LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a temple is a private place of worship or a public shrine. CASE TYPE: Religious and Charitable Endowments Law Case Name: Vijendra Kumar & Ors. vs. The Commissioner, A.P. Charitable & Religious Institutions & Endowment Department & Anr. [Judgment Date]: 15 December 2017 Date of the Judgment: 15 December 2017 Citation: 2017 […]
Date of the Judgment: 17 November 2017 Citation: 2017 INSC 989 Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Amitava Roy, J. Can a conviction for murder stand solely on the testimony of an eyewitness whose account is riddled with inconsistencies and improbabilities? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, ultimately acquitting
Can a conviction be upheld when the identification of the accused is questionable? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this in a case involving the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The court overturned a conviction, emphasizing the need for conclusive evidence. This case highlights the importance of proper identification in criminal trials.
LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Collector has the jurisdiction to decide on the vesting of property in the government under Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, when a dispute of title exists. CASE TYPE: Civil Law – Property Dispute, Hindu Succession Act. Case Name: Kutchi Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust Evam Anna Kshetra Trust Thr.
LEGAL ISSUE: Whether circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict the accused of murder. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Ganpat Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Judgment Date: 19 September 2017 Date of the Judgment: 19 September 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 782 Judges: N.V. Ramana, J and Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J Can a conviction for murder
LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court can entertain a second application for the same relief after the first one was withdrawn. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 Case Name: State of Maharashtra vs. Avinash Judgment Date: 7 September 2017 Date of the Judgment: 7 September 2017
Date of the Judgment: 21 July 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 648 Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J. and N.V. Ramana, J. Can the Central Government ensure that States implement laws passed by the Parliament? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question while hearing a case about the implementation of the National Food Security Act, 2013. The
LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a detention order under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981, must specify the period of detention. CASE TYPE: Preventive Detention Law Case Name: Lahu Shrirang Gatkal vs. State of Maharashtra Judgment Date: July 17, 2017 Introduction Can a preventive detention order be valid if it does not specify the period
Date of the Judgment: July 17, 2017 Citation: 2017 INSC 678 Judges: N.V. Ramana, J. and Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Divided Opinion) Can mere silence and subsequent absconding be sufficient to convict a person for destruction of evidence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in
LEGAL ISSUE: Consequences of securing public employment with a false caste certificate. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Chairman and Managing Director, FCI & Ors. vs. Jagdish Balaram Bahira & Ors. Judgment Date: 6 July 2017 Date of the Judgment: 6 July 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 628 Judges: Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI, N.V. Ramana, J,
Can the testimony of eyewitnesses be partially accepted in a criminal case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a murder. The Court upheld the conviction of two accused persons while acquitting the third. This judgment highlights the importance of corroborative evidence in criminal cases. The bench comprised Justices
