Various rights covered under Article 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of Constitution of India

Posted on December 3, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Over the years and decades, Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been expanded a lot, to cover various rights of individuals with changing times and needs of society. Listed below are some.

Article 21 provides, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.“

A screen-capture from a training session on the Unacademy platform, lists several rights available under Article 21.

During 1950-1955

A.K. Gopalan Vs The State Of Madras, Union Of India on 19 May, 1950: Detention under the doctrine of “procedure established by law” is valid detention. (Overruled)
M.P. Sharma And Ors. Vs Satish Chandra, District Magistrate, Delhi on 15 March, 1954: Right to Privacy. (Overruled)

During 1956-1960

During 1961-1965

Kharak Singh Vs The State Of U.P. & Others on 18 December, 1962: Right to privacy. (Overruled)
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammad Naim on 15 March, 1963: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1498181/
State Of Maharashtra vs Prabhakar Pandurang & Another on 6 September, 1965: Right to Write a Book

During 1966-1970

Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi on 10 April, 1967: Right to travel abroad
Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs Union Of India on 10 February, 1970: Fundamental Rights are not silos but they are inter-connected. Nationalization Case. Right to compensation. (Overruled A.K. Gopalan V State of Madras)

During 1971-1975

Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors Vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973: Doctrine of Basic Structure of Constitution of India.
Govind Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr on 18 March, 1975: Right to Privacy. (Affirmed – Puttaswamy, SC 9J, 2017)

During 1976-1980

Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur Vs S. S. Shukla Etc. Etc on 28 April, 1976: Right to Move Courts For Remedies (Overruled).
Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar 1979: Right to Speedy Trial, Legal Aid
Maneka Gandhi Vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978: Right to have fair, just and reasonable procedure
Babu Singh And Ors vs The State Of U.P on 31 January, 1978: Right to Bail
Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot Vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 August, 1978: Right to Legal Aid, Right to Appeal
Sunil Batra Etc Vs Delhi Administration And Ors. Etc on 30 August, 1978: Right against Solitary Confinement
Charles Sobhraj Vs Superintendent, Tihar Jail on 31 August, 1978: Right against Bar Fetters
Sunil Batra Vs Delhi Administration on 20 December, 1979: Right of Prisoner to Free Legal Aid
Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration on 29 April, 1980: Right against hand cuffing
Khatri and Others Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 19 December, 1980 : right to free legal services is inalienable from Article 21

During 1981-1985

Francis Coralie Mullin Vs The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi on 13 January, 1981: Right To Live with Human Dignity, Interviewed by Advocate and family members
Khatri and Ors Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 10 March, 1981: statement made before a police officer in the course of an investigation not to be signed
People’s Union For Democratic Rights & Others vs Union Of India & Others on 18 September, 1982: Right to Minimum Wages
Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of … vs Dilipkumar Raghavendranath … on 17 November, 1982: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1787020/
T.V.Vatheeswaran Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 February, 1983: Right against Delayed Execution; Delay in executing death sentence is inherently violative of Dignity of Life (Overruled)
Sher Singh & Others vs The State Of Punjab on 24 March, 1983: Right against Delayed Execution; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1166797/ (Overruled T.V.Vatheeswaran)
Mithu Vs State Of Punjab on 7 April, 1983: Struck down of 303 IPC
State Of Maharashtra Vs Chandrabhan Tale on 7 July, 1983: Sustenance allowance even after conviction pending appeal; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1184378/
Rudul Sah vs State Of Bihar And Another on 1 August, 1983: Right to receive compensation; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/810491/
Deena @ Deena Dayal Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others on 23 September, 1983: Death by Hanging not Violative of Article 21; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/888451/
Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs Union of India and Ors on 16 Dec 1983: (Right to Dignity of Live)
Rural Litigation And Entitlement … vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 12 March, 1985: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1949293/
Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation & … on 10 July, 1985: Right to Work; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/709776/
Attorney General of India v. Lachma Devi: Right against Public Hanging; http://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=005891763000

