1874. Tarakeswar Case............

This case was so (for lack of a better word) 'popular', that au

thorities had to sell tickets to let people come inside the sessions court. And
the story itself is nothing short of a blockbuster. Nobin Chandra slit the thro
at of his 16-year old wife, Elokeshi, who was apparently having an affair with
themahant of the local Tarakeswar temple. Even though Nobin Chandra handed himse
lf over to the police and confessed his crime, the locals were mostly on his sid
e. The police had to let him go after two years, even though he was serving a li
fe imprisonment while themahant was arrested and put behind bars for three years.
Alternatively, there were also rumours that the mahant had raped Elokeshi on th
e pretext of helping her out with "fertility issues".This case was really importa
nt for that time period because this was seen by the society as one of those mo
ments where the British rulers meddled in the affairs of the Bengalibhadralok an
d a temple priest, something that was very rare back in those days.............
(1921-1946) Bhawal Case.............
It's still regarded as one of India's weirdest identity cases.
It mainly revolved around a possible impostor who claimed to be the prince of B
hawal Estate, one which comprised over 2000 villages and was one of undivided B
engal's largest zamindariestates. Ramendra, the secondkumar of the Bhawal estate
died in the early 20th century, but there were rumours about him not really bein
g dead. Ten years later, in 1921, asanyaasiwho looked a lot like Ramendra was found
wandering the streets of Dhaka. For some reason, the former tenants and farmer
s of Ramendra vouched for this man and also supported his claim to the title. A
lmost everyone except Ramendra's widow, Bibhabati, believed him. There was a lon
g legal process involving two trials where both sides attempted to prove their c
laims. In the meantime, the new Ramendra also moved to Calcutta and where he was
welcomed in the elite circles. He used to regularly collect 1/3rd of the estat
e revenue, which was his share. He used that money to support his lifestyle whil
e also paying the legal fees of the case. In the end, in 1946, the court finall
y ruled in his favour, but soon after that he passed away due to a stroke he had
suffered a couple of days earlier..............

Now. . 1950. Gopalan case............

, the Supreme Court has taken the narrow interpretation of the Article 21. It h
eld that the protection under Article 21 is available only against arbitrary exe
cutive action and not from arbitrary legislative action. This means that the Sta
te can deprive the right to life and personal liberty of a person based on a la
w. This is because of the expression procedure established by law in Article 21,
which is different from the expression due process of law contained in the Americ
an Constitution. Hence, the validity of a law that has prescribed a procedure c
annot be questioned on the ground that the law is unreasonable, unfair or unjust
. Secondly, the Supreme Court held. that the personal liberty means only liberty r
elating to the person or body of the individual.............
Now. . 1951.

Champakam Dorairajan case............

the Supreme Court ruled that in case of any conflict between

the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles, the Fundame

ntal Rights would prevail. It declared that the

Directive Principles have to conform to and run as subsidiary to
the Fundamental Rights. But, it also
held that the Fundamental Rights could be amended by the Parliam
ent by enacting constitutional
amendments acts. As a result, the Parliament made the First Amen
dment Act (1951), Delhi Laws Act in 1951.. the Fourth
Amendment Act (1955) and the Seventeenth Amendment Act (1964) to
implement some of the
Directives.
Now. . 1951.

Shankari Prasad case............

the constitutional validity of the First Amendment

Act (1951), which curtailed the right to property, was challenge
d. The Supreme Court ruled that the
power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article
368 also includes the power to
amend Fundamental Rights. The word law in Article 13 includes only
ordinary laws and not the
constitutional amendment acts (constituent laws). Therefore, the
Parliament can abridge or take away
any of the Fundamental Rights by enacting a constitutional amen
dment act and such a law will not be
void under Article 13.............
Now. . 1956.

The Inter-State Water Disputes Act of 1956............

has excluded the original jurisdiction of the

Supreme Court in disputes between states with respect to the use
, distribution or control of the
water of inter-state river or river valley.
Now. . 1958

Kerala Education Bill in 1958.............

Now. . 1959.. K.M. Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra............

This case was the last time there was a jury trial in India. KM
Nanavati, a naval of ficer, murdered his wife's lover, Prem Ahuja. A jury trial
was held to decide whether it was a crime of passion (carrying a ten year sente
nce) or pre-meditated murder (life imprisonment) to which Nanavati plead 'not gu
ilty'. The jury ruled in favour of him but the verdict was dismissed by the Bom
bay High Court and the case was retried as a bench trial.............

