A.K. Gopalan Case (1950):\u00a0 SC contended that there was no violation of Fundamental Rights enshrined in Articles 13, 19, 21 and 22 under the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act if the detention was as per the procedure established by law. Here, the SC took a narrow view of Article 21.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Shankari Prasad Case (1951): This case dealt with the amenability of Fundamental Rights (the First Amendment\u2019s validity was challenged). The SC contended that the Parliament\u2019s power to amend under Article 368 also includes the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Berubari Union case (1960): This case was regarding the Parliament\u2019s power to transfer the territory of Berubai to Pakistan. The Supreme Court examined Article 3 in detail and held that the Parliament cannot make laws under this article in order to execute the Nehru-Noon agreement. Hence, the 9th Amendment Act was passed to enforce the agreement.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Golaknath case (1967): The questions, in this case, were whether the amendment is a law; and whether Fundamental Rights can be amended or not. SC contented that Fundamental Rights are not amenable to the Parliamentary restriction as stated in Article 13 and that to amend the Fundamental rights a new Constituent Assembly would be required. Also stated that Article 368 gives the procedure to amend the Constitution but does not confer on Parliament the power to amend the Constitution.<\/span><\/p>\n Kesavananda Bharati case (1973): This judgement defined the basic structure of the Constitution. The SC held that although no part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, was beyond the Parliament\u2019s amending power, the \u201cbasic structure of the Constitution could not be abrogated even by a constitutional amendment.\u201d This is the basis in Indian law in which the judiciary can strike down any amendment passed by Parliament that is in conflict with the basic structure of the Constitution.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain case (1975): The SC applied the theory of basic structure and struck down Clause(4) of article 329-A, which was inserted by the 39th Amendment in 1975 on the grounds that it was beyond the Parliament\u2019s amending power as it destroyed the Constitution\u2019s basic features.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Maneka Gandhi case (1978): A main issue, in this case, was whether the right to go abroad is a part of the Right to Personal Liberty under Article 21. The SC held that it is included in the Right to Personal Liberty.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Minerva Mills case (1980): This case again strengthens the Basic Structure doctrine. The judgement struck down 2 changes made to the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act 1976, declaring them to be violative of the basic structure.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Waman Rao Case (1981): The SC again reiterated the Basic Structure doctrine. It also drew a line of demarcation as April 24th, 1973 i.e., the date of the Kesavananda Bharati judgement, and held that it should not be applied retrospectively to reopen the validity of any amendment to the Constitution which took place prior to that date.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Shah Bano Begum case (1985): Milestone case for Muslim women\u2019s fight for rights. The SC upheld the right to alimony for a Muslim woman and said that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is applicable to all citizens irrespective of their religion.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n MC Mehta and Union Of India (1986): This case dealt with 3 issues: Scope of Article 32; the rule of Absolute Liability or Rylands vs Fletcher to be followed; the issue of compensation. SC held that its power under Article 32 is not restricted to preventive measures, but also remedial measures when rights are violated. It also held that in the case of industries engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities, Absolute Liability was to be followed.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Indra Sawhney and Union of India (1992): SC examined the scope and extent of Article 16(4), which provides for the reservation of jobs in favour of backward classes. It upheld the constitutional validity of 27% reservation for the OBCs with certain conditions (like creamy layer exclusion, no reservation in promotion, the total reserved quota should not exceed 50%, etc.)<\/span><\/p>\n R. Bommai case (1994): In this judgement, the SC tried to curb the blatant misuse of Article 356 (regarding the imposition of the President\u2019s Rule on states).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Vishaka and State of Rajasthan (1997): This case dealt with sexual harassment at the workplace. In the judgement, the SC gave a set of guidelines for employers \u2013 as well as other responsible persons or institutions \u2013 to immediately ensure the prevention of sexual harassment.