web analytics

Menu

Skip to content
Shades of Knife
  • Home
  • True Colors of a Vile Wife
  • Need Inspiration?
  • Blog Updates
  • SOK Gallery
  • Vile News Reporter
  • About Me
  • Contact Me

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to

T.V.Vatheeswaran Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 February, 1983

Posted on December 6, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

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, 1983

Citation: 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”]

Posted in Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) | Tagged Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Delay In Execution of Death Sentence Right to Life T.V.Vatheeswaran Vs State Of Tamil Nadu Wide Interpretation of Article 21 | Leave a comment

Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur Vs S. S. Shukla Etc. Etc on 28 April, 1976

Posted on December 6, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

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, 1976

Citation: 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”]

Posted in Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) | Tagged Additional District Magistrate Jabalpur Vs S.S.Shukla Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Detention under Preventive Detention Act Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Narrow Interpretation of Article 21 Overruled Judgment Right to Move Courts For Remedies Right to Personal Liberty Writ of Habeas Corpus | Leave a comment

A.K. Gopalan Vs The State Of Madras, Union Of India on 19 May, 1950

Posted on December 6, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

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, 1950

Citation: AIR 1950 SC 27, 1950 SCR 88

Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1857950/


The index page is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged A.K. Gopalan Vs The State Of Madras Union Of India Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Detention under Preventive Detention Act Narrow Interpretation of Article 21 Right to Personal Liberty Writ of Habeas Corpus | Leave a comment

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

  1. 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)
  2. 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

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

During 1966-1970

  1. Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi on 10 April, 1967: Right to travel abroad
  2. 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

  1. Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors Vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973: Doctrine of Basic Structure of Constitution of India. (Overruled A.K. Gopalan V State of Madras)
  2. Govind Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr on 18 March, 1975: Right to Privacy. (Overruled)

During 1976-1980

  1. Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur Vs S. S. Shukla Etc. Etc on 28 April, 1976: Right to Move Courts For Remedies (Overruled).
  2. Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar 1979: Right to Speedy Trial, Legal Aid
  3. Maneka Gandhi Vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978: Right to have fair, just and reasonable procedure
  4. Babu Singh And Ors vs The State Of U.P on 31 January, 1978: Right to Bail
  5. Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot Vs State Of Maharashtra on 17 August, 1978: Right to Legal Aid, Right to Appeal
  6. Sunil Batra Etc Vs Delhi Administration And Ors. Etc on 30 August, 1978: Right against Solitary Confinement
  7. Charles Sobhraj Vs Superintendent, Tihar Jail on 31 August, 1978: Right against Bar Fetters
  8. Sunil Batra Vs Delhi Administration on 20 December, 1979: Right of Prisoner to Free Legal Aid
  9. Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration on 29 April, 1980: Right against hand cuffing
  10. 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

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. People’s Union For Democratic Rights & Others vs Union Of India & Others on 18 September, 1982: Right to Minimum Wages
  4. Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of … vs Dilipkumar Raghavendranath … on 17 November, 1982: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1787020/
  5. 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)
  6. 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)
  7. Mithu Vs State Of Punjab on 7 April, 1983: Struck down of 303 IPC
  8. State Of Maharashtra Vs Chandrabhan Tale on 7 July, 1983: Sustenance allowance even after conviction pending appeal; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1184378/
  9. Rudul Sah vs State Of Bihar And Another on 1 August, 1983: Right to receive compensation; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/810491/
  10. 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/
  11. Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs Union of India and Ors on 16 Dec 1983: (Right to Dignity of Live)
  12. Rural Litigation And Entitlement … vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 12 March, 1985: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1949293/
  13. Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation & … on 10 July, 1985: Right to Work; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/709776/
  14. Attorney General of India v. Lachma Devi: Right against Public Hanging; http://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=005891763000

During 1986-1990

  1. M.C. Mehta And Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 December, 1986: Right to have clean Environment; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1486949/
  2. T. Damodhar Rao And Ors. vs The Special Officer, Municipal … on 20 January, 1987: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/205063/
  3. Sheela Barse Vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 September, 1987: Right of prisoners to be Interviewed/ right against custodial violence
  4. Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd vs Proprietors Of Indian Express Newspapers on 23 September, 1988: Right to know; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1351834/
  5. Kiran Bedi & Ors vs Committee Of Inquiry & Anr on 4 January, 1989: Right to Reputation
  6. Pt. Parmanand Katara vs Union Of India & Ors on 28 August, 1989: Right to Medical Care
  7. 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.
  8. Delhi Transport Corporation vs D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress on 4 September, 1990: Right To Livelihood; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/268805/

