A Full Bench of Apex Court held as follows:
Red Lynx Confederation Vs Union of India on 11 Sep 2020Issue notice to the learned Attorney General for India, calling upon the Union of India to justify the validity of section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 which virtually negates section 309 IPC.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/6356231/
A division bench of Kerala High Court struck down Sec 17 of Senior Citizens Act 2007 as it was ultravires with Sec 30 of Advocates Act 1961.
From Para 57,
Adv KG Suresh Vs UOI and Ors on 30 Mar 202157. As Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 has been brought into force from 15.06.2011, Advocates enrolled under the said Act have been conferred with an absolute right thereof, to practice before all the Courts and Tribunals. By virtue of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, coming into force, from 15.06.2011, the restriction imposed is taken away and in such circumstances, Article 19 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the freedom to practice any profession, enables the Advocates to appear before all the Courts and the Tribunals, subject to Section 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
In the light of the above discussion and decisions, Section 17 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, is declared as ultra vires of Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and thus, the petitioner is entitled for a declaration that he has a right to represent the parties before the Tribunal/ Appellate Tribunal/Court, constituted under Act 56 of 2007. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://www.legalservicesindia.com/law/article/1924/39/Advocates-Entitled-To-Appear-In-Maintenance-Tribunals;-Bar-On-Legal-Representation-Unconstitutional-Kerala-HC
Relying on decision of the Division bench of Kerala High Court, Justice Prathiba M Singh also struck down Sec 17 of of Senior Citizens Act 2007 as it was ultra-vires with Sec 30 of Advocates Act 1961.
From Para 4,
4. Insofar as the first issue is concerned, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Adv. K.G. Suresh v. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 21946/2011, decided on 30th March, 2021]. He submits that Section 17 of the Act has been declared to be ultra vires Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
From Para 9,
9. In view of the above, since Section 17 has been declared ultra vires Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961, it would obviously mean that an advocate would have the right to represent parties before the Tribunal under the Act. Ordered accordingly.
Taruna Saxena Vs Union of India and Ors on 16 Apr 2021
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/86693117/
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/taruna-saxena-versus-union-of-india-ors
A division bench of Gauhati High Court held in this Writ Appeal that, CBI to be an unconstitutional body.
Navendra Kumar Vs Union of India on 06 Nov 2013Citations : [2013 SCC ONLINE GAU 305], [2014 GAU LR 1 529], [2014 AIC 133 743], [2013 CRI LJ 5009]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/133280611/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56eaac16607dba3c8ce40e16
The above Judgment and Order was stayed in 3 days time by a Division bench of Supreme Court.
Union of India Vs Navendra Kumar on 09 Nov 2013Last update from Supreme Court website is this…
Union of India Vs Navendra Kumar on 26 Jun 2019Relying on landmark judgment of Apex Court here, a Division bench of AP High Court comprising the Chief Justice held that the rule [Rule 5(2)(a)(i) of Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007] which mandates 3 years of practice as requirement from Junior Civil Judge positions in State of AP was unconstitutional and the Notification issued on 03 Dec 2020 was set aside.
U.Surekha Vs State of AP on 04 Mar 2021Another case got filed at Supreme Court here which was later withdrawn.
Orissa High Court held the NRIS Quota as an affront and unconstitutional.
Ishika Patnaik Vs National Law University of Odisha and Ors on 20 Oct 202011. Before parting with this case, we are constrained to observe that the NRIS category is an affront to the meritorious candidates who toiled day night to secure seats in NLUs through CLAT. The candidates belonging to the category of NRI/NRIS, who are very low ranked in the merit list often gets seat in the NLUs whereas the general candidates having secured better marks also lag behind the NRIS students and get disappointed. This is like the reservation for the elite class and this dubious category of quota is unconstitutional. The eligibility and selection under this category are unregulated, illegal and arbitrary. Even the apex court has observed in P. A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra that admissions under this category is given to less meritorious students just because they could afford to pay the higher fees demanded by the University. The Consortium of NLUs, the Bar Council of India and all the stake holders involved in the process should revisit the so-called NRIS quota and prepare a proper regulation and system while implementing this quota. Several studies reveal that the selection process under this NRIS quota is quite vague, undefined and is based on inconsistent parameters. This Court calls upon the relevant stake holders especially the Bar Council of India, which is mandated to regulate the legal education in this country to ensure that a uniform and well-defined parameter are adopted so that the meritorious candidates do not suffer. The elitist approach to selected group in CLAT Admission process must be restricted. It is imperative that this issue needs to be settled within a shortest possible time to assuage the pains of the unselected due to poor rank.
Chief Justice Gita Mittal in a Division Bench passed the order holding the ‘The Jammu and Kashmir State Land (Vesting of Ownership to the Occupants) Act, 2001’ as Unconstitutional. Thereby, all the orders, transactions made on the strength of this Act and corresponding Rule are void ab initio.
Prof. S. K. Bhalla Vs State of JnK and Ors on 09 Oct 2020Citations :
Other Sources :
The Amendment Act brought by Karnataka Legislature was struck down as Unconstitutional and untravires to Parent Law, NLSIU Act 1986.
This apart, the Court held that the 5% concession to be given to Karnataka students (under the 25% domicile reservation) would tamper with the merit list, and therefore, is not permissible under the ambit of Article 14.
Master Balachandar Krishnan Vs State of Karnataka on 29 Sep 2020IPC 377 – unnatural offences was struck down as Unconstitutional by Supreme Court.
Navtej Singh Johar Vs Union of India on 6 September, 2018Citations: [(2018) 10 SCC 1], [2018 SCC OnLine SC 1350],
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/168671544/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5b965a9618a6816e6598fd54
Based on Joseph Shine landmark judgment here, Supreme Court has struck down the adultery section 497 in the Jammu and Kashmir Ranbir Penal Code 1932 as well.
Col. Rajnish Bhandari Vs Union of India on 02 August, 2019
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
Bad Behavior has blocked 4371 access attempts in the last 7 days.