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Samatha and State of Andhra Pradesh (1997): This judgement nullified all mining leases granted by the Andhra Pradesh State government in the Scheduled areas and asked it to stop all mining operations. It declared that forest land, tribal land, and government land in scheduled areas could not be leased to private companies or non-tribal for industrial operations. Such activity is only permissible to a government undertaking and tribal people.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Lily Thomas v Union of India (2000): Here, the SC held that the second marriage of a Hindu man without divorcing the first wife, even if the man had converted to Islam, is void unless the first marriage had been dissolved according to the Hindu Marriage Act.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Aruna Shanbaug Case (2011): The SC ruled that individuals had a right to die with dignity, allowing passive euthanasia with guidelines. The need to reform India\u2019s laws on euthanasia was triggered by the tragic case of Aruna Shanbaug who lay in a vegetative state (blind, paralysed and deaf) for 42 years.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Lily Thomas VS UOI:\u00a0 The SC ruled that any MLA, MLC or MP who was found guilty of a crime and given a minimum of 2 year imprisonment would cease to be a member of the House with immediate effect.<\/span><\/p>\n Nirbhaya Case (2012): Introduction of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 and definition of rape under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Code of Criminal Procedures, 1973.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n National Legal Services Authority and Union of India (2014): This case resulted in the recognition of transgender persons as a third gender. The SC also instructed the government to treat them as minorities and expand the reservations in education, jobs, education, etc.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Triple Talaq Judgement (2016): The SC outlawed the backward practice of instant \u2018triple talaq\u2019, which permitted Muslim men to unilaterally end their marriages by uttering the word \u201ctalaq\u201d three times without making any provision for maintenance or alimony.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n L Chandra Kumar Case (1997): The SC ruled that the power of judicial review vested in the Supreme Court and High Courts by Articles 32 and 226 respectively is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.<\/span><\/p>\n Puttuswamy Case (2017): This SC judgement protects individual rights against the invasion of one\u2019s privacy.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Romesh Thapar Case (1950): Here, the SC held that the freedom of speech and expression includes freedom of propagation of ideas that can only be ensured by circulation.<\/span><\/p>\n State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George (1965):<\/span><\/p>\n The Supreme Court of India in the 1965 case decided on the issue as to whether a foreigner committing an offence within the Indian territory be held liable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or not.\u00a0 It decides that they will be held liable for such an offence.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Central Bank of India Ltd v. Ram Narain (1955):<\/span><\/p>\n The issue before the Supreme Court of India was concerning the liability of a foreigner who had obtained Indian citizenship after committing an offence as a foreigner. Then such action will ipso facto not make the person criminally liable for his commitment, even if Indian law recognizes it as an offence.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n M .V. Elizabeth and Others v. Harwan Investment and Trading Private Limited (1992):<\/span><\/p>\n A landmark case of the admiralty jurisdiction which had come up before the Supreme Court of India. The two issues that the Court took note of in this case were;<\/span><\/p>\n In deciding these issues, the Apex Court held that the residence of the defendant, or the nationality the ship holds, will stand irrelevant if a maritime claim is made under the admiralty jurisdiction of any High Court of India.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Republic of Italy through the Ambassador & Ors v. Union of India (2013):<\/span><\/p>\n The Supreme Court of India while deciding in the case o ruled that India will always be entitled to the right to exercise its sovereignty under both Municipal, and Public International laws up to 24 nautical miles from the baseline which is the determining criteria for the jurisdiction over territorial waters. In the present case, firing happened by two Italian vessels on the Indian vessel which was within the territorial water limit of India. Because of this, the Italian vessels were charged under the Indian penal provisions.