During 1986-1990

M.C. Mehta And Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 December, 1986: Right to have clean Environment; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1486949/
T. Damodhar Rao And Ors. vs The Special Officer, Municipal … on 20 January, 1987: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/205063/
Sheela Barse Vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 September, 1987: Right of prisoners to be Interviewed/ right against custodial violence
Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd vs Proprietors Of Indian Express Newspapers on 23 September, 1988: Right to know; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1351834/
Kiran Bedi & Ors vs Committee Of Inquiry & Anr on 4 January, 1989: Right to Reputation
Pt. Parmanand Katara vs Union Of India & Ors on 28 August, 1989: Right to Medical Care
M/S. Shantistar Builders vs Narayan Khimalal Totame And Others on 31 January, 1990: Right to Shelter.
1. Shantistar Builders Vs Narayan Khimalal Gotame & Ors. Etc on 17 November, 1995
2. Further elaborated in ‘Chameli Singh’ case.
Delhi Transport Corporation vs D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress on 4 September, 1990: Right To Livelihood; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/268805/

During 1991-1995

Subhash Kumar vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 9 January, 1991: Right to get Pollution Free Water and Air; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1646284/
Abdul Rehman Antulay and Ors Vs R.S. Nayak and Anr on 10 Dec 1991: Right to Speedy Trial, Reiterated Hussainara Khatoon in 1979
Miss Mohini Jain vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 30 July, 1992: Right to Education; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/40715/
Unni Krishnan, J.P. And Ors. Etc. … vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. … on 4 February, 1993: Right to receive education upto the primary stage, Multiple rights https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1775396/
D.K. Yadav vs J.M.A. Industries Ltd on 7 May, 1993: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/427114/
Joginder Kumar vs State Of U.P on 25 April, 1994: Right against Illegal Detention; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/768175/
P. Rathinam/Nagbhusan Patnaik vs Union Of India And Another on 26 April, 1994: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/66070774/
Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum Vs Union Of India And Others on 19 October, 1994: Compensation to Rape victims https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1765970/
Consumer Education and Research Centre & Others Vs Union of India & Others on 27 January, 1995: Right to Health; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1657323/
M.J. Sivani And Ors vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 17 April, 1995: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/694951/
U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Anr vs Friends Coop. Housing Society on 24 April, 1995: Right to Shelter; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/967399/
L.I.C. of India v. Consumer Education and Research Centre on 10 May, 1995: Right to Social Security and Protection of Family; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1513693/
Chameli Singh vs State Of U.P on 15 December, 1995: Right to Shelter; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18928039/ (Earlier HC Judgment: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e29e4a932619d901432f)
Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam vs Miss Subhra Chakraborty on 15 December, 1995: Right against Rape; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/642436/

During 1996-2000

Smt. Gian Kaur vs The State Of Punjab on 21 March, 1996: Euthanasia and Right to Life; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/217501/
Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union Of India & Ors on 28 August, 1996: Right to fresh air, clean water and pollution free environment; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1934103/
People’S Union Of Civil Liberties … vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 18 December, 1996: Tapping of Telephone; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/31276692/
Shri D.K. Basu,Ashok K. Johri vs State Of West Bengal,State Of U.P on 18 December, 1996: Rights of arrested persons against torture and illegal detention; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/501198/
Mrs. Pragati Varghese And Etc. vs Cyril George Varghese And Etc. on 6 May, 1997: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1401518/
Vishaka & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 13 August, 1997: Right Against Sexual Harassment at Workplace; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1031794/
Chandra Rajakumari And Anr. vs Commissioner Of Police, … on 27 October, 1997: Beauty contests can be obscene; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1317411/
Vineet Narain & Others Vs Union Of India & Another on 18 December, 1997: Right to Public Trial
Mr. ‘X’ vs Hospital ‘Z’ on 21 September, 1998: Right to Marriage (Disclosure of Dreadful Diseases); https://indiankanoon.org/doc/382721/
Apparel Export Promotion Council vs A.K. Chopra on 20 January, 1999: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/856194/
Capt.M. Paul Anthony vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr on 30 March, 1999: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/888207/
The Chairman, Railway Board & Ors vs Mrs. Chandrima Das & Ors on 28 January, 2000: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/113663/