Now. . 1959.. State of Orissa vs Ram Bahadur Thapa............

This is a bizarre one. Ram Bahadur Thapa was the servant of one
J.B. Chatterjee of Chatterjee Bros. firm in Calcutta. They had come to Rasogovi
ndpur, a village in Balasore district in Orissa to purchase aeroscrap from an ab
andoned aerodrome outside the village. Because it was abandoned, the locals beli
eved it was haunted. This piqued the curiosity of Chatterjee who wanted to "see
the ghosts". At night, as they were making their way to the aerodrome they saw
a flickering light within the premises which, due to the strong wind, seemed to

move. They thought it waswill-o'-the-wisp.Thapa jumped into action as he unleashed

hiskhukri to attack the "ghosts". Turns out, they were local adivasi women with
a hurricane lantern who had gathered under a mohua tree to collect some flowers.
Thapa's indiscriminate hacking caused the death of one Gelhi Majhiani and inju
red two other women. The Sessions court judge however, acquitted Thapa declaring
that his actions were the result of a stern belief in ghosts and that in the m
oment, Thapa believed that they were lawfully justified. ............

Now. . 1960.
Now. . 1961.
Now. . 1963.
Now. . 1964.
islature in 1964.
Now. . 1965.
Now. . 1967

Berubari Union.
O Steam Navigation Company case
Sea Customs Act in 1963.
Keshav Singh s case relating to the privileges of the Leg
Kasturilal case.
Golaknath Vs. the state of Punjab...........

In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Parliament cannot take away or a
bridge any of the Fundamental Rights, which are sacrosanct in nature. In other wo
rds, the Court held that the Fundamental Rights cannot be amended for the implem
entation of the Directive Principles.
The Parliament reacted to the Supreme Court s judgement in the Gol
aknath Case (1967.) by enacting the 24th Amendment Act (1971.) and the 25th Amen
dment Act (1971.) . The 24th Amendment Act declared that the Parliament has the
power to abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights by enacting Constit
utional Amendment Acts. The 25th Amendment Act inserted a new Article 31C which
contained the following two provisions:............
No law which seeks to implement the socialistic Directive Principles specified
in Article 39 (b.) 22 and (c.) 23 shall be void on the ground of contravention
of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Article 14 (equality before law and equ
al protection of laws.) , Article 19 (protection of six rights in respect of
speech, assembly, movement, etc.) or Article 31 (right to property.)
In a land mark judgment Supreme Court made it clear that no cons
titutional amendments can be made on the part 3 of the constitution and there b
y fundamental rights cannot be abridged by the legislature. By this pronouncemen
t the Supreme Court has retraced its own judgment in Shankari Prasad case and Sa
jjan Singh vs. state of Rajasthan case that the fundamental rights can be amend
ed.
To remove the difficulties in the process the government in the
24th amendment amended article 368 empowering the legislature the power to amend
the constitution.............
Now. . 1970

Bank Nationalisat-ion case.

Now. . 1970

In Cooper case............

the Supreme Court held that

the President s satisfaction can be questioned in a court on the g
round of malafide. This means that the
decision of the President to issue an ordinance can be question
ed in a court on the ground that the
President has prorogued one House or both Houses of Parliament
deliberately with a view to
promulgate an ordinance on a controversial subject, so as to byp

ass the parliamentary decision and

thereby circumventing the authority of the Parliament. The 38th
Constitutional Amendment Act of
1975 made the President s satisfaction final and conclusive and be
yond judicial review. But, this
provision was deleted by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act o
f 1978. Thus, the President s
satisfaction is justiciable on the ground of malafide.
Now. . 1971

Privy Purses Abolition case............

Now. . 1972
Originally, only those civil cases that involved a sum o
f `20,000 could be appealed before the
Supreme Court. But this monetary limit was removed by the 30th C
onstitutional Amendment Act of
Now. . 1973
It was on April 24, 1973, that
Ref.. the Supreme Court first propounded the doctrine of
basic structu
re or basic features ............
Now. . 1995

Kesavananda Bharati Case.

for the first time in the historic case of Kesavananda Bharati

(1973). It was urged that the Preamble
cannot be amended as it is not a part of the Constitution. The
petitioner contended that the amending
power in Article 368 cannot be used to destroy or damage the bas
ic elements or the fundamental
features of the Constitution, which are enshrined in the Preamb
le.
in the Kesavananda Bharati case , the Supreme Court ruled that t
he constituent power of Parliament under Article 368 does not
enable it to alter the basic structure of the Constitution. It ob
served that the Preamble is of extreme importance and
the Constitution should be read and interpreted in the light of
the grand and noble vision expressed in
the Preamble.
The Court stated that the opinion tendered by it in the Berubari
Union (1960) in this regard was wrong, and held that
the Preamble can be amended, subject to the condition that no am
endment is done to the basic
features . In other words, the Court held that the basic elements
or the fundamental features of the
Constitution as contained in the Preamble cannot be altered by a
n amendment under Article 368

Now. . 1973

Kesavananda Bharti vs State of Kerala............