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020):<\/span><\/p>\n The case primarily dealt with the suspension of the internet in the State of Jammu and Kashmir post revocation of Article 370 of the Constitution of India, however, one of the issues in the case was regarding the excessive imposition of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which empowers a magistrate to impose restrictions on movement and speech in areas where trouble could erupt. The Supreme Court of India, in this case, held that Section 144 CrPC cannot be used as a tool to prevent legitimate expression of opinion. <\/span>Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020)\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Abhilasha v. Parkash and Ors. (2020):\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In the present case, the Supreme Court of India, held that an unmarried Hindu daughter can claim maintenance from her father till she gets married under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, however, such daughter must prove that she is not able to maintain herself.<\/span><\/p>\n Amish Devgan v. Union of India (2020<\/span>):\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In this case, the petitioner, who is also a journalist, hosted and anchored a religious debate, which led to the registration of at least 7 First Information Reports (FIR) against him. The petitioner in this case eventually reached the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Most of the punitive sections are concerned with infringing the religious sentiments of a community, including Section 153B and Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Supreme Court of India in this case came heavily on the difference between hate speech and free speech, the need for criminalizing hate speech and the tests to determine hate speech.<\/span><\/p>\n Laxmibai Chandaragi B v. State of Karnataka (2021):<\/span><\/p>\n In the said case, the father of the petitioner filed a police complaint alleging that his daughter is missing. During the investigation, it was found that the daughter of the complainant had married a man out of her own will. Despite being aware of the wedlock of the petitioner, the investigating officer (IO) in this case, instead of taking the statement of the petitioner in her place of residence, insisted on recording her statements at the police station. The Apex court, in this case, came heavily on the conduct of the IO and other police authorities. The court further held that there is no need for consent of the clan, family, or community in the cases where two adults have voluntarily decided to enter into a wedlock.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (2020):<\/span><\/p>\n The case is an appeal case brought before the Supreme Court of India to challenge a judgment delivered by the Gujarat High Court that declared a suit filed by the appellate to be barred by limitation under Rule 11 (d), Order 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The concerned suit revolved around an agricultural plot of land which was sold by the appellate to the respondent who failed to pay the consideration of the sale deed in 2009 thereby forcing the appellate to cancel the same along with the filing of a suit against the respondent on 15th December 2014. The Court took into account Article 59 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and based on the facts in this case, the suit will be barred by the prescribed limitation.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n H.S. Goutham v. Rama Murthy (2021):<\/span><\/p>\n The present case (2021) of an appeal involves a mortgagee and an auction purchaser who had purchased the mortgaged property in concern. The defendant, in this case, had defaulted in making the entire payment to the appellate in consequence of which the latter instituted a suit for recovering the payment from the latter. Further, a compromise took place between the appellate and the defendant where the latter agreed to pay the amount in installments over three years. A sale certificate was also granted to the auction purchaser thereby registering the sale. The court held that if Order 21 Rule 92 of the Code of 1908 is read with Order 21 Rule 94 of the Code what can be obtained is that once the sale has been confirmed along with the issue of the sale certificate in favor of the purchaser, the same becomes final, and therefore cannot be set aside.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Arvind Jeram Kotecha v. Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha (2020):<\/span><\/p>\n The Bombay High Court while deciding on the case took into consideration Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which provides grounds when a foreign judgment is not conclusive. The Court stated that a bare reading of the provision reflects that for an order or a decree to be conclusive by nature, the same must have been obtained after a due judicial process that will include providing reasonable notice, and equal opportunities to the parties in the suit to be heard. The executing court will therefore not be able to enquire into the legality of the judgment if it follows a judicial process. <\/span>EVIDENCE ACT<\/span><\/p>\n Bhimsha Subanna Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (1996):<\/span><\/p>\n The Bombay High