During 1991-1995

  1. 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/
  2. Abdul Rehman Antulay and Ors Vs R.S. Nayak and Anr on 10 Dec 1991: Right to Speedy Trial, Reiterated Hussainara Khatoon in 1979
  3. Miss Mohini Jain vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 30 July, 1992: Right to Education; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/40715/
  4. 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/
  5. D.K. Yadav vs J.M.A. Industries Ltd on 7 May, 1993: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/427114/
  6. Joginder Kumar vs State Of U.P on 25 April, 1994: Right against Illegal Detention; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/768175/
  7. P. Rathinam/Nagbhusan Patnaik vs Union Of India And Another on 26 April, 1994: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/66070774/
  8. 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/
  9. Consumer Education and Research Centre & Others Vs Union of India & Others on 27 January, 1995: Right to Health; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1657323/
  10. M.J. Sivani And Ors vs State Of Karnataka And Ors on 17 April, 1995: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/694951/
  11. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Anr vs Friends Coop. Housing Society on 24 April, 1995: Right to Shelter; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/967399/
  12. 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/
  13. 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)
  14. Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam vs Miss Subhra Chakraborty on 15 December, 1995: Right against Rape; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/642436/

During 1996-2000

  1. Smt. Gian Kaur vs The State Of Punjab on 21 March, 1996: Euthanasia and Right to Life; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/217501/
  2. 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/
  3. 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/
  4. 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/
  5. Mrs. Pragati Varghese And Etc. vs Cyril George Varghese And Etc. on 6 May, 1997: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1401518/
  6. Vishaka & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 13 August, 1997: Right Against Sexual Harassment at Workplace; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1031794/
  7. Chandra Rajakumari And Anr. vs Commissioner Of Police, … on 27 October, 1997: Beauty contests can be obscene; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1317411/
  8. Vineet Narain & Others Vs Union Of India & Another on 18 December, 1997: Right to Public Trial
  9. Mr. ‘X’ vs Hospital ‘Z’ on 21 September, 1998: Right to Marriage (Disclosure of Dreadful Diseases); https://indiankanoon.org/doc/382721/
  10. Apparel Export Promotion Council vs A.K. Chopra on 20 January, 1999: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/856194/
  11. Capt.M. Paul Anthony vs Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr on 30 March, 1999: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/888207/
  12. The Chairman, Railway Board & Ors vs Mrs. Chandrima Das & Ors on 28 January, 2000: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/113663/

During 2001-2005

  1. Seeta Hemchandra Shashittal and Anr Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 13 Feb 2001: Right of Speedy Trial
  2. Murli S. Deora vs Union Of India And Ors on 2 November, 2001: Smoking in public place; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1495522/
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. State Of Bihar vs Lal Krishna Advani & Ors on 16 September, 2003: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/211801/
  6. 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

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

During 2011-2015

  1. Amar Singh Vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 May, 2011: Trying to misuse Article 21
  2. In Re Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt. 4.06.2011 Vs UOI and Ors on 23 February 2012: Right to Sleep
  3. Kishore Samrite Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 18 October, 2012:
  4. Manohar Lal Sharma Vs The Principle Secretary & Others on 17 December, 2013: No prior permission required to inquire a public servant.
  5. Dr.Subramanian Swamy Vs Director, CBI & Anr on 6 May, 2014: Struck down the ‘Single Directive’
  6. 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

  1. Refusal to grant bail without recording reasons : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/16902738/
  2. detained in custody by adopting totally faulty and illegal process :
  3. Subramanian Swamy Vs Union of India on 13 May, 2016: Right to Reputation
  4. Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs Union Of India on 9 March, 2018: Right to die with dignity; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/184449972/
  5. Shakti Vahini vs Union Of India on 27 March, 2018: Righ to choose life partner; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92846055/
  6. Navtej Singh Johar Vs Union of India on 6 September, 2018: Right to choose sexual partner
  7. Swapnil Tripathi Vs Supreme Court of India on 26 September, 2018: Right to access to legal proceedings
  8. Reena Hazarika Vs State of Assam on 31 Oct 2018: Right to submit defence viewpoint by way of proceedings u/s 313 CrPC
  9. 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)
  10. Vineet Ruia Vs Govt of West Bengal & Ors: (Right to decent burial)
  11. 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)
  12. 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

  1. 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]
  2. 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:

  1. 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]
  2. 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]
  3. 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.

Posted in Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) | Tagged Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Summary Post Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

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”]

Posted in High Court of Himachal Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC Sec 438 - Anticipatory Bail Granted Narinder Awasthy alias Nand Lal Vs State of Himachal Pradesh | Leave a comment

M.Shasheena Vs M.Anwar on 21 June, 2017

Posted on November 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Interesting case. Lot of twists and turns. At the end, the lying knife gets empty bowl.

M.Shasheena Vs M.Anwar on 21 June, 2017

[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”]

Posted in Chittor DV Cases | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to M.Shasheena Vs M.Anwar Muslim DV Case PWDV Act - Dismissed On Merits | Leave a comment

A.Sujatha Vs C.Nagaraju on 29 January, 2016

Posted on November 4, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

A well-reasoned judgment from Hon’ble First Class Magistrate ably supported by a catena of judgments held that this DVC was an attempt by the knife to usurp the property and nothing to do with domestic violence.

Last nail in the coffin on the money-hungry, gold-digging knife:

When she is having capacity to maintain herself then extending her palm for the alms of the respondent is highly un-acceptable. So as per the Domestic Violence Act, though it is a beneficial legislation but the basic principles cannot be deviated under the facts and circumstances of this case and the petitioner is not entitled to claim any maintenance and for residence.

A.Sujatha Vs C.Nagaraju on 29 January, 2016

 

Posted in Anantapur DV Cases | Tagged A.Sujatha Vs C.Nagaraju Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to PWDV Act - Case Is Retrospectively Valid PWDV Act - Dismissed On Merits Same Allegations in IPC 498A and DVC Sandeep Pamarati | Leave a comment

B.S. Joshi & Ors Vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 March, 2003

Posted on October 18, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the landmark judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court, which laid down the law that under CrPC 482, High Courts can quash a FIR or non-compoundable case such as 498A and 406 IPC.

From Para 13-15,

13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V Rao v. L.H.V Prasad 2000 3 SCC 693 are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in a matrimonial dispute by the courts. It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their “cases” in different courts.

14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Indian Penal Code.

15. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint and section 320 of the code does not limit or affect the powers under section 482 of the code.

B.S. Joshi & Ors Vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 March, 2003

Citations : [2003 ACR SC 2 1305], [2003 AIR SC 1386], [2003 ALD CRI 1 842], [2003 ALR 51 222], [2003 ALT CRI 2 60], [2003 ALT SC 5 4], [2003 CALLT SC 3 32], [2003 CGLJ 2 35], [2003 CTC 3 54], [2003 DMC SC 1 524], [2003 GLH 2 351], [2003 JKJ SC 2 439], [2003 JT SC 3 277], [2003 KLT SC 2 1062], [2003 OLR 2 101], [2003 RCR CRIMINAL 2 888], [2003 SCALE 3 214], [2003 SCC 4 675], [2003 SCR 2 1104], [2003 UC 2 827], [2003 UJ 2 953], [2003 SCC CRI 848], [2003 CRI LJ 2028]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/469138/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609adc9e4b0149711412459


Another landmark judgment which cites this judgment is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision B.S. Joshi and Ors Vs State Of Haryana and Anr Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 482 – IPC 498A Quashed IPC 406 - Not Made Out Landmark Case Reportable Judgement or Order Section 482 CrPC And Article 226 Of Constitution Of India Overrides Section 320 CrPC State of Haryana Vs Ch Bhajan Lal | Leave a comment

Mahipal Singh Rana Vs State Of U.P on 5 July, 2016

Posted on October 17, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

What can I say about this case and the advocate involved? Read for yourself.

Mahipal Singh Rana Vs State Of U.P on 5 July, 2016

Some news articles around this advocate here and here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Advocate Antics Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CC Act Sec 12 - Contempt In Face Of Court Imprisonment For Contempt Of Court Mahipal Singh Rana Vs State Of U.P. Sandeep Pamarati | Leave a comment

Mohit Yadam Vs State of A.P. on 13 November, 2009

Posted on October 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this well-reasoned judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, it was held that  in addition to the approach courts should take while considering whether the main Act as well as its amendment are prospective or retrospective in effect.


FACTS:

The petitioners filed a petition on 16.12.2008 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class against the respondents (her husband and in-laws), under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to grant certain reliefs as mentioned therein, which was taken on file as D.V.C. NO.163 of 2008.  The petitioners also filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the same was taken on file as D.V.C. No.10 of 2009.

