Here is the Petition:
Vineet Ruia Vs Govt of West Bengal & OrsTag: Article 21 of The Constitution of India
In Re Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt. 4.06.2011 Vs UOI and Ors on 23 February 2012
In Re Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt. 4.06.2011 Vs UOI and Ors on 23 February 2012
Citations: []
Other Source links:
The index page is here.
Afzal Ansari and 2 Ors Vs State Of U.P. and 2 Ors on 15 May 2020
Allahabad High Court has held that,
From Para 39,
Afzal Ansari and 2 Ors Vs State Of U.P. and 2 Ors on 15 May 202039. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that Azan can be recited by Muezzin from minarets of the Mosques by human voice without using any amplifying device and the administration is directed not to cause hindrance in the same on the pretext of the Guidelines to contain the pandemic Covid19, unless such guidelines are being violated.
Citations: []
Other Source links:
Anokhilal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 18 December, 2019
Justice Shri Uday Umesh Lalit of Supreme Court delivered the judgment and laid down certain norms as follow:
Anokhilal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 18 December, 2019i) In all cases where there is a possibility of life sentence or death sentence, learned Advocates who have put in minimum of 10 years practice at the Bar alone be considered to be appointed as Amicus Curiae or through legal services to represent an accused.
ii) In all matters dealt with by the High Court concerning confirmation of death sentence, Senior Advocates of the Court must first be considered to be appointed as Amicus Curiae.
iii) Whenever any learned counsel is appointed as Amicus Curiae, some reasonable time may be provided to enable the counsel to prepare the matter. There cannot be any hard and fast rule in that behalf. However, a minimum of seven days’ time may normally be considered to be appropriate and adequate.
iv) Any learned counsel, who is appointed as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused must normally be granted to have meetings and discussion with the concerned accused. Such interactions may prove to be helpful as was noticed in Imtiyaz Ramzan Khan.
Citations:
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110783225/
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
Khatri and Ors Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 10 March, 1981
This is decision from Apex Court of India which held that,
“It bars the use of any statement made before a police officer in the course of an investigation under Chanter XII, whether recorded in a police diary or otherwise, but by the express terms of the Section this bar is applicable only where such statement is sought to be used at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made’. If the statement made before a police officer in the course of an investigation under chapter XII is sought to be used in any proceeding other than an inquiry or trial or even at an inquiry of trial but in respect of an offence other than that which was under investigation at the time when such statement was made, the bar or Section 162 would not be attracted.“
Khatri and Ors Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 10 March, 1981
Citations: [1981 AIR 1068], [1981 SCR (3) 145], [1981 SCC (2) 493], [1981 SCALE (1)531]
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/705101/
Other orders made in this case are here.
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
IBA complaint against Justice Rohington Nariman
After the following order was passed by the Apex Court bench, IBA has filed this complaint.
National-Lawyers-Campaign-for-judicial-Transparency-JudgmentHere is the IBA complaint, in total.
IBA complaint against Justice Rohington NarimanHardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 10 January, 2014
Hon’ble Apex court held some key aspects in this landmark judgment such as,
- What is the stage at which power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised?
- Whether the word “evidence” used in Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. could only mean evidence tested by cross examination or the court can exercise the power under the said provision even on the basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned?
- Whether the word “evidence” used in Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. has been used in a comprehensive sense and includes the evidence collected during investigation or the word “evidence” is limited to the evidence recorded during trial?
- What is the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to arraign an accused? Whether the power under Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned will in all likelihood convicted?
- Does the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. extend to persons not named in the FIR or named in the FIR but not charged or who have been discharged?
Mithu Vs State Of Punjab on 7 April, 1983
Mithu Vs State Of Punjab on 7 April, 1983
[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”]
Francis Coralie Mullin Vs The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi on 13 January, 1981
Francis Coralie Mullin Vs The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi on 13 January, 1981Now obviously when an under-trial prisoner is granted the facility of interviews with relatives and friends twice in a week under Rule 559A and a convicted prisoner is permitted to have interviews with his relatives and friends once in a week under Rule 550, it is difficult to understand how sub-clause (ii) of Clause 3(b) of the Conditions of Detention Order, which restricts the interview only to one in a month in case of a detenu, can possibly be regarded as reasonable and non-arbitrary, particularly when a detenu stands on a higher pedestal than an under-trial prisoner or a convict and, as held by this Court in Sampath Prakash’s case (supra) restrictions placed on a detenu must “consistent with the effectiveness of detention, be minimal.” We would therefore unhesitatingly hold sub-clause (ii) of clause 3(b) to be violative of Articles 14 and 21 in so far as it permits only one interview in a month to a detenu. We are of the view that a detenu must be permitted to have atleast two interviews in a week with relatives and friends and it should be possible for a relative or friend to have interview with the detenu at any reasonable hour on obtaining permission from the Superintendent of the Jail and it should not be necessary to seek the permission of the District Magistrate, Delhi, as the latter procedure would be cumbrous and unnecessary from the point of view of security and hence unreasonable. We would go so far as to say that even independently of Rules 550 and 559A, we would regard the present norm of two interviews in a week for prisoners as furnishing a criterion of what we would consider reasonable and non-arbitrary.
Citation: 1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516
Indiakanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/78536/
[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”]