Court in light of the case of Bhimsha Subanna Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (1996) took into consideration the circumstances when independent evidence is not available to the Court to carry on with the conviction of the accused. In this present case, the Hon\u2019ble High Court while concluding that in the absence of independent evidence, the Court has to carefully examine evidence by the police witnesses which, if found to be a reliable source, will form the basis on which the conviction of the accused will exist. Thus, where assault weapons were discovered in line with the accused statement and no evidence existed which would reflect on the animosity that existed between the police inspector and the accused, it will be justified, and safe to believe the statement of the inspector which has been uncorroborated in respect of the weapon discovered.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri and Anr. (2011):<\/span><\/p>\n The Supreme Court of India in the case took note of the fact as to why hearsay evidence is not considered relevant evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The fundamentals of evidence law state that hearsay evidence is inadmissible in a court of law on grounds that the same is inaccurate and vague by its very nature. If hearsay evidence is permitted by the courts, then the same facilitates ample room for fraud, misrepresentation, and undue influence to take place, which stands unjust for the party against whom the evidence is laid down.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v.\u00a0 Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors (2020):<\/span><\/p>\n The SC observed that it has been a settled legal principle that the Evidence Act prohibits the proof of an electronic record by means of oral evidence if the requirements provided under the statutory provision of Section 65B of the Act are not complied or abided by. Establishing the friendly connection between the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Indian Evidence Act, of 1872, the Court held that Section 65B of the latter has been a complete Code by itself, and therefore the former legislation and the statutory provision of the Evidence Act behaves as legal machinery against technological overpowering.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Haryana Space Application Centre (HARSAC) and Anr. v. Pan India Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., January (2021)<\/span><\/p>\n The Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that, under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 read with the Seventh Schedule, the nomination of the Principal Secretary, Government of Haryana as the nominee arbitrator of the appellant, which was a nodal agency of the Government of Haryana, was unlawful. It was pointed out that under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, any individual whose connection with the parties falls into any of the categories listed in the Seventh Schedule is ineligible to be chosen as an arbitrator, regardless of any prior agreement to the contrary.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Indus Biotech Pvt. Ltd. v. Kotak India Venture (Offshore) Fund, (2021)<\/span><\/p>\n The <\/span>Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court clarified, while summarising the procedure, that in any proceeding pending before the NCLT under Section 7 of the IBC if such petition is admitted upon the NCLT recording the satisfaction with regard to the default and the debt due from the corporate debtor, any subsequent application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act will not be maintainable. A<\/span><\/p>\n Secunderabad Cantonment Board v B. Ramachandraiah & Sons:<\/span><\/p>\n The current case includes appeals stemming from petitions filed under Section 11 of the 1996 Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Secunderabad Cantonment Board, the appellant, had issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for a contract to rehabilitate roads. The Appellant and the respondent, B. Ramachandraiah and Sons, signed three agreements in accordance with the NIT. The question, in this case, was whether sending letters\/correspondences would prolong the time limit for filing a Section 11 petition and if the court may dismiss the petition because it was The Supreme Court ruled that the statute of limitations began to run on and from February 12, 2007. Even though the beginning point for restriction on merits was 16.02.2010, which was 30 days after the Appellant\u2019s first refusal of the appointment of an arbitrator, and a period of three years had elapsed by February 2013, the claim on merits was determined to be hopelessly time-barred. As a result, the Supreme Court determined that the High Court could not have chosen an arbitrator. As a result, the appeals were granted.