedon and right to know in subsided in that

Nagaraju-nagarjuna-vro-reservation in jobs-Sc said do it but based on 3

21 2006
grounds

22 1997 Narayana Narayana-Investigator-made cvc as statuotary with cbi under it

23 2007 AgniAgni Agni Prakash Raj-Police reforms

RICO means review your work again, I.R.Cohelo-Judicial review must- it is

24 2007
under basic sructure-its aganist A31B

25 2009 S'ubhash 'C'handra(SC) bose said SC comes under RTI

26 2013 Kaushal Manda-Homosexual Legalise issue-LGBT-SC said NO

 Aka Aruna Shanbug-Akka-tamilnadu jaylalitha akka-right to die is right to
27 2011
dignity

Lilly flower- 1st case is double marriage in islam loophole,

28 2013 2nd case is MLA using loophole of appel to higher court even after 2 years
convict& and escaping from ineligibility from election contesting.
29 2014 Peoples liberty of NOTA

30 2014 Judges-Third piller-Legal services Authority-Third gender

 Shatrughan-satruvu-even for satruvu, death penalty should not delay due
31 2014
to presidents pardon decision

32 2015 Shreya inghal-Shreya goshal singer-being online singer,freedon of speech

 Name itself mnenomic
33 2015 Nat.Judicial Appointments Commission case
Ruled off NJAC by 5 judges bench

34 2016 Gupta G, on pwd reservation

 Puttaswamy from snake putta-right to privacy is under right to life and
35 2017
liberty--Putta-closed well shape

Name itself mnenomic

36 2017
Triple talaq-Saraya bano
 Young lawers-not know about olden golden rituals-Sabarmala temple
37 2018
ladies entry in mensuration cycle.

Puttaswamy 1st case is Right to privacy is under right to life n liberty-putta-

closed well,,
38 2018
2nd case is also related to privacy-ADHAR privacy-Aadhar is not
mandetory-use them in only for ease govt schemes
 1st LGBT-Kaushal manda-Homosexual Legalise issue-LGBT-SC said NO
39 2018 2nd case-Johar singh-same sex is not crime, SC now said OK and repelled
section377 ipc.

40 2018 Delhi krejrival vs modis governer-SC said both should friends

41 2018 Journal book should include creamy layer

Subhash candra bose bought SC under RTI,

42 2019
DAV bought NGOs also under it, even may not operated by govt funds
 1st case-Democratic reforms-freedon of right to know your mlas crimes
43 2019 2nd case-Political funding electoral bonds-information should be shared to
people

44 2019 SiDDiq-Das-ayoDya

creative pvt ltd-RGVs company-Movie release stooped-law and order

45 2019
voilation-freedon of speech coded and sc said release movie
46 2019 Yaswanth-mpdo son-raffle jets-terrorism in araku sides-where he posted

narayana narayana-1st case-being investigator he created CBI CVC

47 2019 satuatory body- now 2nd case is Puducherry governer powers are not
exclusive
 Mukesh- rondu gajulu ammukunnanu-due to SC said rerservattions in jobs
48 2020 in not fundemental right and states are not compelled to do so.

Anuradha madam-Tried to contact in internet also, but she not found to

49 2020 me.
Internet-Right to freedon

50 2015
 Name

AK Gopalan vs state of Madras

Romesh Thapar vs State of Madras

Shankari Prasad Singh Deo vs Union of India

Kedar Nath Singh vs State Of Bihar (1962)

 Berubari Union case (1960)

Golaknath Vs State of Punjab (1967)

Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs Union Of India – (1970)

Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala Case (1973)

Maneka Gandhi vs UoI case (1978)

 Minerva Mill vs Union of India (1980)

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab(1980)

Machhi Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab(1983)

MA Khan vs Shah Bano Case (1985)

Indira Sawhney vs Union of India case (1992 )
 S R Bommai vs Union of India (1994)

Ramamurthy v. State of Karnataka(1996)

Vishaka and Others vs State of Rajasthan (1997)

 Lily Thomas case vs Union of India (2000)

Dr. T.M.A Pai Foundation V. State Of Karnataka (2002)

Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms
(2002)

M. Nagaraj vs Union of India Case (2006)

Vineet Narayan vs UoI Case 1997

 Prakash Singh Vs Union of India (2007)

I.R. Coelho vs State of Tamil Nadu (2007)

The CPIO, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra

Agarwal (2009)

SK Koushal v Naz foundation case 377 (2013)

Common Cause vs UoI (2011) aka Aruna Shanbaug Case

Lily Thomas vs UoI Case (2013)

 People’s Union of Civil Liberties vs Union of India case
(2013)

National Legal Services Authority vs Union of India (2014)

Shatrughan Chauhan vs UOI (2014)

Shreya Singhal vs UoI Case (2015)

National Judicial Appointments Commission Case (2015)

Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors (2016)
 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) vs UoI (2017)

Triple Talaq Shayara Bano Case (2017)

 Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala, 2018

Puttaswami and Others Vs UoI 2018, Aadhar Judgement

 Navtej Singh Johar vs UoI case 2018

Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India & Anr. Case

2018
SC/ST Reservation case 2018 - Jarnail Singh vs LN Gupta
Case

D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director

of Public Instructions 2019
 Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India
(2019)

M Siddiq (d) through LRs v. Mahant Suresh Das and

others 2019

Indibility Creative Pvt. Ltd and others v. Government of

West Bengal and others 2019
Yashwant Sinha and others v. CBI and others 2019

K. Lakshminarayan vs UoI case 2019

Mukesh Kumar v. The State Of Uttarakhand 2020

Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India 2020

Prakash v Phulwati (2015)

 In one line

Right to life, Preventive detention

SC: we dont see how law made
we follow Process extablished by law but not due process of law
Gopalan case:we see Proces established
Menaka gandhi:we will see Due process also

Freedom of speech A19-1A

Freedom of press is under freedom of speech

Amendability of Fundamental Rights

The First Amendment’s validity
was challenged. Sc said parliement can ammend

Sedition Law--RAJA DROHAM

Article 3; Can parliement give indian part to others; No with art3,
yes by amending art1 by modified indian boundary list of states n
uts

Right to Property - is it a Fundamental Right?

Article 13(2) includes Ordinary Law and Constitutional Law

Ordinance making power [Bank Nationalization Case.

SC can review the grounds of ordinence
 Basic structure of Doctorine.
Judicial review
Amenability of FR

VISA restriction to menaka gandhi

Article 19-freedon of movement, art21-life n liberty
SC said.
Gopalan case:we see Proces established
Menaka gandhi:we will see Due process also
 Right to property shifted from a31 to A360, No judicial review if
dpsp viewed amendment.
SC ruled off 368(4)-no judicial review and said both FRs and DPSPs
should have harmony but not fight.

Death Penalty

Death Penalty

Secularism and Uniform Civil Code

 Reservations
Now adays all reservation carrying on by this judgement only
Centre state Relations , Federalism and Secularism

Prison Reforms-Art21 to prisoners

Women’s Rights at Work Place

 Bigamy-Sharia law-second marriage claused religion change.
Using A25(freely conversion into religions) effect to A21 of female.

Minority institutions, govt not funding it, then why govt interfering
in this matters
The right to know as a right derived from the right to freedom of
speech and expression
Voter’s right to know about politicians past, A19(1a), freedon of
speech and expression:expression of votes will be meaningful
only if he knows whom he casting his vote

Reservations in Promotions
Challenged Art 16(4A)- 77th and 85th CAA are challenges to Art
335 and Article 14

CBI to come under CVC

CVC to be made as a Statutory Body
Removal of Single Directive for the
investigation by CBI(approval from home department in all stages
removed)
 Police reforms

Basic Structure Doctrine vs 9th Schedule provisions

Central public information officer, RTI,

SC Comes under RTI or not?

homesexual practises should be legalised because

gays/lesbians/transgender rights(A14) is voilating.But SC uphelded
Sec 377 ipc which tells it is crime.
Right to die with dignity & Article 21 & passive euthanasia(doctor
taking life by stopping medicine) and a living will

Disqualifications of representatives and Decriminalization of

Politics
if any mla/mp convicted and proved guilty with 2 years above
remand, then he must be removed from his post, no higher court
appels here valid.
 NOTA- Right of citizens to cast negative vote
Actully case filed for negtive vote system, for those who shouldnot
to e as mla/mp to us, but court said NOTA, which is not a
successful weapon these days

Vulnerable Sections - Transgender Rights:: SC said thrid gender

option should be given
 Delay in execution of Death penalty.
President/cabinet taking long time to say yes or not in pardon
cases,
SC said you have right to tell yes or no but don’t make prosioner
to wait coz he is also have right to die with dignity, waiting killing
him internally alot.

Freedom of Speech online

Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAoRA) vs UoI
Case, 2015
Separation of Powers

Reservations / PwDs
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights
and Full Participation)
Act, 1995
 Privacy and Fundamental Rights

UNIFRM CIVIL CODE

instant triple talaq
violative of Art14 and international conventions on women
rightsSC said it’s a crime if any one does, fine & jail
Women Entry into Sabarimala temple
Women Entry into Sabarimala temple at time of Mensuration
cycle as they are impure at that time, SC tells is comes voilation of
Art14 equalitity before law, A19 life n liberty, A25 descrimination.

Constitutional Validity of Aadhar.