Criminal Petition No.346 of 2009 is filed to quash all further proceedings in D.V.C. No.163 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial, whereas, Criminal Petition No.7978 of 2009 is filed to quash the proceedings in D.V.C. No.10 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, Guntur district.


ISSUES:

Whether the Quash petition is liable to be dismissed? Whether the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is retrospective in operation?


DECISION:

It was held that the intention of the legislation is to provide certain remedies to the victims of domestic violence and also to prevent occurrence of domestic violence in the society.

Therefore, the acts of violence occurred prior to 25.10.2006 would come within the meaning of ‘domestic violence’ as defined under the Act. For the foregoing reasons, the Hon’ble Court is of the opinion that the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is retrospective in operation. It was thus held that there are no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings and both the Criminal Petitions are liable to be dismissed. The Criminal Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.

From para 22,

If a statute does not provide an offender liable to any penalty (conviction or sentence) in favour of the state, it can be said that legislation will be classified as remedial statute. Remedial statutes are known as welfare, beneficent or social justice oriented legislations. A remedial statute receives a liberal construction. In case of remedial statutes, doubt is resolved in favour of the class of persons for whose benefit the statute is enacted. Whenever a legislation prescribes a duty or penalty for breach of it, it must be understood that the duty is prescribed in the interest of the community or some part of it and the penalties prescribed as a sanction for its purpose. None of the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has direct penal consequences.

Mohit Yadam Vs State of A.P. on 13 November, 2009

Citations:

Other Sources:


Key Contributor:

Advocate Ms. Suprajaa Rajan (B.Com., LL.B.)
Cell:
Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Landmark Case Mohit Yadam Vs State of A.P. PWDV Act - Case Is Retrospectively Valid Sandeep Pamarati | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts
  • Newer posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal X Timeline

Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Follow

AP High Court Advocate with M Tech (CS) || 12 years in 'Software Industry' as Solution Architect || Blogs at https://t.co/29CB9BzK4w || #TDPTwitter

SandeepPamarati
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
kanekoathegreat KanekoaTheGreat @kanekoathegreat ·
2 Aug

RFK Jr. blasts CNN's Dana Bash over COVID:

BASH: "You're the HHS security and you're leading to vaccine hesitancy."

KENNEDY: "Do you see your job as ending vaccine hesitancy or telling the truth?"

BASH: "The truth is that there is study after study."

KENNEDY: "You're

Reply on Twitter 2084032302464860218 Retweet on Twitter 2084032302464860218 2081 Like on Twitter 2084032302464860218 9508 X 2084032302464860218
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
capitallens_ Pratham @capitallens_ ·
19h

Reality Check 🤐

A men tested 1 batch of Everest Garam Masala in lab costing ₹28,000.

After testing, the results that came will shock you:

Azoxystrobin (Pesticide used in Masala):

Limit~ 0.1 mg/kg
Actual~ 0.200 mg/kg
Difference~ 2x

Means according to FSSAI standards limits

Reply on Twitter 2084166590602563711 Retweet on Twitter 2084166590602563711 553 Like on Twitter 2084166590602563711 1825 X 2084166590602563711
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
sailu_jsp Sailu🦚 @sailu_jsp ·
16h

అదే Kalyan గారు అధికారంలోకి వచ్చిన 24 నెలలలో ఈ కళాకారుల కోసం ప్రత్యేకంగా "WoodBanks" ఏర్పాటుచేశారు👏🏻🙏🏻

"మీ దయ వలన అంకుడు కర్రకు ఐతే ఎటువంటి ఇబ్బంది లేకుండా అయ్యింది Sir '"🙏🏻😊

:- AP హస్తకళా ప్రదర్శన మహోత్సవంలో

మన Hon'ble @APDeputyCMO శ్రీ @PawanKalyan గారితో కళాకారులు ❣️

Reply on Twitter 2084209810027979069 Retweet on Twitter 2084209810027979069 75 Like on Twitter 2084209810027979069 218 X 2084209810027979069
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
hunterxtwt hunter @hunterxtwt ·
2 Aug