<\/span><\/p>\n Shayara Bano v. Union of India and others:<\/span><\/p>\n Supreme Court in 2017 in a historic and landmark judgment declared \u201cTriple Talaq\u201d unconstitutional. The Apex Court said, \u201cGiven the fact triple talaq is instant and irrevocable, it has no scope of arbitration which is essential for saving marriage ties. Hence, it is clear that this form of Talaq is manifestly arbitrary in the sense that the marital tie can be broken capriciously and whimsically by a Muslim man without any attempt at reconciliation so as to save it. The s) was most inappropriate.<\/span><\/p>\n Sarla Mudgal vs. Union of India:<\/span><\/p>\n The Court held that if a Hindu converts to Muslim and then has a second marriage, he can not do so, irrespective of the fact that polygamy is allowed in Islamic Law.<\/span><\/p>\n Chanmuniya\u00a0 v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha:<\/span><\/p>\n Considering Sec 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the marriage performed in absence of customary rites and ceremonies of either party to the marriage is not valid. And the Mere intention of the parties to live together as husband and wife is not enough.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469:<\/span><\/p>\n The Supreme Court, in this case, held that Live-in relationships will also come under Domestic Violence Act 2005. It is held that not all live-in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005.<\/span><\/p>\n Seema v. Ashwani Kumar, AIR 2006 S.C 1158\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Supreme Court in this case directed the State Governments and the Central Government that marriages of all persons who are citizens of India belonging to various religious denominations should be made compulsorily registerable in their respective States where such marriages are solemnized.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (Supreme Court):<\/span><\/p>\n The Supreme Court held that the period mentioned in Section 13B(2) is not mandatory but directory, it will be open to the Court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case where there is no possibility of parties resuming cohabitation and there are chances of alternative rehabilitation. The Court also stated that such proceedings can also be conducted through video conferencing.<\/span><\/p>\n Natubhai Somabhai Rohit v. State of Gujrat & Anr. (Gujrat High Court):<\/span><\/p>\n The Court also relied on the Supreme Court\u2019s verdict in G. V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad wherein the Court stated that a complaint relating to a matrimonial dispute where all the members are roped into irrespective of role, becomes liable to be quashed.<\/span><\/p>\n Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India (1999) 2 SCC 228:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n It is pertinent to note that sub-section (c) of Section 4 provides that a natural guardian means a guardian mentioned in Section 6. This definition section, however obviously in accordance with the rule of interpretation of the statute, ought to be read subject to Section 6 being one of the basic provisions of the Act and it is this Section 6 which records that the natural guardian of a Hindu minor, in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl, is the father and after him the mother.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Nachhattar Singh v. Harcharan Kaur (1996):<\/span><\/p>\n If both the parties had voluntarily consented to file the petition for dissolving the marriage by mutual consent and all the other conditions mentioned in sub-sec. (1) of S. 13B of the Act are fulfilled, it will not be open to a party to withdraw the consent. In the present case without making an inquiry under sub-sec. (2) the trial Court has dismissed the petition as withdrawn which could not be done merely on the asking of one party.<\/span><\/p>\n Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash, 1 (1991) DMC 313 (SC):<\/span><\/p>\n The SC settled the controversy by ruling that at the time of second motion under Section 13(B) HMA, one of the parties of the marriage withdrew the consent given to the petition, then decree for divorce on mutual consent cannot be passed.<\/span><\/p>\n MC. Mehta & Another v. Union of India & Others AIR 1987 SC 1086:<\/p>\n This PIL was filed after the oleum gas leak from Shriram Food and Fertilisers Ltd. complex at Delhi. The Court laid down the concept of absolute liability.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration and Others AIR 1978 SC 1675:<\/span><\/p>\n The case was with respect to reforms related to prisoner\u2019s rights. There is no total deprivation of a prisoner\u2019s rights of life and liberty. Court went further into the right to be protected from torture and the right to speedy execution.<\/span><\/p>\n Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR 1986 SC 180:<\/span><\/p>\n Supreme Court has held that the right to livelihood is included in the right to life because no person can live without the means of living i.e. the means of livelihood. This is the street vendors\u2019 case.<\/span><\/p>\n Citizens for Democracy v. State of Assam & Others (1995) 3 SCC 743:<\/span><\/p>\n Handcuffing and chaining in public shall be shunned as violative of human dignity within and without prison.