Aadhar effect right to security.
SC said it is constitutiona, aadhar can be used as mandetory for
govt schemes but not for banks,registrations etc
 LGBT-Lesbian Gay bisexual transgender
same-sex relations as well as unnatural sex.SC said they can d sex,
SC unanimous judgment repealed Section 377 of the Indian Penal
Code which is aganistto this sex

Administration of NCR Delhi- Federalism: SC said Lt.Governer of

delhi and CM should work mutually.
 SC/ST Reservation

Scope of RTI- NGOs under it or not

section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
 Political Funding Electoral bonds

Ayodhya case
1986-2019

Freedom of speech---
MOVIE_RELEASE_PREMTIVE STOPPAGE due to fear of Law&Order
breakage
 : RTI vs Official Secrets Act
famously known as ‘the Rafale case’.

Lt.Governer-Powers- Puduchchery
 Reservations in Promotions

Internet-Right of freedon of speech

FR life liberty

FR-a19-speech

FR-9th schedule amendability

Sedetion

Reservation
territory

FR-Property

Ordinence
FR-Property&religion

FR life liberty
FR Property

FR-death to die

FR-death to die
explanation

AK gopalan arrested in the name of Preventive detention, he filed case

against madras govt that it voileted his Right to Life and liberty A21,
preventive detention A22
SC said that we are observing produre established by law(means it sees
what is law tells but not how law made), so as per A22, preventive
detention is correct and we are not objecting it, case dismissed.
USA-DUE PROCESS OF LAW
UK-PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED BY LAW

Madras govt passed Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act 1949 by

which news papers wil be precencorshiped,
our romesh filed case as it voilates his A19-1a Right to speech, SC said he is
correct and ruled off the madras act

First amendment started 9th schedule and curtailed power of judicial

review,
Sc said Parliament’s power to amend under Article 368 also includes the
power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III of the
Constitution.

Section 124A of IPC is constitutional or not? remove sedetion from IPC.

Kedarnath distributed pamplets of propogating communal feelings,CM etc.
SC said he just ditributed but not created any voilence, also SEDETION
doesnot come for those who criticizes one or few government officials,
SEDETION is only if one criticizes whole government and also created
voilences.
Hence release him now.
Sedition under Sec 124A only if It incites violence or disaffection towards
the Government established by the law, Sedetion cannot be removed
because govt stability may lost.

M.R.Balaji vs State of Mysore, 1962- Reservations under Art

15(4) , Art 16(4) should not cross 50% in jobs n promotions.
Berubai thana(police station), at time of partition bw india and pakistan, Sir
ratt cliff committe left berubai, so pakistan claimed it as their place, So
nehru made Nehru-Noon agreement (1958) to interchange some other
places with berubai but they self asked SC for suggestion.
The Case was regarding the Parliament’s power to transfer the territory of
Berubari to Pakistan.
The Supreme Court examined Article 3 in detail and held that the
Parliament cannot make
laws under this article in order to execute the Nehru-Noon agreement
(1958) , which agreed
to transfer the areas between the countries.Hence, the 9th constitutional
Amendment Act was passed to enforce the agreement.- Article 368 (Special
Majority), Article 3 (Simple Majority)
100th CAA- Transfer of Enclaves between India and Bangladesh.

Supreme Court ruled that the Parliament doesn’t have the power to restrict
any of the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution. Hence, State
of Punjab couldn’t take away Golaknath or any other citizen’s land as Right
to Property was deemed to be fundamental. [Punjab Security and Land
Tenures Act, 1953] Beginning with its ruling in GOLAKNATH, the Court
developed jurisprudence around what was known as the basic structure
doctrine. According to this doctrine, the Court was in charge of preventing
the erosion of those enduring values that constitute the essence of
constitutionalism.
Shankari Prasad vs UoI Case, 1951;; FRS amendable
Sajjan Singh vs State of Rajasthan 1965;; FRS amendable
Now it is said FRs not amendabe in Golaknath

Power can’t be questioned. Intension of Promulgation can be questioned.

Kesavanadh-preist-owned land-but govt asked on grounds of land cealing
rules.
He went on name of art26-religious affairs rights, art 19(1g) right of
property,art31c-judiciery cant interfern in amendments of constitution,frs
amendable etc through 25th CAA,
SC said 31C is null n void, you cant curtail judiciary power, dont disturb
BASIC STRUCTURE OF CONSTITUTION. Dont amend FRs as u wish

