SC to hear 25 Constitution bench cases from August 29th

The Supreme Court notified that 25 Constitution bench matters will be indexed from August 29, as Chief Justice of India (CJI) U.U. Lalit has a tenure of even less than 100 days. CJI N.V. Ramana demitted the office on August 26, and Justice Lalit had taken over as CJI however he started running most effectively on August 29. According to the attention issued through the apex court registry, 25 cases that have been pending for a while may be heard from September month through the 5- Judge bench of the apex court. Remember, that a constitution bench is a bench of 5 judges. 

List of 25 Cases: Supreme Court

1. State of AP Vs B. Archana Reddy: Declaring All Muslims as ‘Backward Classes

2. Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee Vs Shail Mittal: Sikh Reservations in Punjab

3. V. Vasanthakumar Vs H.C. Bhatia: Regional Benches of the Supreme Court

4. Janhit Abhiyan Vs Union of India: Reservations for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)

5. Ashok Kumar Jain Vs Union of India: Validity of Extending Legislative Assembly Reservations Beyond 10 Years

6. Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha Vs Union of India: Assam Accord

7. Anoop Baranwal Vs Union of India: Election Commission Appointments

8. The Animal Welfare Board of India Vs Union of India : Constitutionality of Jallikattu

9.  Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community Vs State of Maharashtra: The Religious Right to Excommunicate Dissidents

10. C.B.I. Vs  R.R. Kishore : Retrospective application of immunity granted against arrest

11. Karmanya Singh Sareen Vs Union Of India: Whatsapp-Facebook Privacy

12. Sita Soren Vs Union of India : MLA Bribery

13. Union of India Vs Union Carbide Corporation : Adequacy of Compensation Paid to Union Bhopal Gas Tragedy Victims

14. State of West Bengal Vs Paschim Banga B.K. Samity: Application of Land Reforms Beyond Agricultural Land

15.  Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College: Validity of All India Bar Exam

16. Union of India Vs Preeti Agarwal: Continuance of Pre-Independence Ordinances

17. Sukhpal Singh Khaira  Vs State of Punjab: Court’s Power to ‘Proceed against Other Persons Appearing to be Guilty of an Offense’.

18. Tej Prakash Pathak Vs Rajasthan High Court: Power to Change Eligibility Criteria During Selection Process for a Post

19. M/s Shanti Fragrances Vs Union of India :  Sales Tax Matter

20. Sameena Begum Vs Union of India: Constitutionality of Muslim Marriage Laws

21. Pyare Lal Vs State of Haryana: Deciding Key Considerations for Remission Policies

22. Shilpa Sailesh Vs Varun Sreenivasan: Extent of the Court’s Powers to Directly Hear Cases

23. Vivek Narayan Sharma Vs Union of India: Validity of the 2016 Demonetisation Policy

24. Kaushal Kishore Vs State of Uttar Pradesh: State Responsibility and the Freedom of Speech and Expression

25. Common Cause Vs Union of India: Euthanasia and the Right to Die With Dignity

In this blog we are going to discuss all 25 cases mentioned above which are going to be discussed this month i.e. September, 2022 .

1. Case Title: State of A.P. & Ors. Vs. B. Archana Reddy & Ors. with 18 linked matters - SEBC quota for Muslims in AP  - 2005

Case No. C.A. No.7513/2005 

The Apex Court will do not forget the undertaking towards the 5 - Judge Bench choice of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which with the aid of using 4 extraordinary opinions, has declared the "Andhra Pradesh Reservation of Seats withinside the Educational Institutions and of appointments/posts withinside the Public Services beneathneath the State to Muslim Community Act, 2005" as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 15(4) and sixteen(4) of the Constitution. 

 Issue : 

• Whether Muslims, as a community, may be declared socially and educationally backward for the functions of Articles 15 and sixteen of the Constitution ? 

•  Whether there has been applicable and clinical fabric earlier than the Commission to return back to an end that Muslims in Andhra Pradesh were, as a Community, backward socially and educationally ? 

•  How a long way the Court may want to pass into reading the fabric which became accrued with the aid of using the Commission ? 

•  Whether the standards followed with the aid of using the Commission became proper and if the Court may want to pass into the relevance of the standards ?

Judgment :

• In Archana Reddy vs. State of A.P. The essential task to A.P Reservation of Seats in  Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in Public Services beneathneath the State to Muslim network Ordinance 2005, turned into that the whole Muslim populace withinside the State can not be declared as socially and educationally backward. 

• The judgement of the court laid down that "there may be no prohibition  to claim Muslims, as a network, socially and educationally backward for the functions of Article 

•  15(4) and 16(4) of the charter of India, furnished they fulfill the take a look at social backwardness, as said withinside the judgement. Going thru what's said withinside the judgement, the bulk of judges held that the whole Muslim network in A.P isn't a homogenous magnificence and that there are numerous groups/lessons amongst them. The Court approvingly quoted the findings of N.K. Muralidhara Rao 

2. Case Title: Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee Vs. Shail Mittal & Ors

Minority quota for Sikhs  2007

Case No.: SLP (C) No C) No.2755/2008 

Abstract : The Current matters relates to an attraction filed with the aid of using the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) hard the selection of the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Courtroom, referring to reservation for Sikh university college students inner SGPC controlled institutes below minority quota. 

On December 17, 2007, the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Courtroom had struck down a notification issued with the aid of using the Punjab government on April 13, 2001 which accredited the SGPC to provide 50 according to cent reservation to Sikh university college students in colleges run with the aid of using it on grounds that Sikhs had been a minority institution. 

The Excessive Courtroom had observed that the notification had now no longer applied the needful parameters for adjudging a group of humans as minority. It had stated, “The state couldn`t be taken as a unit, as has been completed. There isn't a substance to verify that “Sikhs'' are a non-dominant institution in Punjab apprehending deprivation in their rights with the aid of using the palms of “dominant” teams, who may want to come to power inside the State in a democratic election. The notifications truly extraordinarily vires the jurisdiction of the State government, violating the right of equality and public curiosity.” 

The Apex Court can also consider whether or not or now no longer the selection rendered with the aid of using a three Judge Bench of this Courtroom in Bal Patil & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. stated in 2005 (6) SCC 690 is legally right. 

In Bal Patil, the Apex Court had refused to provide resource to an appellant-organisation representing a piece of Jain institution, who had approached with the aid of using writ petition the Excessive Court of Bombay seeking out issuance of a mandamus route to the Central Authorities to inform `Jains` as a `minority` institution below component 2(c) of the Nationwide Fee for Minorities Act, 1992.

3. Case Title: V. Vasanthakumar vs H.C. Bhatia and Ors 

introduction of appellate wings for Supreme Courtroom at nearby benches  - 2016

Case No : W.P.(C)No.36/2016 

This petition, filed in public curiosity, increases questions touching capacity structural reforms on the very best echelons of the Indian judicial gadget. The Apex Court has referred following eleven questions of law in advance before the Bigger  bench on 13.07.2016: With access to justice being a standard right, could the said right stand denied to litigants, due to the unduly prolonged put off in the disposal of times in the Supreme Court

Question of  law - arises by SC 

•  Would the mere enhancement in the kind of judges be an approach to the difficulty of undue put off in disposal of times and to what quantity could such enhancement be possible? 

•  Would the department of the Supreme Court proper right into a Constitutional wing and an appellate wing be an approach to the difficulty? 

•  Would the fact that the Supreme Courtroom of India is situated in the ways North, in Delhi, rendering adventure from the Southern states and every other state in India, unduly prolonged and costly, be a deterrent to real access to justice? 

•  Would the Supreme Courtroom sitting in benches in several additives of India be an approach to the very last pointed out drawback? 

•  Is the large pendency of times in the Supreme Courtroom, delivered on with the aid of using the Courtroom now no longer limiting its consideration, as in the case of the Apex Courts of various nations, to Constitutional points, questions of national significance, versions of opinion among definitely specific Excessive Courts, lack of existence sentence times and problems entrusted to the Supreme Courtroom with the aid of using precise provisions of the Structure? 

•  Is there a need for having Courts of Enchantment, with specific jurisdiction to concentrate to and finally remedy the large percentage of the ordinary times, further to Article 32 petitions now being decided with the aid of using the Supreme Courtroom of India, specifically while a widespread percentage of the four million times pending in advance than the Excessive Courtroom should require compare with the aid of using a higher intermediate court docket, as those judgments of the Excessive Courts should fail to satisfy the necessities of justice and competence predicted from a advanced court .

•  If four nearby Courts of Enchantment are established, in the Northern, Southern, and Western regions of the Nation, with the aid of using, say, fifteen judges, improved or appointed to each Courtroom with the aid of using the Collegium, could this now no longer satisfy the requirement of `access to justice` to all litigants from every part of the nation? 

•  In view of times pending in the Supreme Courtroom of India on not unusual place for approximately five years, in the Excessive Courts another time for approximately eight years, and anywhere among five-10 years in the Trial Courts at the not unusual place, wouldn't it not now no longer now no longer be part of the responsibility and duty of the Supreme Courtroom of India to study through a Structure Bench, the problem of divesting the Supreme Courtroom of approximately 80% of the pendency of times of a ordinary nature, to advise to Authorities, its opinion at the inspiration for organizing four Courts of Enchantment, just so the Supreme Courtroom with approximately 2500 times a one year instead of approximately 60000, should regain its real status as a Constitutional Courtroom?

Judgment :

The petition, was  filed in public interest, raises questions touching feasible structural reforms at the very best echelons of the Indian judicial system. Similar questions had been addressed withinside the beyond now no longer most effective through the Law Commission however additionally through this Court at the judicial side. We may also in brief confer with the equal to area the problems that fall for willpower in the right perspective. 

Court stated: 

•  "We need to comprehend that withinside the significant majority of instances the High Courts need to turn out to be very last despite the fact that they're incorrect. The apex court also can be incorrect on events however given.

•  the  concept that just like the apex courtroom docket which can be incorrect on events, the High Courts will also be incorrect and it isn't each blunders of the High Court which the apex courtroom docket can probably correct.