If there's one reason India can still call itself 'the world's l
argest democracy', it is this case. Swami Kesavananda Bharti ran a Hindu Mutt in
Edneer village in Kerala but the state wanted to appropriate the land. Bharti,
who was consulted by noted jurist Nanabhoy Palhkivala, filed a petition claiming

that a religious institution had the right to run its business without governme
nt interference. The State invoked Article 31 which states "no person shall be d
eprived of his property save by authority of law." A bench of 13 judges delib
erated on the facts of the case and through a narrow 7-6 majority, formulated t
he Basic Structure Doctrine, which puts some restrictions to how much the Parlia
ment can amend the Constitutional laws. In many ways, the judgement here is cons
idered to be a big middle finger to the then Central government under Indira Gan
dhi. Soon after, the emergency followed.
In this landmark judgment Supreme Court first kicked the Hornet s
nest in the name of the basic structure of constitution. In this case the Gola
knath case was over ruled and parliament regained the power of amending but Sup
reme Court explicitly said that the legislature by virtue of the amending power
cannot change the basic structure of the constitution. But what constitutes th
e basic structure was not specified. To remove the constitutional hurdles in an
amendment the government inserted clause 4 and 5 in the article 368 which mentio
ns that limited power of amendment is a basic structure of constitution.
Now. . 1972

Mathura Rape Case............

This is one of the most important cases in the country, because

the protests that followed the verdict, forced some important changes in rape l
aws in India. Mathura, a young tribal woman, was raped by two constables within
the premises of the Desai Ganj Police Station in Chandrapur district of Mahara
shtra. The Sessions court judge found the accused not guilty. The reasoning behi
nd this was (believe it or not) that Mathura was habituated to sexual intercours
e. This, according to the judge, clearly implied that the sexual act in the poli
ce station was consensual. The amendments to the law that were forced by the pro
tests got one thing right - submission does not mean consent.

Now. . 1973
Now. . 1974
Now. . 1975

The Criminal Procedure Code (1973).

Presidential Election in 1974.
Lal Bihari Identity Case (1975-1994)

Lal Bihari, was born in 1955; was dead through 1975 to 1994, and
since then he has been an activist. Yes, you read that right. His
uncle had bribed government of ficials to declare him dead so as
to inherit their ancenstral land, and so, as per of ficial records, Mr Lal Biha
ri was registered as 'deceased'. Once he realized what had happened, he started
his struggle against the Indian bureaucracy to prove that he was alive. In the m
eantime, he performed his mock funeral, asked for widow's compensation for his w
ife, stood in the election against Rajiv Gandhi in 1989 and even added a 'Mritak
' to his name. As of now, he heads an organization that tries to handle similar
identity cases for people who have been of ficially declared dead but are actua
lly still alive.............

Now. . 1976

ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla case.............

His dissenting judgement upholding the right to life

the case was not appreciated by the Government.

even during emergency in

Now. . 1978
But, in Menaka case12 (1978), the Supreme Court overrule
d its judgement in the Gopalan

case by taking a wider interpretation of the Article 21. Theref

ore, it ruled that the right to life and
personal liberty of a person can be deprived by a law provided
the procedure prescribed by that law
is reasonable, fair and just. In other words, it has introduced
the American expression due process of
law . In effect, the protection under Article 21 should be availab
le not only against arbitrary
executive action but also against arbitrary legislative action.
Further, the court held that the right to
life as embodied in Article 21 is not merely confined to animal e
xistence or survival but it includes
within its ambit the right to live with human dignity and all th
ose aspects of life which go to make a
man s life meaningful, complete and worth living. It also ruled th
at the expression Personal Liberty
in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variet
y of rights that go to constitute the
personal liberties of a man.
Now. .

Special Courts Bill in 1978.

Now. . 1980
Minerva Mills case However, the Supreme Court in the Mine
rva Mills case (1980) invalidated this provision as it
excluded judicial review which is a basic feature of the Constitu
tion. Applying the doctrine of
basic structure with respect to Article 368, the court held that:
the 42nd Amendment Act accorded the
position of legal primacy and supremacy to the Directive Princi
ples over the Fundamental Rights
conferred by Articles 14, 19 and 31. However, this extension was
declared as unconstitutional and
invalid by the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case25 (1980).
It means that the Directive
Principles were once again made subordinate to the Fundamental R
ights. But the Fundamental Rights
conferred by Article 14 and Article 19 were accepted as subordin
ate to the Directive Principles
specified in Article 39 (b) and (c). Further, Article 31 (right
to property) was abolished by the 44th
Amendment Act (1978).
In the Minerva Mills case12 (1980), the Supreme Court held that t
he Indian Constitution is founded
on the bedrock of the balance between the Fundamental Rights an
d the Directive Principes.
in the Minerva Mills case, (1980), the Supreme Court held that t
he proclamation of a
national emergency can be challenged in a court on the ground of
malafide or that the declaration was
based on wholly extraneous and irrelevant facts or is absurd or
perverse.
Minnerva Mills vs. the union of India and other states
In this case the Supreme Court over ruled that amending power is
a basic structure of constitution.
By this time the legislative and the judiciary in India were at
loggerheads.

Now. . 1982

First Judges case (1982),.............

the Court held that consultation

does not mean concurrence and it only implies exchange of views
. But, in the Second Judges case
(1993), the Court reversed its earlier ruling and changed the me
aning of the word consultation to
concurrence. Hence, it ruled that the advice tendered by the Chi
ef Justice of India is binding on the
President in the matters of appointment of the judges of the
Supreme Court. But, the Chief Justice
would tender his advice on the matter after consulting two of h
is seniormost colleagues. Similarly, in
the third judges case2 (1998), the Court opined that the consult
ation process to be adopted by the
Chief justice of India requires consultation of plurality judge
s . The sole opinion of the chief justice
ofIndia does not constitute the consultation process. He should
consult a collegium of four seniormost
judges of the Supreme Court and even if two judges give an adve
rse opinion, he should not send the
recommendation to the government. The court held that the recomm
endation made by the chief justice
of India without complying with the norms and requirements of t
he consultation process are not
binding on the government.
Now. . 1982.

Jammu and Kashmir Resettlement Act in 1982.

Now. . 1985.

Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum (1985)

62-year old mother of five, Shah Bano Begum was divorced by her
husband, Mohd. Ahmed Khan. She filed a criminal suit against him in the Supreme
Court and claimed alimony, which was then granted to her. But then the Islamic
orthodoxy protested the judgement claiming the practice of granting alimony as
anti-Islamic. The Congress government, which was in power back then, succumbed t
o the pressure and passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Ac
t, 1986 which diluted the Supreme Court judgement and further denied destitute M
uslim divorcees the right to alimony from their ex-husbands. This case is regula
rly mentioned during talks about 'Uniform Civil Code' in the country.
Now. . 1987.

D C Wadhwa case............

is highly relevant here. In

that case, the court pointed out
that between 1967 1981 the Governor of Bihar promulgated 256
ordinances and all these were kept in force for periods ranging
from one to fourteen years by
repromulgation from time to time. The court ruled that successiv
e repromulgation of ordinances with
the same text without any attempt to get the bills passed by the
assembly would amount to violation of
the Constitution and the ordinance so repromulgated is liable to
be struck down. It held that the
exceptional power of law-making through ordinance cannot be use
d as a substitute for the legislative
power of the state legislature.

Now. . 1992

In the famous Mandal case............

the scope and extent of Article 16(4), which provides for

reservation of jobs in favour of backward classes, has been ex
amined thoroughly by the Supreme
Court. Though the Court has rejected the additional reservation
of 10% for poorer sections of higher
castes, it upheld the constitutional validity of 27% reservatio
n for the OBCs with certain conditions,
viz,
(a) The advanced sections among the OBCs (the creamy layer) shou
ld be excluded from the list of
beneficiaries of reservation.
(b) No reservation in promotions; reservation should be confined
to initial appointments only.
Any existing reservation in promotions can continue for five yea
rs only (i.e., upto 1997).
(c) The total reserved quota should not exceed 50% except in som
e extraordinary situations. This
rule should be applied every year.
(d) The carry forward rule in case of unfilled (backlog) vacancie
s is valid. But it should not
violate 50% rule.
(e) A permanent statutory body should be
Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal in 1992.............
Now. . 1993

Rama Janma Bhumi case............

Second Judges case (1993), he Supreme Court ruled that no appoin

tment of a judge of the high
court can be made, unless it is in conformity with the opinion o
f the chief justice of India.............
Now. . 1993

In re Presidential Reference (1998).............

The president sought the Supreme Court s opinion (under Article 143) on certain d
oubts over the consultation process to be adopted by the chief justice of India
as stipulated in the 1993 case.............
Now. . 1993

Supreme Court Advocates v. Union of India (1993)........

.....
Now. . 1994
In Bommai case16 (1994), the Supreme Court laid down tha
t the Constitution is federal and
characterised federalism as its basic feature . It observed: The fac
t that under the scheme of our
Constitution, greater power is conferred upon the Centre vis-a-v
is the states does not mean that the
states are mere appendages of the Centre. The states have an in
dependent constitutional existence.
They are not satellites or agents of the Centre. Within the sph
ere allotted to them, the states are

supreme. The fact that during emergency and in certain other eve
ntualities their powers are
overridden or invaded by the Centre is not destructive of the e
ssential federal feature of the
Constitution. They are exceptions and the exceptions are not a r
ule. Let it be said that the federalism
in the Indian Constitution is not a matter of administrative co
nvenience, but one of principle the
outcome of our own process and a recognition of the ground real
ities .
In fact, the federalism in India represents a compromise between
the following two conflicting
considerations.. . But, the court did not uphold the validity of
the
imposition of the President s Rule in Nagaland in 1988, Karnataka
in 1989 and Meghalaya in 1991.
Dr B R Ambedkar, while replying to the critics of this provisio
n in the Constituent Assembly, hoped
that the drastic power conferred by Article 356 would remain a de
ad-letter and would be used only
as a measure of last resort. He observed............
Now. . 1994.

Nagendra Rao Case............

Now. . 1995.

. In the LIC of India case............

the Supreme Court again held that the Preamble is an integral part
of the Constitution.REFER 1973............

Now. . 1997.

In the Chandra Kumar case............

the Supreme Court ruled that the writ jurisdiction of both the
high court and the Supreme Court constitute a part of the basic
structure of the Constitution. Hence, it cannot be ousted or ex
cluded even by way of an amendment to the Constitution.
-Now. . 1997

Vishakha and Others vs. State of Rajasthan (1997)

Before the Vishakha Guidelines came in, the workplace was danger
ous for many women especially in case of sexual harassment. In 1992, Bhanwari D
evi was gang-raped by upper caste men in her village because she tried to raise
her voice against child-marriage. Due to gross negligence, the vaginal swabs col
lected from her body were taken 48 hours after the incident. Ideally, it should
be done so within 24 hours. Shockingly, the judge presiding over her case (this
was the seventh judge after six others were removed) acquitted the accused, even
going so far to say, "Since the of fenders were upper-caste men and included a
brahmin, the rape could not have taken place because Bhanwari was from a lower c
aste." Following the outrage over this acquittal, Vishakha and some other women'
s groups filed a PIL against the State of Rajasthan and the Union of India, fo
rcing the latter to adopt the Vishakha Guidelines which now protects working wom
en all over the country.
Now. . 1998
In the Third Judges case (1998), the Supreme Court opine
d that in case of the appointment of high court judges,
the chief justice of India should consult a collegium of two s
enior-most judges of the Supreme Court.

Thus, the sole opinion of the chiefjustice of India alone does

not constitute the consultation process. In the Third Judges case (1998), the Supr
eme Court opined that in case of the transfer of high court
judges, the Chief Justice of India should consult, in addition
to the collegium of four seniormost
judges of the Supreme Court, the chief justice of the two high
courts (one from which the judge is
being transferred and the other receiving him). Thus, the sole o
pinion of the chiefjustice of India does
not constitute the consultation process.
.Consultation process to be adopted by the chiefjustice of India
in 1998.
Now. . 1999
Common Cause Case..
the rule of State liability as laid down in P. & O.
Steam Navigation Company case is very outmoded. It said that in
modern times when the State
activities have been considerably increased it is very difficult
to draw a line between its sovereign
and non-sovereign functions.
2001
Legislative competence of the Centre and States on the subject
of natural gas and liquefied
natural gas in 2001.
2002
The constitutional validity of the Election Commission s decision
on deferring the Gujarat
Assembly Elections in 2002.
2004
-2004

Punjab Termination of Agreements Act in 2004.