<\/span><\/p>\n Laxmi v. Union of India (2013) 9 SCALE 290:<\/span><\/p>\n The PIL highlighted the need for stringent regulations under the Poison Act, 1919 in respect of acid attacks on women. The Supreme Court gave measures for the proper treatment, aftercare and rehabilitation of the victims of acid attacks and the needs of acid attack victims, and compensation payable to acid victims by state or the creation of a separate fund for payment of compensation to the acid attack victims.<\/span><\/p>\n Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2013) 7 SCALE 507:<\/span><\/p>\n The Supreme Court issued a direction that in case a complaint with regard to any missing children was made in a police station, the same must be reduced into an FIR and appropriate steps should be taken to see that follow up investigation was taken up immediately.<\/span><\/p>\n Air India vs Nargesh Meerza (1981):<\/span><\/p>\n A regulatory provision which was framed by Air India provided the terms and conditions which held that in case the Air-Hostess would be pregnant, she would be terminated from the service. It was thereafter held that in such a case, there would be a violation of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the air hostess. It was held that such a law would be violative of the constitution and hence is arbitrary in nature.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Narendra Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh:<\/span><\/p>\n In this case, the ordinance-making power was challenged. It was held that instead of making multiple ordinances when the Parliament is not in session, it would be better if one would spare some time and make an Act or Legislation which would have a binding nature for all. This was done so that there could not be misuse of the power in the hands of executive officers.<\/span><\/p>\n Narain Pandey vs. Pannalal Pandey (2013) 11 SCC 435:<\/span><\/p>\n An advocate who is found guilty of having filed vakalatnamas without authority and then filing false and fictitious compromises on behalf of the client without any authority deserves punishment proportionate to the degree of misconduct. Such punishment must meet two objectives- deterrence and correction. The Court referred to the Preamble of the BCI Rules- Chapter II while adjudging the misconduct.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Shambhuram Yadav vs. Hanumandas Khatri AIR 2001 SC 2509:<\/span><\/p>\n The lawyer suggested that his client give a bribe to the judge to get the suit decided in his favour. The Supreme Court held the lawyer guilty of professional misconduct. (Violation of Rules 3 and 4 of BCI Rules- \u2013 Chapter II)<\/span><\/p>\n Damodar Rao v. S.O. Municipal Corporation AIR 1987 AP 171:<\/span><\/p>\n The Apex court held that the environmental pollution and spoliation which is slowly poisoning and polluting the atmosphere should also be regarded as amounting to a violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.<\/span><\/p>\n Municipal Corporation, Ratlam vs. Vardhichand AIR 1980 SC 1622:<\/span><\/p>\n When the Directive Principles of State Policy has clear statutory expressions the plea of lack of funds will be a poor alibi when people in misery cry for justice.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action vs. Union of India AIR 1999 SC 1502:<\/span><\/p>\n SC held that the financial costs of preventing or remedying damage caused by pollution should lie with the undertakings which cause the pollution by adopting the \u201cPolluter Pays Principle\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India AIR 1988 SCR (2) 538:<\/span><\/p>\n The writ petition filed by the activist advocate M.C. Mehta in the Supreme Court highlighted the pollution of the Ganga river by the hazardous industries located on its banks. Justice ES Venkataramiah gave a historic judgement in ordering the closure of a number of polluting tanneries near Kanpur.<\/span><\/p>\n Animal Welfare Board of India vs. A. Nagaraj and Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 547(<\/span>Jallikattu):<\/span><\/p>\n The Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court prohibited Jallikattu and other animal races and fights. The court alluded to section 3 and section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and declared that animal fights incited by humans are illegal, even those carried out under the guise of tradition and culture.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case) AIR 1987:<\/span><\/p>\n The Apex Court in delivered its historic judgment in 1996 giving various directions including banning the use of coal and cake and directing the industries to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG).<\/span><\/p>\n Subhash Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (1991):<\/span><\/p>\nIPC<\/span><\/h1>\n
\n
CRPC<\/span><\/h1>\n
CPC<\/span><\/h1>\n
EVIDENCE ACT<\/span><\/h1>\n
ADR<\/span><\/h1>\n
FAMILY LAW<\/span><\/h1>\n
PIL<\/span><\/h1>\n
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW<\/span><\/h1>\n
PROFESSIONAL ETHICS<\/span><\/h1>\n
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW<\/span><\/h1>\n