During 2001-2005

Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal and Anr Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 13 Feb 2001: Right of Speedy Trial
Murli S. Deora vs Union Of India And Ors on 2 November, 2001: Smoking in public place; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1495522/
PUCL v UOI on Nov 30 2001: Right to Food; https://www.escr-net.org/caselaw/2006/peoples-union-civil-liberties-v-union-india-ors-supreme-court-india-civil-original
People’s Union of Civil Liberties (P.U.C.L.) & Anr. Vs Union Of India & Anr on 13 March, 2003: Right to know election contestant information
State Of Bihar vs Lal Krishna Advani & Ors on 16 September, 2003: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/211801/
In Re: Noise Pollution (Forum, Prevention of Envn. and Sound Pollution) on 18 July, 2005: Right Against Noise Pollution; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1709298/

During 2006-2010

Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 8 March, 2006: Right to Fair Trial; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1067991/
Lata Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another on 7 July, 2006: (Right to Marry a person of one’s choice)
Husband tapping wife conversations https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1058685/
Swapan Kumar Saha vs South Point Montessory High … on 19 September, 2006, Overloading of bus https://indiankanoon.org/doc/416937/
State Of Maharashtra vs Public Concern For Governance … on 4 January, 2007: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/404911/
Pankaj Kumar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 11 Jul 2008: Right to Speedy Trial
Sukhwant Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 18 May, 2009: Right to Reputation; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1737184/

During 2011-2015

Amar Singh Vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 May, 2011: Trying to misuse Article 21
In Re Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt. 4.06.2011 Vs UOI and Ors on 23 February 2012: Right to Sleep
Kishore Samrite Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 18 October, 2012:
Manohar Lal Sharma Vs The Principle Secretary & Others on 17 December, 2013: No prior permission required to inquire a public servant.
Dr.Subramanian Swamy Vs Director, CBI & Anr on 6 May, 2014: Struck down the ‘Single Directive’
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) & Anr Vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 August, 2015, 24 August, 2017 and 26 September, 2018: Right to Privacy (Aadhaar Card case)

During 2016-2020

Refusal to grant bail without recording reasons : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/16902738/
detained in custody by adopting totally faulty and illegal process :
Subramanian Swamy Vs Union of India on 13 May, 2016: Right to Reputation
Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2018: Right to die with dignity; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/184449972/
Shakti Vahini vs Union Of India on 27 March, 2018: Righ to choose life partner; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92846055/
Navtej Singh Johar Vs Union of India on 6 September, 2018: Right to choose sexual partner
Swapnil Tripathi Vs Supreme Court of India on 26 September, 2018: Right to access to legal proceedings
Reena Hazarika Vs State of Assam on 31 Oct 2018: Right to submit defence viewpoint by way of proceedings u/s 313 CrPC
Afzal Ansari and 2 Ors Vs State Of U.P. and 2 Ors on 15 May 2020: (Allahabad High Court: Right of protection from sound pollution; Right to sleep)
Vineet Ruia Vs Govt of West Bengal & Ors: (Right to decent burial)
Arun Sharma Vs State of M.P. on 02 Nov 2020: (Madhya Pradesh High Court: Parading suspects to media/public is violative of Article 21-Right to decency/Dignity/Privacy)
Subhranshu Rout @ Gugul Vs State of Odisha on 23 Nov 2020: [OrissaHC: Right to be forgotten; Videos/Photos of a Rape survivor on Facebook servers]

During 2021-2025

The National Highway Projects in the State of Bihar Vs State of Bihar on 10 May 2022 [PHC: Construct Retail stores with convenience facilities (toilets) on the State and National Highways in the State]
Vysakh K.G. Vs Union of India and Anr on 22 Dec 2022 [KerHC: Right to be forgotten in certain case types in Kerala]

Dismissed Petitions:

D. Bhuvan Mohan Patnaik & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 9 September, 1974: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/353351/ [1974 AIR 2092], [1975 SCR (2) 24]
Renuka Jain Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors on 06 Jan 2026 [DHC: De facto complainant does not have locus to file a petition seeking Speedy Trial]
Vijay Kumar and Ors Vs State of Rajasthan on 08 Jan 2026 [SC: Revision Petition was pending disposal for 23 years at Rajasthan High Court]

MAIN Index is here.

Dataram Singh Vs State of UP and Anr 6 February, 2018

Posted on December 2, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Another recent 2018 judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court in regards to granting on Anticipatory Bail to accused, who is/has been cooperating with investigation.

