In this case, the Supreme Court of India observed that there has been an increase in the number of criminal politicians in India since the last 4 general elections, and there is no explanation on the part of political parties as to why they have selected a candidate with a criminal record.
FACTS OF THE CASE
In this case, the Supreme Court of India observed that there has been an increase in the number of criminal politicians in India since the last 4 general elections, and there is no explanation on the part of political parties as to why they have selected a candidate with a criminal record. In 2004, 24% of the members of Parliament had criminal cases pending against them. In 2009, that went up to 30%, in 2014 to 34%, and in 2019, as many as 43% of MPs had criminal cases pending against them.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The Supreme Court directed the political parties at the Central level and State level to upload on their respective websites the correct details concerning the pending criminal cases against the selected candidates, with the reasons why such candidate has been selected instead of other candidates with no criminal record.
Such information must also be published in one local newspaper and one national newspaper, and on the official media platforms of the political party, including Facebook, and Twitter. The details must be published within 48 hours of the selection of the candidate and not less than two weeks before the first date for filing of nominations, whichever is earlier.
All the concerned political parties must also submit a report of compliance with the directions passed by the Apex Court with the Election Commission of India within 72 hours of the selection of the candidate, and if any political party fails to submit such report to the Election Commission, the Election Commission shall bring such incident to the notice of Supreme Court of India as being in contempt of court’s orders.
FACTS OF THE CASE
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.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
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. The court further held that Section 144 CrPC is not only remedial but also preventive, and shall be exercised only in cases where there is danger or apprehension of danger. The jurisdiction of Section 144 of CrPC shall not be used to suppress the legitimate expression of opinion or grievance or exercise of any democratic rights.
The Apex Court also directed the respondent-State or competent authorities to publish all orders in force and any future orders under Section 144 of CrPC and for suspension of telecom services, including internet, to enable the affected persons to challenge it before the High Court or appropriate forum.
The Court further held that an order passed under Section 144 of CrPC should state the material facts to enable judicial review of the same. The power should be exercised in a bona fide and reasonable manner, and the same should be passed by relying on the material facts, indicative of application of mind which will enable judicial scrutiny.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Supreme Court of India in this case, after hearing the learned amicus curiae, considered the guidelines given in the case of Shri Dilip K. Basu vs State of West Bengal & Ors., (2015) which held that there is a need to install CCTV camera footage and periodically publish a report of its observations.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The court in this case has directed all the States and Union Territories to install CCTV cameras in their jurisdictional police stations and file an affidavit regarding the same within six weeks from the date of delivery of the judgment.
The Apex court also directed the Central government to install CCTV cameras which shall be equipped with night vision and consists of audio and video footage at the Central Bureau Investigation (CBI) offices, National Investigation Agency (NIA), Enforcement Directorate (ED), Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) offices, and other similar central agencies at the places where interrogation of people takes place.
FACTS OF THE CASE
In this case, the accused, who was a juvenile at the time of the commission of the offence, committed an offence that is punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The juvenile at the time of occurrence of the incident was above 16 years but below 18 years, and the Juvenile Justice board held that the accused has committed a heinous offence, and, therefore should be tried as an adult.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The Supreme Court of India, in this case, held that an offence for which there is a sentence of more than 7 years of imprisonment but does not have any minimum sentence, or providing a minimum sentence of fewer than 7 years, cannot be considered as a heinous offence within the ambit of Section 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Supreme Court of India, in this case, took suo moto cognizance when the learned amicus curiae drew the attention of the court towards two circumstances and some allegations regarding the detention and torture of children in police custody in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The Apex court, in this case, held that a child cannot be kept in jail or police custody and instead shall be kept in an observation home or place of safety. The court also emphasized the compulsion of bail to juvenile offenders, the provisions of which are enshrined under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The Apex Court further held that Section 10 of the JJ Act, lays down that when any child alleged to be in conflict with law is apprehended by the police, such child should be placed under the charge of the special juvenile police unit or the designated child welfare officer. The Section further provides that such authority should produce the child before the Juvenile Justice Board without any loss of time and within 24 hours after the child is apprehended.
The court also came heavily on the Juvenile Justice Board, who shall not be silent spectators and pass orders only when a case comes to them. The JJ boards can also take cognizance of the situations when it comes to the knowledge of the board that a child has been detained in police custody or prison. It is the primary duty of JJ boards to grant bail to juvenile offenders or at least send them to an observation home or any such place of safety.
FACTS OF THE CASE
In the present case, the appellant filed a petition challenging the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court which upheld the decision of sessions court which held that the daughter of the respondent is only entitled to maintenance under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 till she attains the age of majority.
Being aggrieved by the decision of the sessions court, the appellant filed a review petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Eventually, the matter came before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, however, the learned court also upheld the decision of the sessions court, and later the matter came before the Supreme Court of India.
The primary issue raised in this case was whether a Hindu unmarried daughter can claim maintenance from her father under Section 125 CrPC only up to the time she attains majority or can she claim maintenance till she gets married.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The Supreme Court of India, in this case, held that an unmarried Hindu daughter can claim maintenance from her father till she gets married under Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, however, such daughter must prove that she is not able to maintain herself and then only she shall be entitled to maintenance under the 1956 act.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The said case raised the question that whether the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which provides a daughter with the equal right to inherit ancestral property, has a retrospective effect to such an extent that when the 2005 act came in force, the father of the appellant daughter was not alive.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The Supreme Court of India in this case held that the 2005 amendment has retrospective effect and a daughter will remain a coparcener throughout her life irrespective of whether her father is alive or not or was alive or not at the time of commencement of the 2005 amendment.
The court held that under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, daughters who are born before or after the commencement of the 2005 amendment hold the equal status of coparcener as a son. The court further upheld the judgment of Danamma @ Suman Surpur vs Amar (2018) where the Apex court held that provisions of Section 6 confer full rights upon the daughter coparcener. Any coparcener, including a daughter, can claim a partition in the coparcenary property.
The statutory fiction of partition created by the provision of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as originally enacted did not bring about the actual partition or disruption of the coparcenary. The fiction was only to ascertain the share of the deceased coparcener when he was survived by a female heir or male relative of such a female.