in AK Gopalan case, SC said we wont see procedure established by law, we

see due process of law means we will see what law says but not how law
made.also art 21 is seen in narrow mind, but in this case
The Court reiterated that the term ‘art 21-personal liberty’ is of “the widest
amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the
personal liberty of a man.” And some of those rights have been raised to
the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection
under Article 19. SC held that - ‘Procedure established by law’ is within the
meaning of Article 21 and must be ‘right and just and fair’ and ‘not
arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive’ otherwise, it would be no procedure at all
and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied. Thus the
‘procedure established by law’ has acquired the same significance in India
as the ‘due process of law’ clause in America.
You cant just bring new art and add abcdf under it is not fair, we will see its
RIGHT&JUST&FAIR.
that is from now onwards we will see DUE PROCESS OF LAW also.
by keeping all this things in mind, MENAKA GANDHI can FLY.
Indira said to implement DPSP A39b&c(resources equally distributed)we
implemented this amendment,To implement any DPSP, we will disturb any
FR and do any amendment,Judicial review cannot be performed in this. and
taken MINERVA MILLS LAND but SC said to implement DPSP you should not
distrub FRs which is BASIC STRUCTURE.Amending FRs is not exclusive
power, it has reasonible restrictions decided by SC.
Minerva mills land not returned as it is constitutional, but ART368(4)-No
judicial review article is nulled.

Bachan singh murdered wife n 3 more people in house,

sessions court&HC given Death penalty but SC said it Death Sentence is
violation of Art 14, Art 21 and Life Imprisonment should be the norm;
Death Penalty in rarest of the rare cases only.

Supreme Court had held that in the rarest of rare cases, when the collective
conscience of the
community is so shocked that it will expect the holders of the judicial
power centre to inflict
death penalty, then death penalty may be sanctioned.
5 circumstances under which death sentence can be imposed
1. Manner of the commission of the murder
2. Motive of the murder
3. Anti-Social or Socially abhorrent nature of the murder
4. Magnitude of the crime
5. Personality of the victim of the crime

Under the Islamic law she was eligible for only one time maintenance of
5400, but SHAH Bano ask more than that.
SC said as divorce is uniform in all religions, govt should take initiation and
form some UNIFORM CIVIL CODE for common things in all religions,so that
it doesn't disturb their releifs.
The SC decided it in favour of Shah Bano using secular criminal procedure
code regardless of religion
Champakam Doarai Rajan vs State of Madras Case, 1951- Reservations
under Article 15(1) violates Article 29(2). Caste based reservations not
applicable. DPSP A 46 can’t be given precedence over FR.
Parliament passed 1st CAA, 1951- Art 15(4)- Reservations to backward
classes in Education
1953- Kaka Kalelkar- 1st BC Commission under A 340.
M.R.Balaji vs State of Mysore, 1962- Reservations under Art 15(4) , Art
16(4) should not cross 50% in jobs n promotions.
1979- B.P.Mandal- 2nd BC Commissio under A. 340
P.V. Narasimha Rao Government- 22.7%(SC,ST), 27% (OBCs), 10%(EBC)- Art
15(4), Art 16(4)
SC said:
✓ Backward class of citizens in Article 16(4) can be identified on the basis
of the caste system &
not only on economic basis.
✓ Article 16(4) is not an exception of Article 16(1). It is an instance of the
classification.
Reservation can be made under article 16(1).
✓ Backward classes in Article 16(4) were not similar to as socially &
educationally backward in
article 15(4).
✓ Creamy layer must be excluded from the backward classes while
providing the reservation.
✓ Article 16(4) permits classification of backward classes into backward &
more backward classes.
✓ A backward class of citizens cannot be identified only & exclusively with
reference to economic criteria.
✓ Reservation shall not exceed 50%.
✓ Reservation can be made by the ‘EXECUTIVE ORDER’.
✓ No reservation in promotion.
✓ Permanent Statutory body to examine complaints of over – inclusion /
under – inclusion.
✓ Majority held that there is no need to express any opinion on the
correctness or adequacy
of the exercise done by the MANDAL COMMISSION.
✓ Disputes regarding new criteria can be raised only in the Supreme Court
✓ Creamy layer must be excluded from the backward classes while
providing the reservation
1988-northeastren state central implemented prd rule with various
reasons.
In karnataka, SR BOMMAI-CM of karnataka failed to prove majority, so
governer suggested PRD rule,SR BOMMAI-CM of karnataka said give me
some time but they didnt listened
babri masjid issue- rajastan,up,nagaland-communal voilence-
uncontrollable-prd rule,
SC said implementing Prd rule is ok in babri masjid communal voilence
issue, but how can u do same in karnataka,
it is anti federalism, governer cant simply tell to dissolve assembly,
to dissolve it Parliement has to move resolution,
The verdict concluded that the power of the President to dismiss a State
government is not absolute.
Also PRD rule should be imposed not by prd will, it should be proclaimed by
any one house and later aproved by both houses, Governer and prd should
sit calm in this issue.

Rammurthy is prisoner of cntral prisoner,banglore, he worte letter to cji

about lack of cleanness,no wages of work etc.
Supreme Court identified nine issues concerning prisons, such as
overcrowding, trials being delayed, the torture and ill-treatment of
prisoners, neglect of health and hygiene, insubstantial food and inadequate
clothing, etc. Directed government to bring uniformity nationally of prison
laws and prepare a draft model prison manual.
Modern Prison Manual 2016
Prisons comes under STATE LIST.

