Read 25 Important Judgment Of Supreme Court Of India Delivered In 2017

1.Right To Privacy Is A Fundamental RightSettling the decades long debate on the issue of the right to privacy being a fundamental right, the Supreme Court held that right to privacy is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In a unanimous decision, a nine -Judge Constitution Bench overruled the judgments in MP Sharma and Kharak Singh cases. The Petitions were disposed of in the following terms: The decision in M P Sharma that privacy is not a fundamental right stands overruled. The decision in Kharak Singh that privacy is not a fundamental right stands overruled. Right to privacy is protected as intrinsic part of right to life and liberty. All decisions subsequent to Kharak Singh makes the position clear and will hold the field.Read the Judgment Here2.Triple Talaq UnconstitutionalIn a landmark decision, Supreme Court of India declared the practice of Triple Talaq as unconstitutional by a 3:2 majority. While Justices Nariman and Lalit held that instant Triple Talaq is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 (Right to Equality), Justice Joseph struck down the practice on the ground that it goes against Shariat and the basic tenets of the Quran.Read the Judgment Here3.Placing Ordinance Before Legislature Mandatory; Re-Promulgation Fraud On The ConstitutionA seven Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar held that re-promulgation of ordinances is a fraud on the Constitution and a subversion of democratic legislative processes. The court also held that the satisfaction of the President under Article 123 and of the Governor under Article 213 while issuing ordinances is not immune from judicial review.With regard to the question of placing the Ordinance before the Legislature, the majority judgment authored by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud held that the requirement is mandatory. Justice M.B. Lokur, however, opined that it is directory in nature. Further, Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur, in his separate concurring opinion, observed, "I would, in that view, leave the question of interpretation of Articles 123 (2) and 213(2) in so far as the obligation of the Government to place the ordinance before the Parliament/legislature open."Read the Judgment Here4.Sex With Minor Wife Is RapeA two Judge Bench of Supreme Court held that sexual intercourse with minor (below 18 years) wife is rape. Justice Deepak Gupta in his Judgment Clarified that Section 198(6) of the CrPC will apply to cases of rape of “wives” below 18 years, and cognizance can be taken only in accordance with the provisions of Section 198(6) of the Code. To this end, the Court read down exception 2 to Section 375 (which defines rape) of the IPC (as amended by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013) which allowed such a sexual act. The age of consent has been made 18 from 15 in these cases.Read the Judgment Here5.Seeking Vote In The Name Of Religion/Caste Is Corrupt PracticeDelivering a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court held that seeking votes in the name of religion, caste or community amounted to corrupt practice and election of a candidate who indulged in it can be set aside. A seven judge constitution bench of the Court headed by Chief Justice T.S. Thakur passed the ruling by a 4:3 majority.The bench, while interpreting Section 123(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act, observed, "We will not go into the larger debate as to what is Hindutva or what is its meaning. We will not re-consider the 1995 judgement and also not examine Hindutva or religion at this stage.At this stage, we will confine ourselves to the issue raised before us in the reference. In the reference, there is no mention of the word ‘Hindutva’. If anybody will show that there is a reference to the word ‘Hindutva’, we will hear him. We will not go into Hindutva at this stage."Read the Judgment Here6.Death for Nirbhaya convictsSupreme Court of India upheld the death penalty of convicts in Nirbhaya rape and death case. In a voluminous judgment (430 pages), the bench opined that the attitude of the offenders amounted to “beastial proclivity” and that the incident “sounds like a story from a different world where humanity is treated with irreverence”. The three-Judge Bench comprising Justice Dipak Misra, Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Ashok Bhushan then dismissed the Appeals filed by the convicts, confirming the capital punishment awarded to them by the Trial Court. Read the Judgment Here7.High Court Judge Jailed for ContemptIn an unprecedented act, the Supreme Court sentenced Calcutta High Court Judge C.S. Karnan to 6 months in jail for contempt. “On merits, we are of the considered view, that Sri Justice C.S. Karnan, has committed contempt of the judiciary. His actions constitute contempt of this Court, and of the judiciary of the gravest nature. Having found him guilty of committing contempt, we convict him accordingly. We are satisfied to punish him by sentencing him to imprisonment for six months. As a consequence,...

Read 25 Important Judgment Of Supreme Court Of India Delivered In 2017

Ashok KM And Apoorva Mandhani

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ashok KM And Apoorva Mandhani

Read 25 Important Judgment Of Supreme Court Of India Delivered In 2017

Ashok KM And Apoorva Mandhani

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Ashok KM And Apoorva Mandhani

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers