Find here the brief of judgments along with a copy of the judicial decision.
Share Us1. In which of the following cases, the Bombay HC allowed entry of women into the sanctum sanctorium inside the Haji Ali Dargah? A. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala B. Dr. Noorjehan Safia Niaz v. State of Maharashtra C. Khursheed Ahmed Khan v. State of U.P. D. Air India v. Nargesh …
MCQs based on Important Judgments, 2020 Read More »
Share UsA five judge bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of The State of Punjab and Ors. v. Davinder Singh and Ors has held that states can have sub-groups among SC/STs in the central List to provide preferential treatment to the “weakest of the weak.” The bench dissented with the judgment delivered by …
Sub-classification of castes can be made by States under SCs/STs says SC Read More »
Share UsIn the matter of Rhea Chakraborty v. State of Bihar & Ors., a single bench of Supreme Court ruled CBI investigation into the high profile suicide case of Actor Sushant Singh Rajput. The Supreme Court found no illegality in the registration of FIR by Bihar Police and refused to transfer the investigation to Mumbai …
CBI to probe Sushant’s case rules Supreme Court Read More »
Share UsIn the matter of Centre for Public Interest Litigation V. Union of India dated by a judgment 18.08.2020, a bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan of the Supreme Court dismissed the PIL filed by Centre for Public Interest Litigation by holding that PM CARES Fund a “public charitable trust” and “there is no occasion …
PM CARES Fund a “Public Charitable Trust” hence no need to audit by CAG: SC Read More »
Share UsBy a judgment dated 24 August 2017, a nine-judge constitutional bench of Supreme Court unanimously held that the Right to Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme court affirmed its decision in the matter of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, Justice Chandrachud wrote the majority judgment …
Right to Privacy is a fundamental right unanimously held by Supreme Court Read More »
Share UsIn the matter of Munish Kakkar v. Nidhi Kakkar, a two-judge bench of Supreme Court justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K M Joseph dissolved the marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage by invoking its constitutional power under Article 142. In the case before the SC, the couple had been living …
Divorce granted on the ground of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage by Supreme Court Read More »
Share UsThe Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of tweets by Civil Activist Lawyer Prashant Bhushan and held guilty for criminal contempt by exercising its power under Article 129 of the Constitution in the matter of In Re: Prashant Bhushan & Anr. dated Aug 14, 2020. A three-judge bench headed by Justices Arun Mishra, and …
Advocate Prashant Bhushan held guilty for criminal contempt by Supreme Court Read More »
Share UsIn the matter of Shayra Bano v. Union of India, dated Aug 22, 2017, a 5 judge bench of the Supreme Court by a ratio of 3:2 majority struck down triple talaq as violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The decision was rendered by a Bench of Chief Justice of India JS …
Triple Talaq held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court Read More »
Share UsIn the matter of M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors, dated November 09, 2019, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, read out a unanimous judgment of the five-judge Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of India (SC) comprising justices SA Bobde, Ashok Bhushan, DY Chandrachud and S Abdul …
Disputed land of Ayodhya given to Ram Lulla by Supreme Court Read More »
Share UsIn the matter of Mukesh Kumar & Others vs State of Uttarakhand and others, a bench of justices L Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta by a judgement dated 07 Feb, 2020 held that the State is not bound to make reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in matters of promotions. Reservation is not a Fundamental Right The Supreme …
Reservation in promotion is not a fundamental right held by Supreme Court Read More »