Bhanvari Devi- Rajasthan- Women Development Program- Prohibition of

Child Marriages
Devi tried to stop marriage under 9years girl- marriage stopped but devi got
raped by 5 members before her husband, but HC released all 5 as his
husband witness cannot be valild.
SC took it serious, death to 5 persons,
As she is in work and being women got harrased,
The Vishakha guidelines laid the foundation for the Sexual Harassment of
Women at
Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
Many people converting their religion to muslim only to use facility of two
marriage, so lilly thomas(lawyer) filed case,
Marriage resulting from conversion to Muslim from any other faith during
the existence of
previous marriage before conversion is deemed void even when Muslim
Personal Law
(Shariat) Act allows polygamy. Because such conversion is not exercise of
freedom under
Art 25 but rather it is a fraudulent act without the change in one’s faith.
Therefore, marriage resulting from such a conversion is void also due to
violation of Art.21.
It has raised pertinent issues for having a Uniform Civil Code and also the
227th Report of
The 18th Law Commission of India in August 2009 have made this issue of
preventing
Bigamous marriage though Conversion to Islam it’s subject.
SC again insisted to UOI:
Like in Shabano case, SC again said that womens are same in entire india,
so create a uniform civil code.
Criminal code is same for all humans but why not civil code?

Dr.TMA PAI foundation established in KONKANII language enrichment to

students who speak that language, but in that minority language name, he
collecting CAPITATION FEE(ectra charges) from students which effecting
poor.
SC said you may be running for konkani people but ur teahing all general
subjects like phy,chem etc, which is not mnority instution type, if you teach
only ur subject then its minority,
even govt doesnt fund in minority institution, some laws will be applicable.
The right under Article 30(1) is not absolute or above the law.
Aided-govt funded, Unaided-self funding institution
The Court in dealing with the issue at hand held that under the Indian
Constitution, electors had a fundamental right to know the antecedents of
candidates contesting elections to hold public office.
The court read in ‘right to be informed’ as a right flowing from freedom of
speech and expression- Article 19(1)(a). The Election Commission was
directed to secure affidavits by candidates recording all particulars relating
to past or pending criminal charges or cases against them. This included
information as to whether the candidate was
convicted/acquitted/discharged of any criminal offence in the past. this
judgment, the disclosures of criminal antecedents, educational
qualifications and assets have been made mandatory under Representation
of People's Act, 1951 (RoPA).

Actual case is UOI filed case on Association for democratic reforms that EIC
dont have power to amend procedure of elections, only we(parliement) can
do it, how they did it on words of SC,
SC said, on public intrest, if something not mentioned in constitution then
its independent body can add it.

SC validated the Parliament’s decision to extend reservations for SCs and

STs to include
promotions with three riders. [Procedure Established by Law with
Reasonableness]
It required the state to provide proof these 3 parameters, then only u can
give reservation::
1. For the backwardness of the class benefitting from the reservation,
2. For its inadequate representation in the position/service for which
reservation in
promotion is to be granted. (less in number)
3. To show how reservations in promotions would further administrative
efficiency.(art 335-administation effeciency-should not disturbed)

CBI-doing late in investigations-SC scolded-CBI asked to give us freedon

from home-hence given through CVC act 2003
SC instructed central and state governments to comply with a set of seven
directives laying down
practical mechanisms to kick-start reform. [Indian Police Act 1861]
The Supreme Court referred to the recommendations made by several
committees on police reforms
and culled four requisite points of reform:
(1) State Security Commission at State level;
(2)Transparent procedure for the appointment of Police Chief and the
desirability of giving him a
minimum fixed tenure.
(3) Separation of investigation work from law and order.
(4)A new Police Act which should reflect the democratic aspirations of the
people.

In this case, a nine-member bench of Supreme Court held that ninth

schedule items are not
immune to judicial review as it is part of the constitution.
Art 31B- Can’t take away the Judicial Review of the Acts under 9th Sch.
GOLDEN TRIANGLE: ART 14,19,21

RTI is under freedon of speech 19(1a), but after 2005 it is a satuatory right
now.
SC also comes under RTI
Other than sensitive information like witness, forewords etc wont come but
judges transfers, how many cases today etc will be applicable to us also

Lesbian Gay bisexual transgenders(LGBT)

It is a 2013 case in which a 2 judge Supreme Court bench overturned the
Delhi High Court
case Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2009 which upheld Section
377 of the Indian
Penal Code - which criminalized consensual homosexual sex between
adults.
Section 377 of IPC penalized sexual acts in private between consenting
adults, violated the
India Constitution, specifically, Articles 14 (equality before the law), 15
(non-discrimination),
19(1)(a)-(d) (freedom of speech, assembly, association and movement) and
21 (right to life
and personal liberty).
Active: euthanasia: giving poisonousinjections to patient to die
Passive: euthanasia: stopping medicine and let patient die.
Supreme Court of India has held that Right To Die With Dignity is a
fundamental right under Art 21.
The Bench also held that passive euthanasia and a living will also legally
valid.
The Court has issued detailed guidelines in this regard. “The right to life and
liberty as envisaged
under Article 21 of the Constitution is meaningless unless it encompasses
within its sphere
individual dignity. With the passage of time, this Court has expanded the
spectrum of Article 21 to
include within it the right to live with dignity as component of right to life
and liberty”.
The Bench also held that the right to live with dignity also includes the
smoothing of the process of
dying in case of a terminally ill patient or a person in a Persistent vegetative
state with no hope of
recovery

SC nullified section 8(4) of RPA which did not disqualify convicts who are
convicted for more than 2 years if they appealed in 3 months. This gave an
unfair advantage for representatives to proceed as a member in spite of
being convicted. SC court judgement ensured that any representative who
is convicted for more than 2 years stand disqualified for the sentence term
and till 6 years after the completion of the sentence. Art 102, 191-
Disqualifications in Election.
Right to Vote is a Statutory Right Sec 62 of RPA:::Sec 8 (4) of RPA is
unconstitutional as it violates Art 14.::
If a person is not qualified to be an elector, the person cant contest
Rule 49(O) of the conduct of Election Rules 1961 ensures that the presiding
officer records a voter has not voted in case if he doesn't want to vote after
he has been inked on the finger and entered his name on Form17-A. This is
against the right to secrecy enshrined in the elections. SC held that Right to
vote also includes a right not to vote and remain neutral. Right to secrecy is
the integral part of free and fair elections. People who didn't vote shouldn't
be victimized. Art 19(1)(a) and Article 21.
Right to Vote includes Right not to Vote:; Right to Secrecy of vote is part of
Free and Fair Elections::NOTA option in all direct elections

It is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India, which declared

transgender people to be a 'third gender’. It affirmed that the fundamental
rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India will be equally applicable
to transgender people. It provided for the right to self-identification of their
gender as male, female or third-gender. Moreover, the court also held that
because transgender people were treated as socially and economically
backward classes, they will be granted reservations in admissions to
educational institutions and jobs
Right to seek for mercy is a Constitutional Right under Art 72/ 161::
Inordinate delay in deciding on Mercy Petition amounts to violation of Art
21::
Judicial Review- not to interfere with the powers of the Executive but to
protect the rights of the convict

The undue delay by President in rejecting mercy to a death row convict

amounts to torture.
Such inordinate and unexplained delay by the President is sufficient in itself
to entitle the convict to
a commutation. [Art 72/ 161- Pardoning Powers of PoI and Governor]
The Court had refused to fix a certain number of years above which undue
delay would amount to torture.
The crime in question is irrelevant while deciding the effects of keeping a
death row prisoner
waiting for a decision on his or her mercy petition.
The suffering that comes with anticipating death on an every day basis for
the judges amounted to
torture, which was violative of the Right to life under Article 21 of the
Constitution.

The SC declared Section 66A of IT Act, 2000 (added as an amendment to IT

Act in 2010) as
unconstitutional and struck it down. The court said such a law, which was
often misused by police in various states to arrest
innocent persons for posting critical comments about social and political
issues and leaders
on social networking sites. It hits at the root of liberty and freedom of
expression – Art 19(1)(a) and Art 21, the two cardinal pillars of democracy.
Information Technology Intermediary Guidelines, 2011.
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is struck down in its
entirety being violative
of Article 19(1)(a) and not saved under Article 19(2). Section 69A and the
Information Technology (Procedure & Safeguards for Blocking for Access of
Information by Public) Rules 2009 are constitutionally valid.
NJAC was a proposed body which would have been responsible for the
appointment and
transfer of judges to the higher judiciary in India instead of the current
practice of the collegium
system.
On 16 October 2015, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court by 4:1
Majority upheld the
collegium system and struck down the NJAC as unconstitutional.
Justices J. S. Khehar, Madan Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Adarsh Kumar Goel
had declared the 99th
Amendment, 2014 and NJAC Act unconstitutional while Justice
Chelameswar upheld it.

In a landmark case argued by the Disability Law Initiative, the Supreme

Court on 30th
June 2016 held as illegal the Government of India instructions disallowing
reservation in
promotion for persons with disabilities.
It said that wherever posts are identified to be suitable for disabled
persons, 3%
reservation must be given in direct recruitment as well as in promotion.
Indira Sawhney ruling of no reservations in promotions is not
applicable to PWDs PWD Act, 1995 balances the requirements of
administration and the equal opportunities to the PWDs. Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)
Act, 1995 replaced by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
United National Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(UNCRPD)
The Judgement holds that the right to privacy is protected as a
fundamental constitutional
right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Unanimously the court held that “the right to privacy is protected as an
intrinsic part of
the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and as a part of the
freedoms
guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution”.
It explicitly overrules previous judgements of the Supreme Court in Kharak
Singh vs State
of UP and M.P Sharma vs Union of India, which had held that there is no
fundamental
right to privacy under the Indian Constitution.
It held that privacy is a natural right that inheres in all natural persons, and
that the right
may be restricted only by state action that passes each of the three tests:
First, such state action must have a legislative mandate;
Second, it must be pursuing a legitimate state purpose; and
Third, it must be proportionate i.e., such state action — both in its nature
and extent, must
be necessary in a democratic society and the action ought to be the least
intrusive of the
available alternatives to accomplish the ends.
ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla Case 1976- A majority of the Constitution
Bench would
hold that when Emergency is in operation, the rights under Article 21 would
stand suspended. Haebeau Corpous Case Maintenance of Internal Security
Act 1971.
Right to Privacy is part of Fundamental Right of Art 21
Right to privacy is a natural and inherent right.
Sexual orientation is part of individual privacy.

The Supreme Court declared, by a majority of 3:2 that divorce through

instant triple talaq among
Muslims would be "void", "illegal" and "unconstitutional“ and it is violative
of Art 14.
This judgment has the effect of law.
Three of the five judges in the panel concurred that the practice of triple
talaq is unconstitutional.
It is unislamic and arbitrary. Does not constitute essential religious practice.
The remaining two declared the practice to be constitutional while
simultaneously asking the
government to ban the practice by enacting a law.
Convention on the declaration on elimination of all forms of discrimination
against women (1999)
In the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, a shrine to Lord Ayappa, had an age-old
tradition of not
allowing women between the age of 10 and 50 years to enter the premises.
'devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination'.
In a 4-1 majority decision, the Supreme Court lifted the ban, which it
termed as a violation
of women's right to practice religion.
Art 14, Art 15 , Art 21 and Art 25 of the individual gets violated so the
section of these rules
are unconstitutional. Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship
(Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965.
Top quotes:
"In the theatre of life, it seems, man has put the autograph and there is no
space for a
woman even to put her signature", "Patriarchy in religion cannot be
allowed to trump right
to pray and practise religion" and "To treat women as children of lesser god
is to blink at the
Constitution."
“The dualism that persists in religion by glorifying and venerating women as
goddesses on
one hand and by imposing rigorous sanctions on the other hand in matters
of devotion has
to be abandoned. Such a dualistic approach and an entrenched mindset
results in indignity
to women and the degradation of their status.”

Supreme Court held the constitutional validity of the government's Aadhaar

project. It struck down Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act, which allowed the
sharing of citizen data with private entities. So, Aadhaar can be used for
payment of government benefits and taxation records but private
companies were barred from accessing it. The SC said there is a
fundamental difference between Aadhaar and other identity proof as
Aadhaar cannot be duplicated and it is a unique identification. It added that
Aadhaar is to empower the marginalised sections of the society, and it gives
them an identity
The Supreme Court in a unanimous judgment repealed Section 377 of the
Indian Penal Code.
This Section criminalised same-sex relations as well as unnatural sex
between consenting
adults.
The Supreme Court said due to Section 377, members of the LGBT
community were forced to
live in hiding, and as second-class citizens, while others enjoyed the right to
sexual
orientation. It is against the basic human rights and is violation of Art 14,
Art 21.
It held that sexual orientation was a biological phenomenon and not a
mental disorder or
something against the order of nature.
Other important judgements:
Naz Foundation vs Govt of NCT Delhi, 2010:Sec 377 of IPC is invalid.
Decriminalised homosexual relationships
SK Kaushal vs Naz Foundation Case , 2013:SC has upheld the validity of
Section 377
NALSA vs UoI Case, 2014:Transgenders as Third Gender, Recognition of FR
to transgenders
Puttaswamy vs UoI case, 2017:Sexual Orientation is part of Right to Privacy
under Art 21
Navtej Singh Johar vs UoI Case, 2018:Decriminalised the homosexual
relationships. Sec 377 is made void

A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that decisions

of the elected
government of Delhi do not require the concurrence of the Lt Governor
who only needs to
be informed.SC made it clear that “the status of the Lieutenant Governor of
Delhi is not that of a
Governor of a State, rather he remains an Administrator, in a limited sense,
working with the designation of Lieutenant Governor.
Art 239AA(4)- LG can refer the matters to PoI but not the day to day issues-
only the matters of importance Powers of the LG of NCT are limited and are
not same as the Governor of any state and LG is bound by the aid and
advice of the elected government.
Cooperative and Collaborative federalism in the place of Confrontational
federalism
Th SC invalidated the requirement of collecting quantifiable data by states
on the backwardness of SCs and STs while granting quota in promotions as
laid down by the Court in Nagaraj verdict. It stated the need to back it with
appropriate data showing the inadequate representation of SCs & STs in
the cadre. On the creamy layer principle for excluding the well-off amongst
the SC/ST communities from availing the benefit, the Court followed the
Nagaraj verdict.
The Court held that socially, educationally, and economically advanced
cream of Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes communities must be excluded from the benefits
of reservation in
government services in order to transfer quota benefits to the weakest of
the weaker
individuals and not be snatched away by members of the same class who
were in the “top
creamy layer”. The Court also observed that it will not be possible to uplift
the weaker sections if only the creamy layer within that class bags all the
coveted jobs in the public sector and perpetuate themselves, leaving the
rest of the class as backward as they were.

All organisations which financed by the Government(fully or partially) fall

within the Act.
Purposive rule of interpretation-New word
means for what purpose it was created.
RTI created for-
1.Creation of an ‘informed’ citizenry
2.Containment of corruption
3.Holding of government and its instrumentalities accountable to the
governed.
all these 3 applicable for funded by govt organisations
For funding in political parties from foreign companies, BONDS can be
issued.(2019-1713 crore value bonds purchased from SBI
But due to this, transaction details are with Banks and concern parties,
Hence question raised.
all the political parties who have received donations through Electoral
Bonds to submit,
✓ detailed particulars of the donors as against each Bond;
✓ the amount of each such bond and the full particulars of the credit
received against each
bond, namely, the particulars of the bank account to which the amount has
been credited
and the date of each such credit.
to the Election Commission of India in sealed cover.

In this case The five judge bench of Supreme Court decided to hand over
the disputed
land of 2.77 acres in Ayodhya to a trust for the construction of Ram Mandir.
Under Article 142, ordered to give an alternate five acre tract of land
to the Sunni Waqf board to build the mosque.
The act of placing idols beneath the central dome of the mosque in 1949
was declared
to be an act of desecration i.e. acts of religious impurity.

MOVIE_RELEASE_PREMTIVE STOPPAGE due to fear of Law&Order breakage

Bengali film ‘Bhobishyoter Bhoot’ (Future Ghost), was stopped from
release.
Reason govt told is they fear of law and order if movie got released but
SC SAID beautiful lines:
Govt should maintain law&order along with fundamental rights
not by suspending them.
movie is right to speech, dont supress it.release movie by shutting mounts.
Maintenance of Law and Order can’t have justification in curbing Freedom
of Speech and Expression
SC dismissed all the review petitions and gave a clean chit to the NDA
government effectively
denying the corruption allegations in the Rafale deal regarding the
purchase of 36 Rafale
fighter jets.The court in this case highlighted that the documents which are
covered under the Official
Secrets Act, 1923 can be produced in the court as evidences in the interest
of public justice i.e. the court can rely on such documents in order to do
justice and its unauthorized publication do not affect its evidentiary value.
RTI Act, 2005 -Section 8(1)(a) Official Secrets Act 1923 – Section
5, Section 3 Indian Evidence Act - Section 123 On 14 November, it dismissed
the
review petitions, emphasizing that it had limited scrutiny of defense
contracts under its Article 32 jurisdiction.

Powers of Administrator in Puduchchery

President administate states n Uts through administrators-Governers
but his power is not exclusive- he shouldnot interfern in daytoday activities,
Why he called me after distribution all and left for him,, why he called me
even ps and agriculture assistant sat before him,, why he counted half
bundles and half not made bundlrs, wht at midnight counting at 1'O clock,,
why not complaining till 5 days, its a preplanned trap on me because bill
issue and leave issue by ps and wea,, I collected amount only because his
bill pending and he may give but i seen that his bill approved deposited on
24th itself, as i seen this and asked all this, he started questioning me, if so
share proof, i am ready to accept all actions by law. The decision taken by
the Council of Ministers and the Chief Minister is binding on the Secretaries
and other officials.
Administrator and the CoM should “Work in union and not in the division”
Article 15(4) is right to reservation of sc,sts in Education
Article 16(4) is right to reservation of sc,sts in Jobs,Promotions
SC said that reservation in promotions in public positions is not a
fundamental right.
States cannot be compelled to provide reservation in appointments and
reservations of public posts.
Article 16(4) of the Constitution gives a discretionary power to the state
government to allow
reservation to the people who are not adequately represented in services
in such
appointments; it is not a mandate on the State and it cannot be claimed as
a matter of right.

Supreme Court in this case held that Right to internet forms a part of
freedom of speech and
expression under Article 19(1) (a) and ban of internet in the State of Jammu
and Kashmir is violative of it.
The court also stated that an order suspending internet services indefinitely
is impermissible
under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or
Public Service) Rules, 2017.
Faheema Sheirn vs State of Kerala- Right to Internet is a Basic Right