Amritpal Singh Mahendra Singh Kaler and Ors Vs Daljit Kaur on 22 November, 2017
Tag: Catena Of Judgments
Journey through the years – Public Interest Litigation (PILs) in India
Let’s begin with the foremost judgment that raised curtain for Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in India, delivered by none other than the Super Judge, Shri Krishnaiyer, V.R.
Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal Others Vs State Another on 12 October, 2007
Hon’ble Delhi High Court has quash the FIR on parents and relatives in a false case of 498A, 406 IPC.
Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal Others Vs State Another on 12 October, 2007[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”]
[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”]
Lifecycle Stages of a Domestic Violence Case under PWDV Act
Listed below are a reasonably laid out sequence of events in a Domestic Violence Case filed under PWDV Act, 2005. The rules related to the Act are here.
Before Entering Into Court
- First step is that the aggrieved person [read sec 2(a)] or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person will file an application under sec 12(1) to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act.
Key Highlights
- This Act is a civil act, meaning there is no penal punishment given under this act. Only one exception to it is, when a person disobeys or violates a protection or interim protection order issued by the Magistrate.
- Magistrate will take up the application and order the Protection Officer [read sec 2(n)] to conduct mediation at court-appointed mediation center to see the possibility of a compromise and also to fill 3 ready-made forms called as Domestic Incident Reports (DIR forms).
- Protection Officer, who is the District Welfare Officer, will issue a notice to all the people named and identified in the application.
- Purpose: Mentioned as above.
- What happens there: Lot of emotional drama, oral diarrhoea, convincing words followed by intermittent threats of 498A IPC case by the so-called Protection Officer.
- What to do: Keep your calmest best self and don’t overreact, nor let parents over-react. If you are capable and confident, ensure a audio/video recording of the session is made discreetly. If you have doubts, DO NOT DO IT. More valuable tips here.
- Apart from husband, other family members who are implicated in this case, may become liable to the reliefs mentioned in the Act, based on the Complainant proving their acts of domestic violence. Maintenance component, under Monetary Reliefs alone, is the whole and sole responsibility of husband.
- There are various reliefs aggrieved person may seek under the various sections. Do no worry about property getting taken over or similar issues. No ‘ownership transfer’ of any such property takes place. Only temporary residence may be ordered which one can oppose and offer similar alternative accommodation. Many idiots hope and try to extort money/property via Domestic Violence complaint. They remain idiotic fools.
Focus Areas
- At this point in time, focus should be
- to attend the proceedings with Protection Officer
- to enjoy (record, if possible) the melodrama at mediation center and let it fail (just say, no compromise with liars, when my family was falsely implicated in the case)
- to let the case move back to Court (there ends the matter with Protection Officer)
- PO will send the mediation report along with earlier duly-prepared DIR forms
After Entering Into Court (APPEARANCE AND FOR COUNTER stages)
- Now Court issues a summon to all the respondents ([read sec 2(a)]: proper term for accused people in a Domestic Violence Case) to attend court proceedings on a specific date. The stage is called APPEARANCE.
Key Highlights
- All respondents to attend court on the first appearance date and give attendance and collect the ‘accused copies’ of Domestic Violence Complaint, Affidavit under 297 CrPC, DIR forms and mediation report from the Court Bench Clerk. One set will be given per respondent.
- Till this point, no need of engaging an advocate. Court gives next date, the business of which will be FOR COUNTER. The written statement of our objects otherwise a counter, is to be prepared and submitted to the court on next date of appearance or earlier, with Bench Clerk.
- One may engage a lawyer to plead the case for you here on wards. If you know Law + Case Facts + Court Procedure, one may let court know, you would like to argue the case, on your own, as Party-in-person.
Focus Areas
- At this point in time, focus should be
- to prepare a Counter/written statement document based on whether the aggrieved person can prove the allegation laid out in the Domestic Violence Complaint.
- to deny clearly all those allegations that are absurd, untruths, improbable and baseless, and mention ‘the petitioner is put to strict proof of same’. As settled principle of law, whoever alleges something have the burden of proving the same.
- to state/submit those facts that can not be denied by Complainant. Rest all facts/evidences are to be secured and need not be shared with lawyer as well.