•  We suppose it'd be proper to installation a National Court of Appeal which might be in a role to entertain appeals through unique go away from the choices of the High Courts and the Tribunals in civil, crook, sales and labour instances and thus far as the existing apex court is concerned  

• The end result is that the ones coming from remote places like Tamil Nadu withinside the South, Gujarat withinside the West and Assam and different States withinside the East should spend massive quantities on tour .

4. Case Title: Janhit Abhiyan v. Union Of India 

with 32 associated issues – EWS quota - 2019

 Case No.: W.P.(C)NO.55/2019 

The Supreme Court on 05.08.2020 decided to speak about with the Structure Bench the petitions though the validity of Structure 103rd Modification which released provision for reservation to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). Financial reservation in jobs and training was proposed to be provided via way of means of putting clause(6) in Articles 15 and sixteen of the Structure through the change surpassed via way of means of the Parliament in January 2019. 

The newly inserted Article 15(6) lets the State make precise provisions for improvement of any economically weaker section of citizens, collectively with reservations in educational institutions. It states that such reservation is probably made in any educational establishment, collectively with private institutions, whether or not or now no longer aided or unaided, except minority educational institutions covered beneath Article 30(1). It extra states that the better limitation of the reservation is probably ten which is probably at the side of the prevailing reservations. After the change was notified via the means of the President, a batch of petitions were filed inside the SC questioning the constitutional validity of economic reservation. 

5. Case Title: Ashok Kumar Jain Vs. U.O.I with 

7 associated issues – referring to validity of increasing the time limitation for reservation in Parliament and assemblies  2022

Case No.: W.P. (C) No.546/2000 (Election Matter)  

Right here, the petitioners have challenged the validity of the Structure (79th Modification) Act, 1999 wherein the phrases `sixty years` were substituted alternatively of `fifty years` in Article 334 of the Structure- which resources for reservation of seats for SC/ST and precise reservation in Parliament and assemblies. Their suggestion argued that this alteration is closer to the essential feature of the Structure. In maintaining with them, democracy has been recognized as one in every of many critical alternatives of the Structure via way of means of this Courtroom and for the purpose that Modification Act deprive the democratic rights of the petitioners, since it`s violative of Article 14 of the Structure, it merits to be struck down. The Apex Courtroom had transferred the problem to a five-Judge bench on 02.09.2003. 

6. Case Title: Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 

With 16  associated issues – referring to Citizenship Act : 2012 

 Case No.: W.P. (C) No.562/2012 

On this be counted, the issue pending is whether or not or now no longer the expression “every man or woman born in India” might practice entirely to people born to Indian citizens and whether or not or now no longer the expression “each of whose mother and father is a citizen of India at the time of his beginning” in S.3(1)(b) of the Citizenship Act, 1955 might practice to entirely an man or woman who`s born to parents one in all whom is a citizen and the alternative a foreigner, provided he or she has entered India lawfully and his/her hold in India will now no longer be in contravention of applicable Indian prison guidelines. 

Judgment: 

Supreme Court went directly to maintain that Article 355 of the Constitution were violated, in as a good deal because the Union had didn't guard the State of Assam towards the outside aggression and inner disturbance because of the massive inflow of unlawful migrants from Bangladesh to Assam and went directly to maintain the 1983 Act to be violative of Article 14 of the Indian charter as well. As this Act became struck down, the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam Act 1950) collectively with the Foreigners Act and the Foreigners Tribunal Order of 1964 had been now to be the gear withinside the palms of Government to do the obligation of detecting unlawful migrants who had been then to be expel. 

Observation : 

 The 1983 Act and the policies made thereunder operated withinside the opposite path this is in place of considering that unlawful migrants are expel, it did the contrasting with the aid of using setting the weight of evidence at the State to show that someone takes place to be an unlawful migrant

7. Case Title: Anoop Baranwal vs. Union of India 

with one associated be counted: 2015

 Case No.: W.P.(C)NO.104/2015 

The matter relates to what the petitioner perceives to be a demand of having a full-evidence and better gadget of appointment of individuals of the Election Fee. The Apex Courtroom had in advance observed that the problem calls for an intensive appearance and interpretation of the provisions of Article 324 of the Structure of India. The Apex Courtroom moreover stated that the issue has now no longer been debated and responded via way of means of it in advance. 

 Judgment :

 The Union has defended the modern mechanism of appointments, mentioning the `sincere record` of all beyond Chief Commissioners. It has entreated the Court to now no longer intervene, filing that the problem falls inside the government domain. 

 On 23 October 2018, a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and SK Kaul referred the problem to a five-Judge Constitution Bench. On 6 January 2020, the Court tagged a comparable petition through Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay to the problem. 

 8. Case Title: The Animal Welfare Board Of India And Ors. Vs. Union Of India And Ors.with 14 associated issues – Jallikattu case 

  Case No.: W.P.(C)NO.23/2016  

 A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Rohinton Nariman had felt the writ petition revolving spherical Jallikattu involved full-size questions concerning interpretation of the Structure and referred the problem to the shape bench with five questions to clear up on furthermore those raised inside the writ petitions. The questions which turned into cited a Bench of five Judges are set out herein below: 

•  Is the Tamil Nadu Modification Act referable, in pith and substance, to Entry 17, Checklist III of the Seventh Schedule to the Structure of India, or does it extra and perpetuate cruelty to animals; and can it, subsequently, be said to be a degree of prevention of cruelty to animals? Is it colourable legal guidelines which does not relate to any Entry inside the State Checklist or Entry 17 of the Concurrent Checklist? 

