100 Important Judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in 2023

100 Important Judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
2023

1- M/s Glock Asia-Pacific Ltd. v Union of India 2023SC ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT

• ISSUE- appointment of an arbitrator in a tender-related dispute between Centre Govt and Private
  Company.
• Clause- an officer from the Law Ministry to act as the arbitrator.
• Decision: arbitration clause, allowing a government officer to resolve the dispute as an arbitrator, is
  in conflict with Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
• Article 299 only pertains to the formalities of binding the government with contractual liability, not
  the substantive laws governing contractual liability.

2- Dr.Balram Singh vs Union of India 2023SC

• Call for Eradication of Manual Scavenging
• Guildeline- need for both Union and state governments to work towards the complete eradication
  of manual scavenging.
• Compensation- Rs 30 lakh for the kin of the deceased and Rs 20 lakh for those who suffer permanent
  disabilities due to sewer cleaning

3) TATA Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd

• 12 month’s time limit under Section 29A Arbitration Act not applicable to international commercial
  arbitration

4) K.C. Cinema v. State of Jammu and Kashmir

• Supreme Court upholds the right of cinema theatres and multiplexes to prohibit the taking of food
  and beverages from outside.
• But hygienic drinking water must be given free.
• The right of cinema owners to carry on a business or trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
• The commercial logic – stimulate business and economic activity

5) Sanjiv Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar

• Order XLI Rule 5 CPC – Mere filing of appeal would not operate as a stay of decree.
• Order passed in favour of Petitioner
• Went for NOC
• HC denies as appeal is pending

6) Elumalai @Venkatesan v. M. Kamala

• Transfer of Property Act, 1882;
  Section 6 (a) – spes successonis- A living man has no heir- Release deed executed by son relinquishing
  his share in the selfacquired property of father has no effect- A person who may become the heir and
  entitled to succeed under the law upon the death of his relative would not have any right until
  succession to the estate is opened up.
• Unlike a co-parcener who acquires right to joint family property by his mere birth, in regard to the
  separate property of the Hindu, no such right exists

7) Rajaram Sriramulu Naidu v. Maruthachalam

• Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Section 139 – The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption
  is that of preponderance of probabilities.
• The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to
  raise the probable defence.

9) Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India,

• Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; Sections 8 and 12 – On adoption by a widow, the
  adopted son or daughter is deemed to be a member of the family of the deceased husband of the
  widow
  10) Saurav Das v. Union of India
• Chargesheet cannot be said to be public documents within the definition of Public Documents as per
  Section 74 of the Evidence Act.
• Unlike FIR
• Can’t Direct Investigating Agencies To Upload Them On Websites : Supreme Court

11) X vs State of Uttar Pradesh

• The Supreme Court observed that criminal proceedings for demand of dowry cannot be quashed
  merely because divorce petition is pending.
• In this case, the husband filed an application for divorce on the ground that the wife is suffering from
  the disease AIDS. The wife, thereafter, lodged FIR alleging that husband was demanding luxury car by
  way of dowry.
• HC QUAHED THE FIR
• SC – HC exceeded its jurisdiction

12-ROMEO-JULIET CLAUSE

• In most jurisdictions overseas, the laws of statutory rape reprieve adults in consensual sex with
  minors if difference in their respective biological ages is 3 to 4 years, Called Romeo Juliet Clause.
• it treats consensual sex partners as Romeo and Juliet on the lines of William Shakespeare’s play
  “Romeo & Juliet” recognizing that there isn’t much difference in capacity, competence and maturity
  of a 16-17 year and a 20-21 year old and are treated as adults.”

14) Prem Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi

• Section 84 IPC, Section 105 IEA –
• the burden to prove that as a result of unsoundness of mind, the accused was incapable of knowing
  the consequences of his acts is on the defence,
• The mandate of law is that the Court shall presume u/s 105 absence of the circumstances so as to
  take the case within any of the General Exceptions in IPC.