Dataram Singh Vs State of UP and Anr 6 February, 2018

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/122663958/

Citations: (2018) 3 SCC 22

Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Narinder Awasthy alias Nand Lal Vs State of Himachal Pradesh on 15 November, 2018

Posted on December 2, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

High Court of Himachal Pradesh has granted anticipatory bail to the accused in this 420 case

Narinder Awasthy alias Nand Lal Vs State of Himachal Pradesh on 15 November, 2018

[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]

Rajan Parmar Vs Mamta Parmar on 10 March, 2016

Posted on December 2, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Wonderful judgment from Ms Rekha Rani of Delhi District and Sessions Court, who held that

From Para 10, “It is quite shocking and deplorable that a person having the qualification as the respondent has, having capacity to work has chosen not to work on her own will. Respondent further stated that she cannot travel alone anywhere and she wants the appellant to travel with her to help her in search of job. The said submission is neither palatable nor digestible. She is embroiled in bitter litigation with the appellant. Both are coming to the Court separately. If respondent can come to the Court to fight litigation alone, she can go alone to search a job as well.“

From Para 11,

“Be that as it may, at this stage, the appellant has stated that he is willing to accompany the respondent whereever she has applied for a job and get a call for interview. He has also stated that he is also willing to assist her in whatever way she wants his assistance in finding placement. He also voluntarily agreed to pay Rs.12,000/- per month to the respondent as awarded to the respondent vide the impugned order for a period of one year and has submitted that during this period respondent should make sincere efforts for getting a job.”

From Para 12,

“I fully agree with the submissions made by the appellant. Respondent admitted being more qualified than the appellant. She admitted being able bodied person and having capacity to earn. As such she cannot be allowed to sit idle at home to put financial burden on the appellant. Let her make sincere endeavour to find work. As offered by appellant, if respondent needs assistance of the appellant in finding job, she may communicate with him by sending SMS on mobile / email. Both the parties are directed to exchange their respective mobile numbers and email addresses, within a week before Ld. Trial Court. Appellant has agreed to pay her maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month for a period of one year and during this period, she should make sincere efforts and start working. The impugned order is operative for one year from the date of order.”

Rajan Parmar Vs Mamta Parmar on 10 March, 2016

The earlier order from trial court which ordered monthly Rs.12,000/- maintenance is here.

[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]

Minakshi Gaur Vs Chitranjan Gaur

Posted on December 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment from Apex Court, it was held that, despite the wife was a working lady and had income from properties, “Since both the wife and husband are residing at Agra. In our view, it is not possible for the wife to maintain herself in the town of Agra with the income of less than Rupees nine thousand per month. The husband, who is earning at least Rupees Twenty thousand per month, as stated by the appellant in this appeal and not controverted, is liable to pay some amount of maintenance to the wife so that she may be able to maintain herself. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that it would be just and expedient to direct the husband to pay Rupees five thousand per month to the wife by way of maintenance from the date of filing of the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.”

This is the installment scheme devised by Apex Court, which goes into future installments too.

“Respondent No.1 is directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rupees five thousand per month from 1st November, 1998 till 31st July, 2008 in the following manner:
By 31st August, 2008, Rupees fifty thousand;
By 30th September, 2008, Rupees fifty thousand;
By 31st October, 2008, Rupees fifty thousand;
By 31st November, 2008, Rupees One lakh fifty thousand;
By 31st December, 2008, Rupees One lakh fifty thousand;
By 31st January, 2009, the balance amount.”

Minakshi Gaur Vs Chitranjan Gaur and Anr on 29 July, 2008

Then, in just over 6 months, a settlement is arrived at by the parties and per the settlement terms, all cases between them are quashed in one fell swoop. Read Pages 2 and 3.

Minakshi Gaur Vs Chitranjan Gaur and Anr on 06 February, 2009

PWDV Act – Statement of Objects and Reasons

Posted on December 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the Statement of Objects and Reasons of PWDV Act

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 O&R - Gaz

MWPSC Act – Statement of Objects and Reasons

Posted on December 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the Statement of Objects and Reasons of MWPSC Act

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act - Objects and Reasons

Dr. (Mrs.) Vijaya Manohar Arbat Vs Kashi Rao Rajaram Sawai And Anr on 18 February, 1987

Posted on December 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this landmark judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court, it was held that a daughter (not just a son) is also liable to pay maintenance to her parents under 125 CrPC read with Sec 8 of IPC.

