The Supreme Court in this case interpreted the provisions in their strict sense as there was no ambiguity or absurdity in the sections under question. If the intention of the law maker or the legislature was to restrict the meaning of the provision t
The following judgment primarily deals with Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalizes the causing of dowry death. The present case is a Special Leave Petition filed by the accused who was convicted by the High Court under the sa
The following judgement deals with Sections 320, 324, 326 and 308 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, which focusses on Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means,Attempt to commit culpable homicide
It is quite significant to note that the Supreme Court in a latest, landmark and laudable judgment titled Hitesh Verma vs State of Uttarakhand in Criminal Appeal No. 707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 3585 of 2020 delivered as recently as
The Delhi High Court held that in the case of Kailash Gupta v. CBSE, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 1590, "to have a name and to express the same in the manner he wishes, is a part of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1) (a) as wel
The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in this case granted bail to the accused man who was responsible for the victim minor girl's pregnancy on the condition that he should marry her when she becomes a major. The court took into account the victim g
Court, in conclusion, held that Prem Chand has been tortured illegally and the Superintendent cannot absolve himself from responsibility even though he may not directly be a party. The supreme court directed the Superintendent to ensure that no corpo
The International Tribunal for the Laws of the Sea ruled that the documentation presented on behalf of the Grand Prince failed to establish that Belize was the flag state of the vessel when it submitted its Application Form. This Tribunal stated that
The Supreme Court held that "the writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable only against a state defined under Article 12 of the Constitution and hence maintainable though BCCI is not a State within the meaning of Article 12."
The court issued a list of 11 guidelines in addition to the Constitutional and Statutory safeguards which were to be followed in all cases of arrest and detention.
The Lordship had brought forward the differences between Section 299 and 300 of the IPC.The court had stated that there was absence of intention. In both, Section 299 and 300, the key element is that there should be an intention of causing the death.
On 6 September 2018, the court delivered its unanimous verdict, declaring portions of the law relating to consensual sexual acts between adults unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court mentioned that, it could not resist to express the distress that the High Court had chosen to advance fragile reasons to upset a well-reasoned conclusion by the trail court that the deceased was throttled to death
In view of the preceding analysis, the appeal was dismissed. The Court held that the brutal, barbaric and diabolic nature of the crime was evincible from the acts committed by the accused persons.
The Lordship had brought forward the differences between Section 299 and 300 of the IPC. The court had stated that there was absence of intention. In both, Section 299 and 300, the key element is that there should be an intention of causing death.
The judgement given by CJI Deepak Mishra started with the statements proving that wives are not the property of the husbands and husbands are not their masters.
When considering all the matters in-depth, the court noted that Section 6 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, permits the adoption of a Hindu child alone by a Hindu. The law does not accept the adoption of any person other than a Hindu b
It was held by the court that in cases where a child was adopted, the effect of adoption is such that it creates a legal fiction and the child becomes the natural heir. Where an adoption is such that it relates back and makes him eligible for all the
The judgment of Shabnam Hashmi provided the adoption as the Fundamental Right. It was permitted that any person irrespective of religion can adopt a child under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. s
The adoption of Deep Chand was challenged as fictitious and ineffective. It was further urged that even if the adoption was valid, Deep Chand became the adopted son of Smt. Bhagwani and could not succeed to the properties of Ramji Dass. The appellant