15- Moorthy v. State of TN

• Husband has suspicions of an illicit relationship between his wife and another man.
• The appellant reportedly attacked his wife with a stick, causing fatal injuries that ultimately led to
  her demise. Evidences Availa
  Evidences Available
• Extra Judicial Confession given to Village administrative officer, a total stranger to the accused in
  front of 1 more person known to accused.
• Confession given 2 months after the incident.
  LAW POINT
• Extra-judicial confessions are typically considered weak pieces of evidence.
• They can still serve as grounds for conviction if proven to be voluntary, truthful, and free of
  inducement.
• In Present case, the Supreme court acquitted due to lack of corroborating evidences

16) Naim Ahamed v. State (NCT of Delhi)

• Penal Code, 1860; Section 376 – It would be a WRONG to treat each breach of promise to marry as a
  false promise and to prosecute a person for the offence of rape under Section 376 IPC
• Difference between giving a false promise and committing breach of promise by the accused –
• In case of false promise, the accused right from the beginning would not have any intention to marry
  the prosecutrix.

17) ADULTERY

• “It is not as if this court approved of adultery”: Supreme Court clarifies ‘Joseph Shine’ judgment that
  declared Section 497 IPC unconstitutional. Joseph Shine v. Union of India,
• Armed Forces Personnel liable to face disciplinary action for adultery despite striking down of Section
  497 IPC.
• Still a civil Wrong, ground of Divorce
  
• 18-Supreme Court’s Judgment regarding appointment of Chief election commissioner Anoop
  Baranwal v. Union of India
• The Supreme Court ruled that a three-member panel, headed by the
• Prime Minister, Comprising of
• the Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha and
• the Chief Justice of India,
• will select the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and Election Commissioners (EC) until a law is
  enacted by Parliament on their appointments
  
• 19) Aparna Ajinkya Firodia vs Ajinkya Arun Firodia
• DIVORCE CASE between H and W
• A) DNA test of a minor child is not to be ordered routinely, in matrimonial disputes.
• ii. DNA tests of children born during the subsistence of a valid marriage may be directed, only when
  there is sufficient primafacie material to dislodge the presumption under Section 112 of the Evidence
  Act. When non-access has been proved.
• Iii) Right to privacy of Child
  
• 20) Ajai @ Ajju v. State of Uttar Pradesh
• ‘It’s quality & not quantity of witnesses which matters’: Supreme Court relies on eyewitness
  testimony to affirm sentence.
  
• 21) Shah Newaz Khan v. State of Nagaland
• The Supreme Court held that the power under section 24 of the CPC can be exercised by the High
  Court even for inter-State transfer of a suit, appeal or other proceeding, if it is the common High Court
  for two or more States under Article 231 of the Constitution and both the Civil Courts are subordinate
  to it.
• THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT – Common High Court of ???
• Punjab and Haryana HC at Chandigarh
  
• 22) P. Shyamala Vs Gundlur Masthan
• S.28 SRA
• Plaintiff got the decree of Specific Performance
• But failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within time.
• Trial Court condoned delay of 853 DAYS
• Apex Court-Trial Court failed to exercise the discretion judiciously in favour of the defendant and
  erred in exercising the discretionary power in favour of the plaintiff, that too with a delay of 853 days.”
  
• 23) Enforcement Directorate v. Kapil Wadhawan
• Day of remand should be included for considering default bail claim: Supreme Court answers
  reference.
  
• 24) Vikas Rathi v. State of U.P
• TEST FOR S.319 CRPC
• The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of
  framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would
  lead to conviction.
  
• 25 )Nikhil Chandra Mondal Vs State Of West Bengal
• EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION
• it is a weak piece of evidence, the Supreme Court of India observed that the credibility of an extrajudicial confession decreases when the surrounding circumstances are doubtful.
• Extra-Judicial Confession Is A Weak Piece Of Evidence, Independent Corroboration Needed: Supreme
  Court
  

• 26) Pravinsinh Nrupatsinh Chauhan v. State Of Gujarat
• Gujarat High Court orders the accused to give a voice sample to the police.
• Accused – Right to privacy violated.
• No such rules
• Ritesh Sinha Case- Magistrate can order accused to give his voice samples . SC u/a 142
  
• 27) Balu Sudam Khalde And Another Versus The State Of Maharashtra
• The Supreme Court held that the suggestion made by the defence counsel to a witness in the crossexamination, if found to be incriminating, would definitely bind the accused,
• However the prosecution has to stand on its own legs.
• The Court clarified that the main object of cross-examination is to find out the truth on record and
  to help the Court in knowing the truth of the case
  
• 28)Prem Kishore & Ors. v. Brahm Prakash
• RES-JUDICATA CASE
• Plaintiff filed an eviction petition u/s 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act of 1958)
  against the respondents (tenants) alleging that arrears of the rent was not cleared.
• However Plaintiff failed to appear.
• Case is closed.
• Legal Heirs filed a civil case
• Application to reject the plaint on the basis of Res-Judicata
• No Res Judicata
• 1) Not heard on merits
• 2) Plaint can be rejected only on the prima facie ground
  
• 30) Afzal Ali @ Abjal v/s State of west bengal
• Murder case • Power u/s 321 used to withdraw case
• Victim files plea u/s 406 to transfer case stating No Fair Trial in west Bengal.
• 90 Witnesses
• Guidelines issued 31
• ART 21: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure
  established by law.
• right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution is applicable to all persons residing in
  India including refugees .
  
• 32) Prasanta Kumar Sahoo & Ors. v Charulata Sahu & Ors
• Father died
• Property( ancestral and separate ) devolved upon children ( living in joint family
• Partition suit filed between 3 brothers
• Settlement between 2 brothers
• Consent decree valid?
• The Bench observed that as per Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, when a claim
  in suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise, the compromise
  must be in writing and signed by the parties.
  
• 33-Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill, 2023
• The provision in the proposed Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Bill, 2023 barred judicial reviews
  of mercy petitions for death row convicts.
  JUDICIAL REVIEW
• In the case of Epuru Sudhakar & Anr. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2006) the SC held that the
  clemency power of the President and Governor under Article 72 and Article 161 is subject to judicial
  review.
  
• 34 )Shri Rakesh Raman vs Smt. Kavita
• Living separately for 25 years
• Numerous cases filed.
• irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not yet a ground for dissolution of marriage.
• In Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli , The Law Commission of India, in its 71st and 217th reports,
  recommended that a marriage, which has de facto broken down, needs to be de jure recognisedas
  such by the law.
• the Supreme Court has held that irretrievable breakdown of marriage can be read as the ground of
  “cruelty” under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for the dissolution of marriage.
  
• 35-Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun
• A child born from a void or a voidable marriage is entitled to parents’ share in a Hindu Undivided
  Family(HUF) and separate property.
• such child is only conferred legitimacy u/s 16. They cannot be treated as coparcener by birth in the
  HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY.
• 36-Assam Public Works vs UOI – Relating to the Citizenship Act.
  
• 37-Ashok Kumar Jain vs UOI- This case deals with reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
  Tribes in the Lok Sabha.
  
• 38-Sita Soren Vs UOI-This case deals with the question of if the legal immunity given to MLAs protects
  them from prosecution for taking a bribe even if the amount was not used as per the demand of the
  bribe-giver.
  
• 39-Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh have come up with the decision to bar people accused of sexual
  crimes from government jobs.

QUESTION

• How constitutional is denying a person accused of such crimes a government job?
• Is it based on Constitutional Morality or Polulist Morality ?
• Will it curb such crimes and does it not violate the right to a fair trial?

DIFFERENT STANDS ON CRUELTY
45-A. KRISHNA SHENOY v. GANGA DEVI G. & ORS

• The preliminary decree passed in the said suit.
• However, two of his sisters were not arrayed as parties.
• Thereafter, they filed an independent Suit.
• In Partition Suit, Every Interested Party Deemed To Be A Plaintiff.
• Further, law does not prohibit passing of numerous preliminary decrees.
  
• 46) Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union Of India
• The Supreme Court Constitution Bench upheld by 4:1 majority the decision taken by the Union
  Government six years ago to demonetise the currency notes of Rs. 500 and Rs.1000 denominations.

47-Age Of Retirement Of Supreme Court & High Court Judges Needs To Be Increased: Parliamentary
Committee

• AGE OF RETIREMENT OF SUPREME COURT JUDGES65
• AGE OF RETIREMET OF HIGH COURT JUDGES- 62
  
• 48-EX CJI-RANJAN GOGOI CONTROVERSY
• While speaking on the issue of Delhi Services Bill, Former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said in
  the Rajya Sabha that the basic structure of the Constitution has a “very debatable jurisprudential
  basis”.
• ONCE WE CEASE TO BE JUDGES, WHATEVER WE SAY IS JUST AN OPINION- CJI DY CHANDARCHUD
• MAINS QUESTION- BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE
  
• 49-Ilvarasan v. Superintendent of Police
• SELF RESPECT MARRIAGE
• The Court clarified that advocates, being officers of the court, should abstain from undertaking or
  volunteering to solemnize ‘self-respect marriages’ in their professional capacity. However, the
  Supreme Court did not rule out that possibility of advocates standing as witnesses for marriages in
  their personal capacities as friends or relatives.
  
• 50-Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors.
• Delhi High Court Protects Actor Anil Kapoor’s Personality Rights, Restrains Use Of His Name, Image
  Or Voice Without Consent
  
• 51-What is Roe v. Wade Judgment?
• In 1973, in the landmark Roe vs Wade judgment, the Supreme Court of the United States made the
  right to abortion a constitutional right, establishing a benchmark for abortion laws across the world.
• In this case, the US Supreme Court struck down laws that made abortion illegal in several states and
  ruled that abortion would be allowed up to the point of foetal viability, that is, the time after which a
  foetus can survive outside the womb
  . WHAT ARE THE ABORTION LAWS IN INDIA ?
• Under the Indian Penal Code, abortion remains a criminal offence under Section 312.
• The MTP Act, 1971 allows abortion until 20 weeks of pregnancy.
• Through an amendment in 2021, the ceiling for abortions was raised to 24 weeks, but only for special
  categories of pregnant women such as rape or incest survivors, that too, with the approval of two
  registered doctors
  . • In the case of fetal disability, there is no limit to the timeline for abortion, but that is allowed by a
  medical board of specialist doctors set up by the governments of states and union territories.
  
• 52-Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh
• High Court has questioned the want of evidence on part of the complainant in order to support his
  allegation of having extended loan to the accused.
• Complainant could not discharge the Burden, thus acquitted the accused.
• Case before Supreme Court.
  LAW POINT
• S.139. Presumption in favour of holder.—It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that
  the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section138 for the discharge,
  in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
  
• 53-Sanjana Kumari v. Vijay Kumar
• Himachal Pradesh high Court which quashed a complaint filed by a wife under the Protection of
  Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 by relying upon a purported customary divorce deed
  produced by the husband
• Challenging the High Court order, the wife approached the Supreme Court.
  LAW POINT
• Section 29(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955, which states the none of the provisions of the Act will
  affect any right recognised by custom or conferred by any special enactment to obtain the dissolution
  of a Hindu marriage.
  GENERALLY
• A HINDU COUPLE CAN TAKE DIVORCE ONLY AS PER SECTION 13 OF HMA.
• SUBSISTENCE OF MARRIAGE UNLESS DIVORCE AS PER SECTION 13.
  EXCEPTION
• CUSTOMARY DIVORCE POSSIVLE AS PER SECTION 29(2) OF HMA
  
• 54-Rules regarding Plea of Alibi
  1.It is not a part of the General Exceptions under the IPC and is instead a rule of evidence under
  Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
  2.Further, the burden to establish the plea is on the person taking such a plea. The same must be
  achieved by leading cogent and satisfactory evidence;
  3.It is required to be proved with certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence
  of the accused at the spot of the crime. In other words, a standard of ‘strict scrutiny’ is required when
  such a plea is taken. KAMAL PRASAD & ORS v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
  
• 55-The Secretary, Managing Committee of Loreto Convent Tara Hall School v. Sharu Gupta and
  others Case (HP HC)
• WomanTeacher terminated when she was on leave due to Pregnancy.
• HC observed that “The right to become a mother is one of the most important human rights and this
  right must be protected at all costs and therefore, provisions of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 must be
  enforced strictly wherever applicable”
• Article 42 states –
• “The State shall make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity
  relief.”
  
• 56-Aswathy Surendran v. Union of India(K-HC)
• A writ petition has been filed by the parents for the termination of pregnancy alleging Substatial
  Abnormality in 30 weeks foetus.
• Medical report -pregnancy can be continued since there was no lethal foetal anomaly and other
  health conditions can only be assessed after the birth of the baby.
• Decision-opinion of the experts is conclusive that the foetus is doing well.
  
• 57-Smt. Anshu Gupta v/s Adwait Anand @Devansh Uttarakhand High Court
• The Court explained that the term “person” under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
  (CrPC), which deals with the award of maintenance, would include both male and female persons.
• The Court delved into Section 8 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which defines ‘gender’ and said that
  the definition gives an indication that ‘he’ and its derivatives are used in respect of any person, whether
  male or female.
  
• 58-Rajinder Kaur Jaspal Singh Layal and others v. The Union of India and others (Bombay HC)
• The Court has observed that a person cannot be deprived of his/her fundamental right to travel
  abroad on the ground that there is a dispute in respect of the property which is mentioned in the
  address given by the applicant for the purposes of including it in the passport.
• Relied upon- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978):
  
• 59-Vasu Bajaj v. Rakesh Bajaj (D-HC)
• Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC can be recovered via civil suit when it becomes ‘debt’
  
• 60-Alok Bharti v. Jyoti Raj (Patna HC )
• False allegations of adultery by wife against the Husband amounts to Mental Cruelty.
• Husband can claim divorce u/s 13(1)(i-a) of HMA
• Cruelty as a ground of divorce after 1976
• Before 1976- Judicial Separation
  
• 61-Anupam Singh Tomar v. State by Kothanur Police & Anr. (K-HC)
• Husband had visitation rights to meet his daughter once a week.
• Issue- Can the father be said to be guilty of committing House Tresspassif he enters house even after
  being resisted to meet his daughter.
• Decision- No intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession
  of such property as required u/s 441IPC
  
• 62-Parliament security breach: Delhi Police seeks polygraph test of all accused.
• Art 20(3)-“no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself”.
• Generally- Therefore, subjecting an accused to undergo the polygraph or narcoanalysis test is
  considered a blatant violation of Art. 20 (3), as the accused is testifying against himself.
• Selvi v/s State of karnatka- admissible u/s 27 IEA, if test conducted voluntarity.
  
• 63- substantial increase in the disposal of cases during the year 2023,
• Disposal Cases 52,191 more than Registered Cases 49,191
• filing-to-listing timeframe, within five days.
• Matters related to bail, habeas corpus, demolition, and anticipatory bail were processed within a
  day
• e-Courts, Fast Track Courts, SUPACE
  
• 64-STATE OF PUNJAB V/S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR OF PUNJAB 2023 SC
• Governor have no veto power to withhold the bill passed by the State Legislative Assembly for
  Unlimited Period.
• CREATIVE INTERPRETATION THAT WITHHOLD MEANS WITHHOLDING AND SENDING IT BACK TO
  LEGISLATURE.
• Article 200 of Indian Constitution
  
• 65-CHHOTE LAL vs. ROHTASH
• FACTS- serious enmity between the two rival groups led to murder of One.
• Evidence- Direct Evidence- Father, No Circumstantial Evidence
• Contradiction – In the FIR, the accused assaulted his son with a knife and iron rod and the cause of
  death as per postmortem was firing from close range.
• Decision- conviction has to be based on the evidence which proves the accused guilty beyond
  reasonable doubt
  
• 66-Mr Amandeep Singh Dhall v Directorate of Enforcement (Delhi HC)
• The Delhi High Court has constituted a committee under the Delhi health secretary to suggest ways
  to improve healthcare facilities in Delhi’s prisons
  
• 67- Bhaiya Lal Singh v. State of UP (UP HC)
• The Allahabad High Court recently held that verbal abuse by utterance of caste name of a member
  of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would not be an offence if such incident takes place within a
  house where no outsider is present. Private Member’s Bill
• A bill introduced by the Member of Parliament (MP) who is not a Minister.
• three Bills per session of Parliament.
• Its introduction in the House requires one month’s notice
• only on Fridays.
• Lat Time- Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Bill, 1968.
  
• 70-HARPAL SINGH vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA 2023SC
• under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused cannot rely upon other bank
  accounts for the dishonoured cheque which relates to specific bank account of the accused.
  
• 71-MANU GUPTA v. SUJATA SHARMA
• that neither the legislature nor the traditional Hindu Law, in any way, limits the right of a woman to
  be a Karta of an Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).
• the rights of the members in a coparcenary remain unaffected even when a female coparcener acts
  as its Karta.
  
• 72-Cox and Kings Ltd v. SAP India Pvt Ltd
• Issue- Whether Non Signatories to the Arbitration agreement can be bound by the Arbitration
  Agreement.
• LAW-Sec 7(3) An arbitration agreement shall be in writing.
• Decision-The requirement of a written arbitration agreement under Section 7 does not exclude the
  possibility of binding nonsignatory parties.
  
• 73-Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency P. Ltd. And Anr. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018)
• Interim orders of stay granted by High Courts and other courts in civil and criminal cases will
  automatically expire after a period of six months unless the orders are specifically extended.
• The CJI-led bench observed that automatic vacation of stay can result in miscarriage of justice in
  some cases.
• Referred the matter to a 5-judge bench.
  
• 74-KUNAL CHOUDHARY vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND 2023 SC
• The Supreme Court observed that to the accused husband under Section 498A of the IPC, a condition
  that the husband shall take his wife to his house and maintain and honor her, cannot be imposed.
  
• 75-State of Chhattisgarh v. Sandeep Jain Chhattisgarh High Court
• Son Killed Father
• Motive- ideological differences with his father as father often scolded him and disliked several of his
  activities including speaking or meeting his female friends.
• Issue- Whether the case falls in Rarest of Rarest Cases?
• DECISION- The Court noted that the trial court had not taken into consideration the probability of
  the convict being reformed and rehabilitated, and that he was not given effective opportunity of
  hearing on the question of sentence.
  
• 76-SHASHIKANT SHARMA vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
• Suicide due to the Legal Notice of Cheque being dishonoured.
• Isuue – Liability u/s 306 ( Abetment to suicide)
• Law-107. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing, who—
• First.—Instigates any person to do that thing;
• Decision-, there must be instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cause the deceased
  to commit suicide.
• the accused must have mens rea to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
  
• 77-Ram Naresh v. State of UP
• The Supreme Court recently clarified that for Section 34(common intention) of the Indian Penal Code
  to be applicable, there must be a common intention among all co-accused individuals, indicating a
  shared purpose and design.
• Notably, common intention doesn’t necessitate explicit discussions or agreements among the coaccused; it is a psychological aspect that can arise just before or during the commission of the offense
  
• 78-SIVAMANI AND ANR. V. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
• Minor Injuries with Lathi on mother of the complainant
• Charge of 307 (Attempt to Murder
  ) • DECISION -while grievous or life-threatening injury was not necessary to maintain a conviction
  under Section 307, IPC.
• intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury if any, as well as from surrounding
  circumstances
  
• 79- The Goa High Court issued significant directives to the Goa government regarding the
  establishment of a tiger reserve in the Mhadei Wildlife Sanctuary (WLS) and neighboring regions.
  
• 80 • The Central government has recently included the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERTIn) in the list of organizations exempted from the Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005.
• CERT-In, the national agency responsible for responding to computer security incidents, falls under
  the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.
• The move has sparked concerns as it limits transparency for an entity crucial in addressing cyber
  threats and enhancing security awareness
  
• 81-ADVERSE POSSESSION WHY IN NEWS
• In the 2008 case of Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan and Others, the Supreme
  Court criticised adverse possession as being unduly harsh on the true owner and benefiting dishonest
  trespassers.
• 22nd Law Commission -that no changes are necessary in the existing provisions under the Limitation
  Act of 1963.
• RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL vs MANJIT KAUR 2019 SC
  
• 82-S.Mujibar Rahman v State 2023 SC
• FACTS- Defective Chargesheet filed because police was involved in offence.( DEMONETISATION
  CASE).
• SP directed Further Investigation
• 11 accused are not served summons
• ISSUE- Can trial be split while further investigation is going on.
• Decision-The Supreme Court held that splitting of trial under section 317(2) of Cr. P.C., 1973 cannot
  be ordered when further investigation has already been ordered.
  
• 83-IMT Industrial Association and another v. State of Haryana -(PH HC)
• -Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes Haryana’s 75% Private Job Reservation Law.
  
• 84 • -US Supreme Court Introduces Ethics Code Amid Controversy and Pressure
  The 14-page document outlines the “rules and principles that guide the conduct of members of the
  court” and seeks to set a framework for ethical behavior.
  
• 85- Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. UOI SC Guidelines on Speedy Disposal of Criminal Cases Against MPs and MLAs
• suo motu cases by high court chief justices to monitor the speedy disposal of pending cases.
• Special benches led by chief justices or designated benches may hear these cases, with hearings
  scheduled at regular intervals if necessary.
• prioritizing cases punishable by death or life imprisonment, as well as those with sentences of five
  years or more.
• Trial courts cannot adjourn such cases without compelling reasons
  
• 86-Supriyo v. Union of India • Unanimously- Refused to grant legal recognition for queer marriages in India.
• MAJORITY – RIGHT TO CIVIL UNION IS NOT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT , RATHER THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE
  THEIR PARTNER AND COHABIT IS.
• MINORITY- RIGHT TO CIVIL UNION IS ALSO A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
• Separation of Power Principle
  
• 87-Abhishek Sharma v. State(Govt of NCT of Delhi) Principles to be followed in cases of Multiple
  Dying Declaration
• Voluntary and Reliable Statements
• Consistency • Independent Evaluation
• Medical Fitness
• Magistrate’s Statement
  
• ❑-Paranagouda v. State of Karnataka 2023 SC
• conviction u/s 498A can be upheld despite acquittal u/s 304B.
• – conviction can be made u/s 306IPC, despite being no such charge framed

❑-Mrs. Kalyani Rajan v. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital & Ors 2023

• patient died due to heart attack while undergoing follow up care and treatment after a major
  neurosurgery.
• No Case Of Medical Negligence If Complications Suffered By Patient Totally Unrelated To Medical
  Procedure Undergone.
• Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and another, (2005) ❑-Thounaojam Shyamkumar vs Lourembam
  Sanjoy Singh (Manipur HC)
• The legal character of right to vote has been a subject of debate since the time of inception of the
  Constitution.
• It has, up until now, not been recognised as fundamental right but has mostly been restricted as a
  legal/ statutory right by various judicial pronouncements
  
• ❑ -SABBIR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS v/s 2023 SC ANJUMAN (Dead ) THROUGH LRS
• Limitation For Specific Performance Suit Runs From Date When Plaintiff Had Notice Of Refusal When
  No Date Is Fixed For Performance

❑ -INDRAKUNWAR V. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH principles for Sec 313 CrPC

• The intent is to establish a dialogue between the Court and the accused
• The process enshrined is not a matter of procedural formality but is based on the cardinal principle
  of natural justice.
• -The right to remain silent
• -Such a statement, as not on oath, does not qualify as a piece of evidence under Section 3 of the
  Indian Evidence Act, 1872

❑-Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala

• In this case, the deceased(wife) had poured kerosene on herself to prevent further torture after a
  quarrel with her husband(appellant)
• The husband allegedly lit a matchstick and threw it upon her uttering “You Die” with an intention to
  kill her. Exception 4 to S.300 IPC
• Exception 4 states- “Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a
  sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken
  undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
• Explanation.—It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first
  assault.”
• In the instant case, the appellant upon seeing the deceased drenched in kerosene clearly took
  advantage of the situation and lighted a matchstick and threw it upon her so that she can be burnt.
  The appellant having taken “undue advantage” of the situation cannot be extended the benefit of
  Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

❑-KUM. GEETHA, D/O LATE KRISHNA & ORS v. NANJUNDASWAMY & ORS.

• The Plaintiffs and Defendants were members of a joint family owning properties.
• The plaintiffs had filed a suit for partition and separate possession.
• The Defendants sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, CPC.
• The Trial Court dismissed the application for rejection of plaint on the ground that the plaint did not
  disclose a cause of action.
• However, the High Court allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC in part, and rejected
  the Plaint with respect some property.
• The High Court noted that the Plaintiffs did not produce any evidence to challenge the Sale Deed.
  DECISION
• The Apex Court observed that the High Court committed an error by examining the merits of the
  matter and pre-judged the truth, legality and validity of the sale deed.
• Plaint Cannot Be Rejected In Part Under Order VII Rule 11 Of CPC