The lower court which is Bombay High Court has given this order here, was later on confirmed by the Apex Court.

This has a precedence from a Kerala high Court judgment available here and one subsequent judgment of High Court of AP here.

Dr. (Mrs.) Vijaya Manohar Arbat Vs Kashi Rao Rajaram Sawai And Anr on 18 February, 1987

Citation: [1987 SCR (2) 331], [1987 SCC (2) 278], [JT 1987 (3) 46], [1987 SCALE (1) 379], [1987 BOMCR SC 1 629], [1987 AIR SC 1100], [1987 SCC CRI 354], [1987 CRIMES SC 1 713], [1987 CRIMES SC 3 348], [1987 CRLJ SC 977], [1987 ECC 11 416], [1987 ACR SC 11 334], [1987 APLJ SC 1 35], [1987 AWC SC 676], [1987 BOMLR 89 130], [1987 KLT SC 1 674], [1987 MHLJ 395], [1987 MPLJ 218], [1988 SHIMLC 1 133]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/780813/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac39e4b014971140e515

Chanmuniya Vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr on 7 October, 2010

Posted on November 30, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the landmark ruling from Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that

“We are of the opinion that a broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term “wife” to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, so as to fulfil the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance under Section 125. We also believe that such an interpretation would be a just application of the principles enshrined in the Preamble to our Constitution, namely, social justice and upholding the dignity of the individual.”

Chanmuniya Vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr on 7 October, 2010

But in a para prior to this para, this case was referred to a larger bench (this was a 3-judge bench). But this case was but after two years dismissed as the advocate for appellant dies and the appellant did not pursue the case. Here is the Dismissal Order:

Chanmuniya Vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Anr on 5 September 2014

Here is the Para 45,

45.We, therefore, request the Hon’ble Chief Justice to refer the following, amongst other, questions to be decided by a larger Bench. According to us, the questions are:
1. Whether the living together of a man and woman as husband and wife for a considerable period of time would raise the presumption of a valid marriage between them and whether such a presumption would entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C?
2. Whether strict proof of marriage is essential for a claim of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. having regard to the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005?
3. Whether a marriage performed according to customary rites and ceremonies, without strictly fulfilling the requisites of Section 7(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or any other personal law would entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?

So, this judgment is NOT a landmark judgment as the question of law was NOT decided either by this Court nor by a larger bench of this Court.

Citation: [2011 ANJ SC 1 26], [2010 AIOL 681], [2011 SCC 1 141], [2011 ALLMR CRI SC 346], [2010 SCALE 10 602], [2011 BOMCR SC 2 787], [2011 SCC CRI 2 666], [2011 CRLJ SC 96], [2010 RCR CIVIL SC 4 801], [2010 JT 11 132], [2010 AIR SC 6497], [2011 SCC CIV 1 53]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1949767/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aedbe4b0149711414ea0

But this judgment declared it so here.

Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Kamala and Others Vs M.R.Mohan Kumar on 24 October, 2018

Posted on November 30, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in this judgment that, as 125 CrPC proceedings are Summary in nature, no need of strict proof required for marriage between parties. It reiterated the law laid down in the judgment of Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha here.

Kamala and Others Vs M.R.Mohan Kumar on 24 October, 2018

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Author: ShadesOfKnife

Various rights covered under Article 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of Constitution of India

Dataram Singh Vs State of UP and Anr 6 February, 2018

Narinder Awasthy alias Nand Lal Vs State of Himachal Pradesh on 15 November, 2018

Rajan Parmar Vs Mamta Parmar on 10 March, 2016

Minakshi Gaur Vs Chitranjan Gaur

PWDV Act – Statement of Objects and Reasons

MWPSC Act – Statement of Objects and Reasons

Dr. (Mrs.) Vijaya Manohar Arbat Vs Kashi Rao Rajaram Sawai And Anr on 18 February, 1987

Chanmuniya Vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr on 7 October, 2010

Kamala and Others Vs M.R.Mohan Kumar on 24 October, 2018