•   The Tamil Nadu Modification Act states that it`s to defend the cultural historical past of the State of Tamil Nadu. Can the impugned Tamil Nadu Modification Act be stated to be part of the cultural historical past of four the parents of the State of Tamil Nadu which will gain the protection of Article 29 of the Structure of India? 

•  Is the Tamil Nadu Modification Act, in pith and substance, to make certain the survival and wellness of the local breed of bulls? Is the Act, in pith and substance, relatable to Article forty eight of the Structure of India? 

• Does the Tamil Nadu Modification Act move contrary to Articles 51A(g) and 51A(h), and could it`s said, subsequently, to be unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Structure of India? 

•  Is the impugned Tamil Nadu Modification Act immediately contrary to the judgement in A. Nagaraja (supra), and the examine judgement dated 16th November, 2016 inside the aforesaid case, and whether or not or now no longer the defects diagnosed inside the aforesaid  judgments may want to likely be said to were conquer via way of means of the Tamil Nadu five Legislature via way of means of enacting the impugned Tamil Nadu Modification Act? 

9. Case Title: Central Board of D.B. Group & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. with 1 associated be counted –

referring to ex-communication in Dawoodi Bohra institution  - 2004 

 Case No.: W.P.(C) No.740/1986 

•  On 26.2.1986 the cutting-edge petition turned into filed searching out re-consideration, and overruling, of the selection of Apex Courtroom in Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb Vs. State of Bombay and then issuing a writ of mandamus directing the State of Maharashtra to provide effect to the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Ex-conversation Act, 1949. Notably, the Apex Courtroom ruled by way of means of a majority of four : 1 that the Bombay Prevention of Ex-conversation Act turned into extraordinarily vires the Structure as it violated Article 26 (b) of the Structure and turned into now no longer stored via way of means of Article 25(2).

• On 17.12.2004, the Apex Courtroom opined that the problem should be located for paying attention to in advance than a Structure Bench (of five Judges) and in no way in advance than a larger Bench of 7 Judges. It is simply if the Structure Bench doubts the correctness of the regulation laid down in Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Saheb`s case (supra) that it is able to opine in favour of paying attention to via way of means of a larger Bench inclusive of seven Judges or such specific power due to the fact the Chief Justice of India may want to in teach of his power to frame a roster may want to deem suit to represent, introduced the courtroom. 

10. Case Title: C.B.I. Vs. R.R. Kishore 

with 1 associated be counted  : 2016

 Case No.: CRL.A.No.377/2007 

 Within the cutting-edge can be counted, the provisions of Part 6A(1) of DSPE Act which means that for officials of the rank of Joint Secretary and above, a shape of immunity has been provided for. The moot question that arose at the cutting-edge be counted is whether or not or now no longer there usually is a deprivation of such immunity via means of a retrospective operation of a judgement of the Courtroom, inside the context of Article 20 of the Structure of India.. The Apex Courtroom had referred the problem to a larger bench on 10.03.2016. 

11. Case Title: Karmanya Singh Sareen And Anr. Vs. Union Of India & Ors. 

with 1 associated be counted : 2017

Case No.: SLP(C) NO.804/2017 

This may be a specific leave petition filed closer to the Delhi Excessive Courtroom judgement in Whatsapp Privateness case. Karmanya Singh Sareen and Shreya Sethi had challenged the 2016 privacy insurance of the well-appreciated mobile application WhatsApp. Whereas allowing the WhatsApp to move ahead with the privacy insurance and to percentage statistics with Fb, the Excessive Courtroom had issued following commands 

•  If the clients move for completely deleting “WhatsApp” account in advance than 25.09.2016, the data/statistics/details of such clients should be deleted completely from “WhatsApp” servers and the equal shall now no longer be shared with the “Fb” or any person amongst its institution corporations. 

•  As some distance because the clients who determine to live in “WhatsApp” are involved, the prevailing data/statistics/details of such clients upto 25.09.2016 shall now no longer be shared with “Fb” or any person amongst its institution corporations. 

•  The respondents shall bear in mind the troubles referring to the functioning of the Web Messaging Functions like “WhatsApp” and take a suitable preference at the earliest as to whether or not it`s viable to carry the equal beneath the statutory regulatory framework. 

•  In April 2017, the bench headed by way of means of the then Chief Justice of India J S Khehar had referred this SLP to the Structure Bench. 

12. Case Title: Sita Soren Vs. Union Of India  : 2019

Case No.: CRL.A.NO.451/2019 

 “Whether or not no longer Article 105/194 (2) of the Structure of India confers any immunity at the Members of Parliament/Legislative Meeting from being prosecuted for an offence related to delivery or popularity of bribe to caste vote in a legislature?” 

A three Judge bench of the Supreme Courtroom led via way of means of then CJI Ranjan Gogoi has referred the aforesaid question To a larger bench, while taking into consideration Sita Soren`s appeal in the direction of Jharkhand Excessive Courtroom order which held that she couldn't claim immunity.

13. Case Title: Union of India Vs. M/s Union Carbide Company & Ors

1 associated remember : 2020 

Case No.: (C) No.345- 347/2010 in R.P.(C)No.229/1989 & 623- 624/1989 in C.A.Nos.3187- 3188/1988 & SLP(C)No.13080/1988 With T.P. (C)No.170/2011 IV-A 

•  The restoration petition was filed via means of the Centre for added reimbursement for Bhopal gasoline tragedy sufferers from US-primarily based totally Union Carbide Firm( that is now owned by means of Dow Chemical compounds). 

•  The petition filed in December 2010 seeks more reimbursement of Rs.7413 crores, searching out re-exam of the apex courtroom`s February 14, 1989 judgement via way of means of which the reimbursement turned into mounted at US$ 470 million (Rs 750 crore) and next orders of February 15 and Might four identifying the mode of price and agreement. In retaining with Central Authorities, the earlier agreement turned into based totally on wrong assumptions at the kind of deaths, injuries and losses, and has now no longer taken below attention the following environmental degradation. The agreement turned into based totally on the earlier decision of 3,000 deaths and 70,000 damage instances; the restoration petition has placed the lack of lifestyles numbers at 5,295 and damage decided at 527,894. has sought. 

•  As in line with Centre, the earlier agreement turned into based totally on wrong assumptions at the kind of deaths, injuries and losses, and has now no longer taken below attention the following environmental degradation. The agreement turned out to be based totally on the earlier decision of 3,000 deaths and 70,000 damage instances; the restoration petition has placed the lack of lifestyles numbers at 5,295 and damage decided at 527,894. has sought. 

•  A gaggle of sufferers have sought impleadment withinside the case thru Advocate Karuna Nundy helping the enhancement of the reimbursement. 

 14. Case Title: State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Paschim Banga B.Ok. Samity & Ors. with 23 associated issues: 2006 

 Case No.: C.A.No.16879/1996 

 The questions referred via way of means of  bench to larger bench: 

•  The scope and content material fabric of Article 300A especially whether or not or now no longer a rules pondered therein has to conform Article 14 and/or any component of Article 14 of the Structure; 

•   the volume of protection available in admiration of rules that is challenged below Article 300A withinside the context of the protective umbrella of Articles 31A, 31B and 31C of the Structure. 

• When the scope of agrarian reform rules is altered via way of means of amendment of the because of this that of expressions “assets”, “rights”, “proprietor”, sub-proprietor”, “tenure holder”, “raiyat and below raiyat” and “one-of-a-kind intermediaries” 5 (contrary to their because of this that in 31A(2)of the Structure) thereby covering non-agricultural lands collectively with factories and mills, whether or not or now no longer the protection of Article 31A is probably available. 

• The constitutional validity of Amendments again and again and frequently lowering the ceiling space, thereby denying lower priced reimbursement for the land which turned into held interior ceiling limitation as in line with the specific ceiling Laws, which render the second one proviso to Articles 31A, 31B and 31C worthless.” 

•  Further Questions of rules referred via way of means of events, alongside the questions referred by way of means of 2-Judge bench: 

•  Notably, the Apex Courtroom or 26.02.2016 has ordered to list the problem after desire in nine decide bench remember i.e. C.A.No.1012/2002 and plenty of others. 

15. Case Title: Bar Council of India Vs. Bonnie Foi Legislation School & Ors.

 with 14 associated problems : 2008

Case No.: SLP(C)No.22337/2008 

The subsequent questions had been mentioned the 5- Judge  bench: 

•  Whether or not no longer Pre-enrollment education via way of means of manner of Bar Council of India Coaching Guidelines, 1995 framed below Part 24(3)(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 should probably be validly four prescribed via way of means of the Bar Council of India and if so whether or not or now no longer the selection of this Courtroom in Sudeer vs. Bar Council of India & Anr. [(1999) three SCC 176) calls for reconsideration. 

•  Whether a pre-enrollment exam may be prescribed by way of means of the Bar Council of India below the Advocates Act, 1961. 

•  In case a post-enrollment exam may be validly prescribed via way of means of the Bar Council of India in phrases of Section 49(1)(ah) of the Advocates Act, 1961 

 16. Case Title: Union Of India & Ors. Vs. Preeti Aggarwal 

with 6 linked subjects: 2014 

Case No.: CRL.A.NO.375/2006 

 On 10.07.2014, the 2 judges bench comprising Justices Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla and Shiva Kirti Singh referred the query of, “whether or not the ordinance and its continuance for ever and ever as a regulation made via way of means of the Executive, might be opposite to the fundamental capabilities of separation of powers and the scheme of exams and balances inscribed withinside the polity the Constitution has adopted“. The Apex Court opined that figuring out the constitutional questions concerned withinside the gift case might have critical ramifications on different pre-charter legal guidelines which remain in pressure via way of means of distinctive feature of Article 372 of the Constitution of India. 

17. Case Title: Sukhpal Singh Khaira Vs. The State Of Punjab

 with 2 linked subjects  : 2019

 Case No.: CRL.A.NO.885/2019 

The Supreme Court has mentioned a bigger bench following 3 questions about the scope and ambit of energy below Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code which stays unanswered even after the judgment of the Constitution bench in Hardeep Singh: 

•  Whether the trial court has the energy below Section 319 of CrPC for summoning extra accused while the trial with admiration to different co-accused has ended and the judgement of conviction rendered at the identical date earlier than announcing the summoning order? 

• Whether the trial court has the Power under Section 319 of the CrPC for summoning extra accused while the trial in favour of positive different absconding accused (whose presence is ultimately secured) is ongoing/pending, having been bifurcated from the primary trial? 

•  What are the hints that the in a position courtroom docket have to comply with whilst exercising Power below Section 319 Cr.P.C? 

18. Case Title: Tej Prakash Pathak & others Vs. Rajasthan High Court & others 

with 14 linked subjects : 2013 

Case No.: C.A. No. 2634 of 2013

•  Tej Prakash Pathak mainly doubted the correctness of K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another (2008) three SCC 512, in which it turned into held that “creation of the requirement of the minimal marks for interview, after the whole choice process (together with written exam and interview) turned into completed, might quantity to converting the guidelines of the sport after the sport turned into performed that is absolutely impermissible” and ultimately, reference has been made via way of means of the three-choose bench to a bigger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. 

•  In Manjushree, 75 marks had been allocated for the written exam and 25 marks for the interview. The combination ruled the benefit. However, the written exam turned into a hundred marks. When the Full Court observed this, a sub-committee turned into appointed to make the arithmetical correction to cut back the marks withinside the written. exam to seventy five rather than a hundred. The sub-committee did  things –

  •   it made the arithmetical correction

  •  It added the identical cut-off percent for the interview as withinside the written exam and hence revised the benefit listing, which turned into accredited via way of means of the Full Court. In the process, some applicants had been eliminated from the unique benefit listing which includes Manjusree. 

•  Notably, in Salam Samarjeet Singh v. High Court of Manipur At Imphal and Anr (2016) which treated nearly a comparable difficulty turned into hard by way of means of a 3 Judge Bench in view of the distinction of opinion and it has additionally considering the fact that been published along side Tej Prakash (supra) via way of means of order dated 10.08.2017. The Apex Court additionally mentioned to refer the aforesaid remember to a bigger bench in Sivanandan C.T. &

19. Case Title: M/S Shanti Fragrances vs. Union of India & Ors

with 10 associated problems  : 2011

Case No.: C.A.No.8485/2011 

•  In this case, the Structure bench will remedy whether or not or now no longer the dictum in Kothari Merchandise Ltd v Authorities of AP, or the contradictory dictum laid down in Commissioner, Gross income Tax UP v M/s Agra Belting Works, Agra, is right. 

•  In Kothari Merchandise case, a 3- Judge bench had held that an access below a gross income tax statute which totally specifies rate can`t be used to consume into an exemption access. 

•  Whereas withinside the Agra Belting Works, it's been held that the charging element, the rate of tax element, and the exemption element all type part of one scheme and while a notification is issued below a A gross income tax statute which totally specifies price can`t be used to consume into an exemption entry. 

•  Whereas in the Agra Belting Works, it's been held that the charging component, the rate of tax component, and the exemption component all type part of one scheme and while a notification is issued under a price of tax component, that's next to a notification exempting positive gadgets, the goal of the legislature is that such exemption then gets withdrawn and makes the sale of such gadgets vulnerable to tax. 

•  One different important question posed by way of means of the bench is that this: “Beneath the cutting-edge examine, it`s clean that the view of four located Judges speaking for nearly all in a 7- Judge bench will succeed over a unanimous five-decide bench choice, because of they arise to speak for a 7-decide bench. Has the time come to rip the judicial veil and preserve that during truth a view of five located Judges cannot be overruled by means of a view of four located Judges speaking for a Bench of 7 located Judges? 

 20. Case Title: Sameena Begum vs. Union of India & ors. 

with 8 associated issues : 2018

Case No.: W.P.(C)NO.222/2018 

• The Supreme Courtroom is seized of with petitions- filed via way of means of 3 sufferers Nafisa Begum, Sameena Begum, Farzana and  advocates Ashwini Upadhyay and Mohsin Kathiri tough the constitutional validity of the polygamy and nikah-halala. Jamiat-Ulama-I-Hind moved the SC helping the practices 

•  On Might 7, 2018, yet another sufferer, one Shabnam, had moreover knocked at the doors of the SC. 

•  In retaining with Sharia or the Muslim non-public rules, adult males are allowed to examine polygamy that`s, they`ll have more than one partner on the same time, as tons as a entire of four. 

•  `Nikah halala` is a direction of for the duration of which a Muslim woman has to marry yet another character and get divorced from him in advance than being allowed to marry her divorcee husband as soon as more. 

•  They`ve demanded a ban on Polygamy and Nikah-Halala announcing it renders Muslim other halves distinctly insecure, inclined and infringes their simple rights. 

•  They prayed that Part 2 of the Muslim Private Legislation (Shariat) Utility Act be declared unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 (right to equality) , 15 (discrimination on ground of faith) and 21 (right to lifestyles )of the Structure, insofar as it seeks to renowned and validate the examine of polygamy and nikah-halala. 

•  Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind argued that the Structure doesn`t touch upon the non-public criminal tips and in the end the SC can`t have a take a study the question of constitutional validity of the practices. 

 21. Case Title: Pyare Lal Vs. State Of Haryana: 2017

 Case No.: CRL.A.NO.1003/2017 

•  A three Judge bench headed by way of means of Justice UU Lalit has stated a larger bench an important legal hassle regarding the validity of Haryana Authorities`s insurance allowing premature release of lifestyles convicts elderly above seventy five which overrides Part 433A of Code of Legal Process. 

• Whether or not no longer in educate of electricity conferred under Article 161 of the Structure a insurance is probably framed, whereunder positive norms or postulates are laid down, at the delight of which the gain of remission can thereafter be granted via way of means of the Government without putting the facts or substances with recognize to any of the times in advance than the Governor and whether or not or now no longer such educate can override the requirements under Part 433-A of the Code?” , the bench, moreover comprising of Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Vineet Saran, framed this question for attention of the larger bench. 

•  The court turned into taking into consideration a case of a murder convict (sentenced to lifestyles imprisonment) who turned into released after completing eight years of particular sentence invoking a remission insurance framed via way of means of the State. Earlier, the court had issued find out to the State of Haryana asking it to make clear its insurance which conferred the gain of remission on convicts who stood convicted for all instances sentence and are above the age of seventy five years (in case of male convicts) and feature performed eight years of particular sentence. It had well-known that the insurance appears to be in warfare with Part 433A CrPC, which stipulates  convict shall now no longer be released from prison besides he had served no much less than 14 years of the imprisonment, if he has been sentenced to lifestyles for an offence that involves maximum of lack of lifestyles sentence or in times the region capital punishment has been commuted. 

22. Case Title: Shilpa Sailesh Vs. Varun Sreenivasan 

with 6 associated Issues : 2014  

Case No.: T.P.(C)NO.1118/2014 

 The questions are formulated herein under: 

• What can be  the huge parameters for education of powers under Article 142 of the Structure to dissolve a marriage among the consenting activities without referring the activities to the Household Courtroom to wait for the important c language prescribed under Part 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. 

•  Whether or not no longer the education of such jurisdiction under Article 142 shouldn't be made the least bit or whether or not or now no longer such education has to be left to be determined in the facts of every case.

 23. Case Title: Vivek Narayan Sharma VS. U.O.I 

 with fifty seven associated Issues : 2016

 Case No.: W.P.(C)NO.906/2016 

•  After the assertion of demonetization in November 2016, some petitions were filed in SC though the selection process. The petitions had raised vast legal elements comparable to whether or not or now no longer the selection turned into unilaterally added via way of means of the Authorities without the proper consultation of the RBI Board. On November 25, 2016.

•  The SC agreed to examine the constitutionality of the selection. Earlier, the Apex Courtroom had directed that no distinctive Courtroom shall entertain, pay attention or solve any Writ Petition/court cases on the issue or in terms of or springing up from the selection of the Authorities of India to demonetize the previous notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/-, because the complete hassle in relation thereto is pending attention in advance than the cutting-edge court cases. 

 24. Case Title: Kaushal Kishor vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh Govt. of U.P. Dwelling Secretary with 1 associated matter : 2016 

Case No.: W.P.(CRL.) No.113/2016 

•  The case stems from the Bulandshahar rape incident wherein a Minister of the State, Azam Khan had brushed off the incident as a “political conspiracy and not anything else”. 

•  The questions regarding the status of a public professional vis-à-vis simple rights enshrined in the Structure have been framed via way of means of Senior Advocates Mr. Fali S. Nariman and Mr. Harish Salve, who've been appointed as amicus curiae and stated a Structure Bench vide Order dated 05.10.2017. 

•  The matter number was taken up presently and four questions of rules were framed via means of the Legal professional-Basic of India, Mr. Ok.Ok. Venugopal: 

• Whether or not no longer any more regulations are probably imposed at the Proper to Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a), apart from limits already enumerated under Article 19(2)? If positive, then to what extent? 

• Whether or not no longer higher regulations on Article 19(1)(a) are probably imposed, if it troubles people preserving an immoderate workplace? 

• Whether or not no longer  Article 21 is probably enforced in the direction of human beings and private corporations now no longer encompassed under the definition of `State` as in keeping with Article 12? 

• Whether or not no longer the State can continue in the direction of human beings under statutory provisions?

Main Issues

•  Whether the Court can impose regulations at the proper to freedom of speech and expression past the prevailing regulations provided under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. 

•  Can a Fundamental Right under Article 19 (this is freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (this is proper to existence and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution, may be claimed towards absolutely everyone apart from the `State` or its instrumentalities. 

•  Whether the State is under an obligation to affirmatively shield the property of the residents under Article 21 of the charter although it's miles towards a danger to the freedom of the citizen via means of the acts or omissions of every other citizen or personal agency. 

•  Whether the Statement of a minister, traceable to any affairs of the State, ought to be attributed vicariously to the authorities itself for now no longer maintaining in thoughts the precept of collective responsibility. 

•  Whether a Statement made by the means of a minister, that's inconsistent with the rights granted to the citizen under Part III of the Constitution (this is Fundamental Rights), constitutes as a contravention of such Fundamental Rights and is actionable as `Constitutional Tort` (civil wrong).

Judgment :

On 20th April 2017, the court referred the matter regarding the Statement of  Azam khan on the victims of the gangrape to a five-judge constitution bench requesting the amicus curiae to formulate questions of law, present arguments and try finding a solution that the bench can consider. On 23 October 2019, a constitution bench comprising justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R shah, and Ravindra Bhat began hearing the matter but could not come to a conclusion. The judges are still not sure about the extent to which they can expand the restrictions on writing to freedom of speech and expression and whether Article 21 can become a restriction of Article 19(1)(a).

25. Case Title: Common Cause v Union of India:

 Euthanasia and the Right to Die With Dignity  2021

•  In 2002, Common Cause, a registered society, wrote to the Ministries of Law and Justice, Health and Family, and Company Affairs, in addition to State Governments, on the difficulty of the proper way to die with dignity. 

• In 2005, Common Cause approached the Supreme Court praying for the right to die with dignity to be declared an essential property under Article 21 of the Constitution. They argued that denying the proper to die with dignity to terminally unwell sufferers extends their struggling and they must be allowed to make an knowledgeable desire via a residing will. 

•  On February 25th, 2014, a 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court referred the problem to a bigger bench. On March 9th, 2018, a 5-Judge Bench held that the proper to die with dignity is an essential proper. An individual's proper to execute increased clinical directives is an announcement of the proper to physical integrity and self-dedication and does now no longer depend upon any popularity or regulation with the aid of using a State. 

Issue :

•  Whether the constitutional assurance of the Right to Life consists of the Right to Die.

•  Whether euthanasia may be made lawful simplest with the aid of using legislation. 

•  Whether there may be a distinction among passive and energetic euthanasia. 

•  Whether people can give `develop directives` on scientific remedy for in the event that they lose the cap potential to talk withinside the future.

Judgment 

• On the 9 March, 2018, the Supreme Court gave a landmark verdict making the manner for passive euthanasia, which is likewise defined as Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS). 

• The Court reiterated that the proper to die with dignity is a essential proper, as already held by way of means of its constitutional bench in Gian Kaur case earlier, and declared that an person human being, having intellectual capacity, to take an knowledgeable decision, has proper to refuse scientific remedy such as withdrawal from lifestyles saving devices. 

• Giving its verdict withinside the civil no. 215 of 2005 - Common Cause vs. Union of India and others, the Apex Court concluded that someone of an equipped intellectual college is entitled to execute a strengthened scientific directive. 

•  The 538 web page judgement became brought via way of means of the five-judges` constitutional bench comprising the Chief Justice of India, Mr. Justice Dipak Misra, Mr. Justice, A.K. Sikri, Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Mr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan.

• In 2005, an NGO, Common Cause had approached the Supreme Court praying for a assertion that the 'essential proper to stay with dignity' under Article 21 of the Constitution is which includes the 'proper to die with dignity' and instructions for adoption of appropriate method for executing 'Living Wills', wherein someone, while in sound thoughts and properly health, may also report his desire that he have to now no longer be stored alive with the assist of ventilators, if doctors, at any degree of his lifestyles, opine that he can't be stored alive without lifestyles guide system. 

•  The judgment has paved the manner for the terminally unwell sufferers to are searching for demise thru the passive euthanasia beneathneath a "dwelling will". 

•  Euthanasia has been derived from the Greek word "euthanatos", which method "properly demise". There are  methods to are searching for euthanasia viz. passive and lively. 

• In passive euthanasia, there may be withdrawal of scientific remedy of terminally unwell sufferers, whereas, in lively euthanasia, injections or overdose of drug treatments is given to hasten their demise, that's unlawful in India. Passive euthanasia is taken into consideration morally advanced to lively euthanasia because it method permitting the affected person to die and now no longer killing him. 

Observation

I might absolutely aid the judgement as folks who are stricken by continual illnesses were stricken by continual ache and struggling and the remedies of which isn't any any cure, so for them, the discussion board is accurate in thinking about the freedom to die with regality and facilitates them in decreasing their pains and enduring from continual surgical procedures and care and can be apt to cease their lifestyles in a dignifies form. 

In my opinion, the modern provision on the subject of euthanasia and the modern scenario in our us of a is prudent and just. Though there exists an ambiguous detail which includes what comes below proper to lifestyles i.e. in not unusualplace purpose case, proper to lifestyles consists of the freedom to die with regality & idea of lively euthanasia desires to be definitely and well tested via way of means of our judicial machine overlook a greater clean and crystal view of the provisions of euthanasia. Further, I might say via means of selling Advanced Medical Directive directives are useful because it facilitates a affected person stricken by terminally sick disorder to pre-determine to cease his lifestyles.