- to submit/file the written statement/Counter on the next date prescribed by court. Unless it benefits us in a tangible way, do not skip/seek dates.
EXAMINATION Stage
After Counter is filed, the next stage is the EXAMINATION. Naturally, it would be examination of the complainant.
[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”]
V.Ravi Kumar Vs State of Tamilnadu on 14 December, 2018
The key contention resolved in this judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court is that “whether the High Court should have quashed the criminal proceedings being Crime No.54 of 2005 on the grounds that the appellant had withdrawn an earlier complaint without assigning reasons; the transactions being commercial in nature, the ingredients of an offence under the Sections referred to above were absent; and that the remedy of the appellant lay in filing a civil suit.”
From Para 22,
There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code or any other statute which debars a complainant from making a second complaint on the same allegations, when the first complaint did not lead to conviction, acquittal or discharge.
From Para 23,
V.Ravi Kumar Vs State of Tamilnadu on 14 December, 2018when a complaint is dismissed on merits after an inquiry, that a second complaint cannot be made on the same facts. Maybe, as contended by the respondents, the first complaint was withdrawn without assigning any reason. However, that in itself is no ground to quash a second complaint.
Landmark judgment cited in this judgment is available 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”]
Amar Singh Vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 May, 2011
Improperly framed affidavits are held to be not acceptable by Supreme court per CPC and relevant Supreme Court Rules.
From Para 51, 52 and 53,
Apart from the aforesaid, in the writ petition which was filed on 21st January, 2006, there is no mention of the fact that the petitioner gave a statement under section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with the investigation arising out of FIR lodged on 30th December, 2005. From the records of the case it appears the petitioner gave 161 statement on 13th January, 2006. In the writ petition there is a complete suppression of the aforesaid fact. A statement under Section 161 is certainly a material fact in a police investigation in connection with an FIR. The investigation is to find out the genuineness of those very documents on the basis of which the writ petition was moved. In that factual context, total suppression in the writ petition of the fact that the petitioner gave a 161 statement in that investigation is, in our judgment, suppression of a very material fact.
It is, therefore, clear that writ petition is frivolous and is speculative in character. This Court is of the opinion that the so called legal questions on tapping of telephone cannot be gone into on the basis of a petition which is so weak in its foundation.
Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts. Courts held that such litigants have come with “unclean hands” and are not entitled to be heard on the merits of their case.
From Para 58,
It is one of the fundamental principles of jurisprudence that litigants must observe total clarity and candour in their pleadings and especially when it contains a prayer for injunction. A prayer for injunction, which is an equitable remedy, must be governed by principles of ‘uberrima fide’.
From Para 62,
Following these principles, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the instant writ petition is an attempt by the petitioner to mislead the Court on the basis of frivolous allegations and by suppression of material facts as pointed out and discussed above.
From Para 65,
Amar Singh Vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 May, 2011This court wants to make one thing clear i.e. perfunctory and slipshod affidavits which are not consistent either with Order XIX Rule 3 of the CPC or with Order XI Rules 5 and 13 of the Supreme Court Rules should not be entertained by this Court.
[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”]
T.V.Vatheeswaran Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 February, 1983
In this judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, delay in executing a death sentence is violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India.
Case background:
A prisoner condemned to death over eight years ago claims that it is not lawful to hang him now. Let us put the worst against him first. He was the principal accused in the case and, so to say, the archvillian of a villainous piece. He was the brain behind a cruel conspiracy to impersonate Customs officers’ pretend to question unsuspecting visitors to the city of Madras, abduct them on the pretext of interrogating them, administer sleeping pills to the unsuspecting victims steal their cash and jewels and finally murder them. The plan was ingeniously fiendish and the appellant was the architect. There is no question that the learned Sessions Judge very rightly sentenced him to death But that was in January 1975. Since then he has been kept in solitary confinement, quite contrary to our ruling in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration(1). Before that he was a ’prisoner under remand’ for two years. So, the prisoner claims that to take away his life after keeping him in jail for ten years, eight of which in illegal solitary confinement, is a gross violation o the Fundamental Right guaranteed by Art. 21 af the Constitution.
Hon’ble Court rules:
So, what do we have now? Arts. 14, 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive. They sustain, strengthen and nourish each other. They are available to prisoners as well as free men. Prison walls do not keep out Fundamental Rights. A person under sentence of death may also claim Fundamental Rights. The fiat of Art. 21, as explained, is that any procedure which deprives a person of his life or liberty must be just, fair and reasonable. Just, fair and reasonable procedure implies a right to free legal services where he cannot avail them. It implies a right to a speedy trial. It implies humane conditions of detection, preventive or punitive. ’Procedure established by law’ does not end with the pronouncement of sentence; it includes tho carrying out of sentence. That is as far as we have gone so far. It seems to us but a short step, but a step in the right direction, to hold that prolonged detention to await the execution of a sentence of death is an unjust, unfair and unreasonable procedure and the only way to undo the wrong is to quash the sentence of death.
Final Words:
What may be considered prolonged delay so as to attract the constitutional protection of Art. 21 against the execution of a sentence of death is a ticklish question. In Ediga Annamma’s case, two years was considered sufficient to justify interference with the sentence of death. In Bhagwan Baux’s case, two and a half years and in Sadhu Singh’s case, three and a half years were taken as sufficient to justify altering the sentence of death into one of imprisonment for life. The Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a sentence of death imposed by a court of Session must be confirmed by the High Court. The practice, to our knowledge, has always been to give top priority to the hearing of such cases by the High Courts. So, also in this Court. There are provisions in the Constitution (Arts. 72 and 161) which invest the President and the Governor with power to suspend, remit or commute a sentence of death. Making all reasonable allowance for the time necessary for appeal and considered of reprieve, we think that delay exceeding two years in the execution of a sentence of death should be considered sufficient to entitle the person under sentence of death to invoke Art. 21 and demand the quashing of the sentence of death. We therefore accept the special leave petition, allow the appeal as also the Writ Petition and quash the sentence of death. In the place of the sentence of death, we substitute the sentence of imprisonment for life.
T.V. Vatheeswaran Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 February, 1983Citation: AIR 1983 SC 361, 1983 AIR 361, 1983 SCR (2) 348, 1983 SCC (2) 68, 1983 SCALE (1)115
Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1536503/
[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”]
Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur Vs S. S. Shukla Etc. Etc on 28 April, 1976
This judgment is considered a stain on the history of the court, which had delivered a judgment that has trummelled on the rights of citizens.
Case background:
The President of India, during the Emergency, made such a proclamation and many people were detained under various laws. Some of them moved high courts seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The Government said, since the right to move courts for the enforcement of Article 21 is suspended, the petitions were not maintainable.
Real Story:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Raj_Khanna#The_Habeas_Corpus_Case
https://www.bloombergquint.com/opinion/vr-krishna-iyer-the-super-judge#gs.89TGyeW0
Hon’ble Court rules:
The 4 out of 5 judges on the bench held that “The width and amplitude of the power of detention under section 3 of the Act is to be adjudged in the context of the emergency proclaimed by the President. The Court cannot compel the detaining authority to give the particulars of the grounds on which he had reasonable cause to believe that it was necessary to exercise this control. An investigation into facts or allegations of facts based on malafides is not permissible because such a course will involve advertence to the grounds of detention and materials constituting those grounds which is not competent in the context of the emergency”
Justice Hans Raj Khanna is the sole dissenting voice on the bench and after referring to earlier A.K.Gopalan case he held that “The argument that suspending the right of a person to move any court for the enforcement of right to life and personal liberty is done under a constitutional provision and, therefore, it cannot be said that the resulting situation would mean the absence of the Rule of law cannot stand close scrutiny for it tries to equate illusion of the Rule of Law with the reality of Rule of Law.“
And “The suspension of the right to move a court for the enforcement of the right contained in Art. 21 cannot have the effect of debarring an aggrieved person from approaching the courts with the complaint regarding deprivation of life or personal liberty by an authority on the score that no power has been vested in the authority to deprive a person of life or liberty. The pre-supposition of the existence of substantive power to deprive a person of his life or personal liberty in Art. 21 even though that article only mentions the procedure, would not necessarily point to the conclusion that in the event of the suspension of the right to move any court for the enforcement of Art. 21, the suspension would also dispense with the necessity of the existence of the substantive power The co-existence of substantive power and procedure established by law for depriving R person of his life and liberty which is implicit in Art. 21 would not lead to the result that even if there is suspension of the right regarding procedure, suspension would also operate upon the necessity of substantive power. What is true of a proposition need not be true of the converse of that proposition. The suspension of the right to make. any court for the enforcement of the right contained in Art. 21 may have the effect of dispensing with the necessity of prescribing procedure for the exercise.. Of substantive power to deprive a person of his life or personal liberty, it can in no case have the effect of permitting an authority to deprive a person of his life or personal liberty without the existence of substantive power. The close bond which is there between the existence of substantive power of depriving a Person of his life or personal liberty and the procedure for the exercise of that power, if the right contained in Art. 21 were in operation, would not necessarily hold good if that right were suspended because the removal of compulsion about the prescription of procedure for the exercise of the substantive power would not do away with the compulsion regarding the existence of that power.”
Final Words
There is no sufficient ground to interfere with the view taken by all the nine High Courts which went into the matter that the Presidential order dated June 27, 1975, did not affect the maintainability of the habeas corpus petitions to question the legality of the detention orders.
The principles which should be followed by the courts in dealing with petitions for writs of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of detention are well-established.
Unanimity obtained without sacrifice of conviction commends the decision to public confidence. Unanimity which is merely formal and which is recorded at the expense of strong conflicting views is not desirable in a court of last resort.
A dissent in a court of last resort is an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day when a later decision may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting Judge believes the court have been betrayed.
Observation: Judges are not there simply to decide cases, but to decide them as they think they should be decided, and while it may be regrettable that they cannot always agree, it is better that their independence should be maintained and recognise than that unanimity should be secured through its sacrifice.
Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur Vs S. S. Shukla Etc. Etc on 28 April, 1976Citation: AIR 1976 SC 1207, 1976 SCR 172, 1976 SCC (2) 521
Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1735815/
[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”]
A.K. Gopalan Vs The State Of Madras, Union Of India on 19 May, 1950
This is one of the foremost judgments on the interpretation of Article 21 of Constitution of India. It was delivered by a constitutional bench of 6 judges including Hon’ble CJI, Shri Kania, Hiralal J.
Case background:
Mr. A.K. Gopalan was a communist leader who was detained to the Madras Jail, under Preventive Detention Act, 1950 and he challenged his detention by stating that, his personal liberty was being hampered as he had the right to equality of law.
Hon’ble Court rules:
The court held that the word used in Article 21 just meant procedural due process and since the preventive detention law under which Gopalan was detained was a valid law, Gopalan’s detention was lawful even though that law may have violated some of his other Fundamental Rights such has his Right to Freedom of Movement under Article 19, or, the detention was arbitrary under Article 14.
This doctrine is commonly known as “procedural due process”.
A.K. Gopalan Vs The State Of Madras, Union Of India on 19 May, 1950Citation: AIR 1950 SC 27, 1950 SCR 88
Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1857950/
[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”]
Various rights covered under Article 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of Constitution of India
Over years, Article 21 of the Constitution has been expanded a lot to cover various rights of individuals with changing times and needs of society. List below are some.
Article 21 provides, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.“
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)
- 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
- Govind Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr on 18 March, 1975: Right to Privacy. (Overruled)
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
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
- People’s Union For Democratic Rights & Others vs Union Of India & Others on 18 September, 1982: Right to Minimum Wages
- 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/
- 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/
- Sheela Barse Vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 September, 1987: Right of prisoners to be Interviewed/ right against custodial violence
- 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.
- Shantistar Builders Vs Narayan Khimalal Gotame & Ors. Etc on 17 November, 1995
- 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/
- 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/
- 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/
- 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/
- Smt. Gian Kaur vs The State Of Punjab on 21 March, 1996: Euthanasia and Right to Life; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/217501/
During 1996-2000
- 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; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/501198/
- 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/
During 2001-2005
- 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
- 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/
- 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/
During 2011-2015
- Amar Singh Vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 May, 2011: Trying to misuse Article 21
- 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
- Swapnil Tripathi Vs Supreme Court of India on 26 September, 2018: Right to access to legal proceedings
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]
[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”]