Nitika, B.A. LL.B. LPU
LATEST JUDJEMENTS IN 2017:
1. Supreme court order on prohibiting sale of the liquor with 500 meters from the national and state highways has come as a shochker to many of the states.
2. (08-05-17) Godrej and Boyce manufacturing company ltd. Vs. DY commissioner of an income tax.
SC held that section 14A of income tax would apply to a dividend income on which tax is payble under the section 115 of the act.
3. Pawan kumar gupta Vs. BR gupta.
SC held that condonation of the delay in payments of rent can take place only when defaulting tenant sue pleads with justifiable reason.
4. SC in Samir vidya sagar Bhardwaj Vs. Nandita Samir Bhardwaj
Upheld an interim order by family court in Maharashtra, which directed a husband to remove himself from his home and not to visit there until the divorce petition under challenge is finally decided.
5. SC court on Monday(03-07-17)
Issued notice to the centre on PIL seeking complete ban on the practice of female genital multilation or khatra, and demanding that it be declared as a contempt for the wilfull disobedience of SC’s order. The bench has directed him to personally appear before the court on july 10 to declare the sentence.
6. Heera lal Vs. State of Rajasthan.
In this, it held that in case of the sucide of wife, acquitted of the relatives or husband under section 498A of IPC will bar prosecution to use the presumption available under section 113A of evidence Act prove abetment to suicide under section 306 IPC.
7. Dayal singh and ors. Vs. State of Uttranchal.
It involves 3 main Important issues:
In this, it is held that where there is an inconsistency with the medical evidence (post martom) and an eye witness, the reliable testimony of an eye witness shall prevail.
8. (23-03-17) Ram krishan Fauji Vs. State of Haryana and ors.
It is held that an intra-court appeal cannot be filed before the devision bench of the High Court if a single bench judge has passed the order in a court of the criminal case.
9.(02-01-17) Abhiram singh Vs. C.D commachen(DEAD) by LRS and ors. New Delhi.
Seeking votes on the ground of religion is an unconstitutional. Hon’ble SC ban on seeking votes over religion, race or caste, community or language would not be allowed to play any role in the eclectoral process. Section 123(3) of the Representation of the people Act defines as “corrupt practice” appeals made by a candidate or his agents to the voting for any person on the ground of his religion, race, caste, community or language. The constitution forbids state from the mixing religion with the politics,” ruled a seven judge constitution bench headed by the cheif justice T.S cheif justice thakur, judges S.A Bobde, Adarsh kumar Goel and L Nagesware Rao and Madam B. Lokur formed the majority opinion. Three judges Adarsh kumar Goel, U.U Lalit and D.Y Chandrachud argued againt it maintaining this was the prerogative of parliament.
10. Landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of an India conflicted VK sarikala , Ilavarasi and Sudha-Karan in the disproportionate assets case.
11. Landmark judgement on RIGHT TO PRIVACY by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Justice K.S Puttaswamy and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors by nine bench judgement by saying the following terms:
At last, the right of privacy is an inherent right, be unequivocally a fundamental right embedded in part III of the constitution of India.
It is imperative that if any individual or group of persons, by their action or caustic and inflammatory speech are bent upon sowing seeds of mutual hatred, and their proposed activities are likely to create disharmony and disturb the equilibrium, sacrificing public peace and tranquillity, strong action and more so, preventive action are essentially and virtually needed to be taken. any speech or action which would result in ostracisation of communal harmony would destroy all those high values which the Constitution aim at. Whenever the authorities concerned in charge of law and order find that a person’s speeches or action are likely to trigger communal antagonism and hatred resulti9ng in fissiparous tendencies gaining foothold, undermining and effecting communal harmony, prohibitory orders need necessarily to be passed to effectively avert such untoward happenings. It was also held that no person, however big he may be or claim to be, should be allowed irrespective of the position be may assume or claim to hold in public to either act in a manner or make speeches which would destroy secularism recognised by the constitution. Communal harmony should not be made to suffer and be made dependent upon the will of an individual or group of individuals, whatever e their religion, be it of a minority or that of majority. Persons belonging to different religions must feel assured that they can live in peace with the persons belonging to other religion.
Since freedom under Article 25 belongs to every person, the freedom of one cannot encroach upon similar freedom belonging to other person. The right guaranteed under this Article does not extend to creating hatred amongst two groups of persons practicing different religion.
Also that, a religious speech may be restricted on the ground that it is injurious to national security or safety which is indicated by the expression ‘security of the state’ in Article 19 (2).
In other context, namely, election, the Supreme Court in Vimal v. Bhagiji [AIR 1995 SC 1836] has held that the use of religion for electioneering has been made punishable by section 123 (3) and 123 (3A) of Representation of People’s Act.
Thus, where the speech is used for a religious purpose, e.g, for the purpose of professing or propagating one’s religion, it should be subjected to the limitations which are imposed by Article 19 (2) as held in Subhash Desai v. Sharad J. Rao, [AIR 1994 SC 2277].