Reply on Twitter 2083781294614573423 Retweet on Twitter 2083781294614573423 1454 Like on Twitter 2083781294614573423 27719 X 2083781294614573423
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Ishwar Chand Sharma and Ors Vs State of U.P. on 29 May 2026 July 26, 2026
  • Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram and Anr Vs Sou Tula Namdeorao Jaipurkar and Anr on 21 Jul 2026 July 26, 2026
  • Shikha Lall Vs Prince Agarwal on 7 Nov 2024 July 21, 2026
  • Pranjal Poddar and Ors Vs Shivani Gupta on 21 Apr 2026 July 21, 2026
  • Sharad Kumar Pandey Vs Mamta Pandey on 1 Sep 2010 July 21, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation (5,145 views)
  • Charge Sheet and Final Report Explained (3,169 views)
  • Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC) (2,550 views)
  • Arrest Procedure in 498A cases after Arnesh Kumar (2,148 views)
  • Discharge Application Format in 498A Case – Draft, Procedure & Sample Template (2,086 views)
  • Can You Travel Abroad After an FIR Is Registered? – Legal Position Explained (2,053 views)
  • Life Cycle of a Perjury Case (2,028 views)
  • Application for Certified Copy of FIR – Format, Procedure and Sample Draft (1,771 views)
  • Appeal, Revision and Review Explained (1,741 views)
  • Life Cycle Stages of a Restitution of Conjugal Rights Case (1,703 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (439)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (424)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (387)Landmark Case (384)1-Judge Bench Decision (370)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (298)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (101)Sandeep Pamarati (91)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (80)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (71)Perjury Under Section 340 CrPC (70)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (62)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (44)CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents (43)HM Act Sec 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court (42)Divorce Granted on Cruelty ground (42)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (760)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (329)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (187)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (167)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (95)Legal Procedure (83)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (71)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (63)LLB Study Material (59)General Study Material (56)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (53)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (51)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (47)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (47)Prakasam DV Cases (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (44)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (28)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (28)

Recent Comments

  • vinod gupta on Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation
  • eCourts India on Compromise-Based Quashing in Matrimonial Cases – Complete Legal Strategy
  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case
  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case
  • ShadesOfKnife on Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (IPC 498A Case)

Archives of SoK

  • July 2026 (19)
  • June 2026 (19)
  • May 2026 (24)
  • April 2026 (33)
  • March 2026 (42)
  • February 2026 (30)
  • January 2026 (21)
  • December 2025 (2)
  • November 2025 (3)
  • October 2025 (17)
  • September 2025 (12)
  • August 2025 (5)
  • July 2025 (10)
  • June 2025 (15)
  • May 2025 (3)
  • April 2025 (10)
  • March 2025 (7)
  • February 2025 (8)
  • January 2025 (1)
  • December 2024 (3)
  • November 2024 (4)
  • October 2024 (16)
  • September 2024 (15)
  • August 2024 (14)
  • July 2024 (11)
  • June 2024 (18)
  • May 2024 (13)
  • April 2024 (9)
  • March 2024 (23)
  • February 2024 (15)
  • January 2024 (11)
  • December 2023 (11)
  • November 2023 (9)
  • October 2023 (13)
  • September 2023 (12)
  • August 2023 (15)
  • July 2023 (17)
  • June 2023 (11)
  • May 2023 (6)
  • April 2023 (5)
  • March 2023 (10)
  • February 2023 (9)
  • January 2023 (12)
  • December 2022 (12)
  • November 2022 (8)
  • October 2022 (13)
  • September 2022 (17)
  • August 2022 (10)
  • July 2022 (21)
  • June 2022 (27)
  • May 2022 (23)
  • April 2022 (32)
  • March 2022 (17)
  • February 2022 (6)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (7)
  • November 2021 (7)
  • October 2021 (6)
  • September 2021 (10)
  • August 2021 (31)
  • July 2021 (45)
  • June 2021 (17)
  • May 2021 (17)
  • April 2021 (18)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (28)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (35)
  • December 2019 (34)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (57)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (18)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (97)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Unitedmen Foundation a dedicated community forged with the mission to unite men facing legal challenges in marital disputes. 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Vinayak my2centsworth – This blog is for honest law abiding men, married or planning to get married 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • EWR (Newark) on 2026-09-02 September 2, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Sep 2, 05:00 - 09:00 UTC Jul 21, 15:30 UTC Scheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in EWR (Newark) datacenter on 2026-09-02 between 05:00 and 09:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window […]
    Cloudflare

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 141.98.84.74 | SD August 3, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 254 | First: 2026-07-13 | Last: 2026-08-03
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati and Advocate Suprajaa Rajan
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 461 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel