SUPREME COURT RULINGS

INTRODUCTION
The supreme court is the highest court of appeal from all
courts of india in the territory.According to refrence
article 143 under advisory jurisdiction supreme cort
can give its opinion on any matter of law or fact
refferred to it by the president.
It is presented in part V, chapter IV of the article[124-
147] constituion of india.According to constituoin of
india, the role of the supreme court is that of the
federal court , guardian of the constituion and the
highest court of appeal.
composition- the supreme court of india comprises of the
chief justice of india and not more than 30 judges . Every
judge of the supreme court is appointed by the president
of india.

Present chief justice of india – S.H. KAPADIA

 RELIANCE NATURAL RESOURCES LTD
V/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED
 The case was filed on 2006.
 Two of the richest people in the world,brothers Mukesh Ambani
of reliance industries(RIL) and Anil Ambani of reliance natural
resources(RNRL) took a disagreement over gass supply to the
indian supreme court.

 The gas dispute between (RIL)and(RNRL)became the biggest

battle between the industrial giants. In 2006 when Anil Ambani
filed the case against Mukesh Ambani over “Krishna Godavari
Basin gas supply”.

 He accused that his elder brother was violating the family

aggrement,signed by the brothers in 2005 in the presence of their
mother “Kokilaben”,when the reliance group splitted.
Mukesh Ambani on the other hand argued the intrinsic role
of government and its approval in supply of 28 MMSCD
gas for 17 years at 2.34$ per unit to RNRL.

The judgement was deliverd on 7th may 2010 in favour of

Mukesh Ambani saying the price was subjected to
government approval.

The Apex court also noted that the family (MOU)was not
technically binding as the share holder has no idea on the
contents of aggrement(end december 16,2009)
 CHILDREN OF WOMEN PRISONERS
REQUIRED ADDITIONAL PROTECTION
 (A THREE JUDGES BENCH IN R.D
UPADHAYA V/S STATE OF ANDHRA
PRADESH)
 The case was filed on 13th april 2006.
 Civil appeal no 559 of 1994
 Children of women prisoners required additional
protection because in many respect they
suffer.The consequences of neglegince issued
guidelines and directions so as to ensure that the
minimum standard are met by all the states
and unoin territories.
A child shall not be treated as an under trial or convict
while in jail with his or her mother.He or she should be
entitled to food, shelter ,medical care,clothing(all
essentials).
Before sending a women who is pregnant to a jail,the
concernd authorities should ensure that the jail should
posses all the basic facilities for the child delivery.
Birth in prison when they occur shall be registered in the
local birth registration office.
Female prisoners shall be allowed to keep their children
till they attain the age of 6 years and then they shall be
handed over to a suitable surrogate.
For securing compliance , with its directions, the bench
directed that the jail manual or other relevant rules ,
regulations. instructions etc be suitably ammended
within 3 months.
SECURITY EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
(SEBI) V/S SHRIRAM MUTUAL FUNDS
AND ANR
 Civil Appeal No. 9523- 9524.

 The bench held at “PENALTY IS ATTRACTED AS SOON AS

CONTRAVENTION OF THESE STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS AS
CONTEMPLTATED BY THE ACT AND THE REGULATION
ESTABLISHED” and the “INTENTION OF THE PARTY
COMMITTING SUCH VIOLATION IS WHOLLY IRRELEVANT”.

 ON 23RD MAY 2006 THE SUPREME COURT declared that if the
person who is prescribed for the membership of the mutual fund
violates any statutory rules, irrespective of the intention, he will be
subjected to pay compensations and fines.
NAZE FOUNDATION V/S UNION OF INDIA

 The civil appeal NO 8 of 2009

 Naze foundation and union of india field a case to
identify human rights of homosexuality laws and gay
sex.
 Some religious outfits are saying they do not oppose
decriminalization but they have a moral problem with
homosexuality.
 The obvious legal conclusion by the supreme court
was given under the section of 377 ,well known as
gay rights act.
 The judgement was passed in July 2009.
JAYA BACHCHAN V/S UNION OF INDIA

Civil appeal nunber 199 of 2006

The case was filed on 8th may 2006
A three judged bench in Jaya Bachchan versus Union of
India rejected the writ petition file by her against her
disqualification from the membership of Rajya Sabha
for holding “an office of profit”.
Ms Jaya Bachchan had been qualified under article
102(1)(a) of the constitution for holding the office of
chairperson of the UP film developmetn council on
ground that the same was an “office of profit” under
the government of UP
Samajwadi party leader Jaya Bachan who was
disqualified as Rajya Sabha member on the ground of
Holding of office of profit has approched the supreme
court challenging her disqualification.

The judgement was decraled on june 2006.

AKSHARDHAM CASE:SUPREME COURT
STAYS DEATH SENTENCE OF THREE
CONVICTS
 Akshardham Temple attack case of September 24th,
2002.
 34 persons died including two National Security
Guards.
 80 people were injured in the incident that lasted 14
hours.
 Justice B. Sudarshan Reddy and Justice S.Ijjar stated
death sentence to 3 convicts.
 The court also stated life sentence of 1 convict and a
ten year prison sentence given to another convict in
the same case.
The case ended in september 2010
 LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP NOT AN
OFFENCE
 When two adult people want to live together ,does it
amount to an offence? NO, it is not an offence.
 With changing social hypothesis entering society,
physical relations only after marriage is a thing of
past now even in a country like india which is
bounded by inneumerable cultural ethos and rites.
 The supreme court has ruled that if a man and a woman
are involved in a live in relationship for a long period,
they will be treated as married couple and their child
would be called legitimate.
 Long live in relationship as good as marriage: SC

A much publicised statement of south indian film actress

Khusboo on pre- marital sex virginity and live-in
relationships came for some favourable comments from the
supreme court which said there was nothing illegal in live-in
relationship between adults.
22 criminal cases were filed against her after she allegedly
endorsed pre-marital sex in interviews to various magazines
in 2005. She approached the Apex court after the Madras
high court in 2008 dismissed her plea for quashing the
criminal case filed against her throughout Tamil Nadu.
Live –in Relationship was legalised in India in March 2010.
 RAGGING IN INDIA
Ragging is a form of abuse on newcomers to
educational institution and India is badly affected
by it. A report from 2007 highlights 42 instances
of physical injury and reports on 10 deaths as a
result of ragging.
• In many colleges, like IIT Bombay and IIT Hyderabad,
ragging has been strictly banned as it is a violation of
Human Rights. The Supreme Court of India interim
order (based on the recommendations) dated May 16,
2007 makes it obligatory for academic institutions to
file official First Information Reports with the police in
any instance of a complaint of ragging.
 Ragging Deaths

• Sinmoi Debroy, 21, was found hanging from

the ceiling fan, dead, in his hostel room in
Chennai on 4 April.
• Satwinder Kumar, 28, ended his life on 3
March. He was a student of the Advanced
Training Institute, Mumbai. In his suicide note
he named seven seniors who had ragged him so
much that he left for home for Kurukshetra
rather than take mid-term exams.
• Nagedra AV, 25, was found dead in
Chandigarh's prestigious Post Graduate
Institution of Medical Education and
Research on 19th April.
 Jessica Lal Murder case

 Jessica Lall (1965–1999) was a model in New Delhi,

who was working as a celebrity barmaid at a crowded
socialite party when she was shot dead on April 29,
1999.