Tamil Nadu Vs Suhas Katti (2004)

What: The first case involving conviction under the Information

Technology Act, 2000, related to the posting of obscene messages on the Interne
t.
2006

Om Prakash Vs Dil Bahar (2006)

What: A rape accused could now be convicted on the sole evidence

of the victim, even if medical evidence did not prove rape
2011
The Anchorage Case (2011)
What: Restoration of the conviction and sentence of six-year r
igorous imprisonment imposed on two British nationals who were acquitted by the
Bombay High Court in a pedophilia case.
2G spectrum case: The court ventured into hitherto little-known
territory the politicocorporate nexus in the aftermath of the Radia tapes, which es
calated attention on the telecom spectrum scanda
Vodafone-Hutch deal: Few foreign companies expected India s tax de
partment to pursue Vodafone s $11 billion (around Rs. 56,980 crore today) acquisit
ion of Hutchison Whampoa? s Indian operations
CVC: The annulment of P.J. Thomas appointment as the chief vigil
ance commissioner (CVC) was viewed by some quarters as harsh, and they argued th
at Thomas was a victim of political rivalry in Kerala, his home cadre
Bellary mining ban: The clampdown on iron ore mining in Bellary
(which later became mining of all kinds) was the first combative step taken by
a public entity to curb illegalities in Karnataka for over a decade
Meghalaya mining: Multinational cement major Lafarge was allowed
to resume limestone mining after 17 months in Meghalaya s East Khasi Hill
Black money SIT: The black money petition simply demanded that t
he government should recover all the untaxed money stashed away in European bank

accounts
Salwa Judum: A state-sponsored guerilla army that also allegedly
engaged children in combat, was declared illegal and unconstitutional
Experiments in the classroom: The Right to Education case dealt
with radically changing the composition of children in schools
Land acquisition in UP: The Uttar Pradesh land acquisition cases
saw a strong statement from the court, which deemed those acquisitions in which
the government took land for one purpose and used it for another
Right to Food: The decade-old Right to Food case saw the court f
ace of f against the government and the Planning Commission multiple times on wh
ere to draw the poverty line, and how to divide food subsidies between the Centr
e and the states
2012
2G spectrum case verdict and the mandatory auctioning of natura
l resources across all sectors
in 2012.
-2012 The Nirbhaya Case (2012) What: 4 out of 5 rape accused received
the death sentence and as a result of this case the rape law was amended to gob
eyond penile-vaginal intercourse. The new definition penalizes penetration of a
ny orifice of the woman with any part of the man s body or with any object.
-2013 Lily Thomas vs Union of India (2013)
What: Any Member of Parliament (MP), Member of the Legislative
Assembly (MLA) or Member of a Legislative Council (MLC) who is convicted of a
crime with more than two year sentence, will be disqualified as an elected repr
esentative on the date of conviction.
-2013 Curbing the sale of Acid . What: The court said that acid should
be sold only to people who show a valid identity card. Buyers will also have exp
lain why they need the chemical and sales will have to be reported to the police
.
-2013 Cheap cancer drugs What: The Supreme Court rejected a patent plea
by Swiss drugmaker Novartis AG for cancer drug Glivec, boosting the case for ch
eaper drugs for life-threatening diseases.
-2013 Social Media.. What: In view of public outrage over people bein
g arrested for making comments or liking posts on Facebook, Centre had on Januar
y 9 issued advisory to all states and UTs asking them not to arrest a person in
such cases without prior approval of a senior police of ficer.
-2013 Re-opening dance bars What: The Supreme Court on July 16 gave its
go-ahead to the reopening of Dance Bars in the maximum city and elsewhere in t
he state.
-2013 NOTA (2013) What: Right to negative vote. Case Speak: On October
14, the Supreme Court recognised the right to negative vote for the electorate
in the country. The voters will now have a None of the Above option if they don t f
eel that the candidates deserve a vote. Negative voting will lead to systemic cha
nge in polls and political parties will be forced to project clean candidates. I
f the right to vote is a statutory right, then the right to reject candidate is
a fundamental right of speech and expression under Constitution, the court said.
2013
Section 377 (2013) What: Criminalisation of unnatural sex which i
ncludes gay sex, sex with animals, sex with minors and fellatio.
2014
5. NALSA vs Union of India (2014)
This is the landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India whi
ch declared that Transgendered People were the 'third gender' and that they had
equal rights as any other gender. The petitioner in this case was the National L
egal Services Authority (NALSA).