Forwarded from 📚 LAW STUDENTS © 📚 (ASIF ALI)
🔰 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 🔰
Citation: AIR 1978 SC 597
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
📣 Background
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government under the Passport Act, 1967, without giving her reasons.
She challenged this before the Supreme Court, arguing it violated her Fundamental Rights.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
📣 Issues
Whether the right to travel abroad is protected under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
Whether “procedure established by law” in Article 21 should be interpreted narrowly or broadly.
Relationship between Articles 14, 19 and 21.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
📣 Judgment
A 7-judge bench delivered a unanimous verdict.
⚖️ Held that Article 21 is not confined to a narrow meaning; “procedure established by law” must be just, fair and reasonable, not arbitrary.
⚖️ Right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21.
⚖️ Articles 14, 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive but interlinked and must be read together.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
📣 Significance
Expanded the scope of Article 21 to include various unenumerated rights (like right to travel, right to privacy, right to live with dignity).
Introduced the principle of “due process of law” into Indian constitutional interpretation, aligning with natural justice.
Strengthened judicial review against arbitrary state action.
Became the foundation for later progressive rulings on fundamental rights.
👉 This case is often called the “Golden Triangle case” because it linked Articles 14, 19 and 21.
Citation: AIR 1978 SC 597
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
📣 Background
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government under the Passport Act, 1967, without giving her reasons.
She challenged this before the Supreme Court, arguing it violated her Fundamental Rights.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
📣 Issues
Whether the right to travel abroad is protected under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
Whether “procedure established by law” in Article 21 should be interpreted narrowly or broadly.
Relationship between Articles 14, 19 and 21.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
📣 Judgment
A 7-judge bench delivered a unanimous verdict.
⚖️ Held that Article 21 is not confined to a narrow meaning; “procedure established by law” must be just, fair and reasonable, not arbitrary.
⚖️ Right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21.
⚖️ Articles 14, 19 and 21 are not mutually exclusive but interlinked and must be read together.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
📣 Significance
Expanded the scope of Article 21 to include various unenumerated rights (like right to travel, right to privacy, right to live with dignity).
Introduced the principle of “due process of law” into Indian constitutional interpretation, aligning with natural justice.
Strengthened judicial review against arbitrary state action.
Became the foundation for later progressive rulings on fundamental rights.
👉 This case is often called the “Golden Triangle case” because it linked Articles 14, 19 and 21.
YouTube
LAW EXPLORER
This channel is an initiative for providing an aid towards legal study.
Forwarded from 📚 LAW STUDENTS © 📚 (ASIF ALI)
Sessions Judge exercises powers under:
Anonymous Quiz
13%
• A) Civil Procedure Code
6%
• B) Evidence Act
62%
• C) BNSS
18%
• D) Constitution
Forwarded from 📚 LAW STUDENTS © 📚 (ASIF ALI)
🔰 Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) 🔰
Citation: AIR 1975 SC 2299
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔊 Background
Raj Narain, who contested against Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in the 1971 Lok Sabha elections (Rae Bareli constituency), filed an election petition alleging electoral malpractices.
The Allahabad High Court (1975) set aside Indira Gandhi’s election for misuse of government machinery and violation of election laws.
During appeal in the Supreme Court, the 39th Constitutional Amendment (1975) was passed, inserting Article 329A(4), which barred judicial review of election disputes involving the Prime Minister, President, Vice-President and Speaker.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔊 Issues
Whether the 39th Amendment excluding judicial review in election disputes was valid.
Whether judicial review and free & fair elections form part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔊 Judgment
⚖️ A Constitution Bench struck down Article 329A(4) as unconstitutional.
⚖️ Held that judicial review and free & fair elections are essential features of democracy and part of the basic structure doctrine (as laid down in Kesavananda Bharati, 1973).
⚖️ Indira Gandhi’s election was conditionally upheld, but the amendment was invalidated.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔊 Significance
Reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine.
Strengthened the principle that democracy, rule of law and judicial review cannot be destroyed by constitutional amendments.
Stood as a check against excessive use of constitutional power during the Emergency (1975–77).
👉 This case, along with Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and Maneka Gandhi (1978), forms a trilogy of landmark judgments safeguarding constitutional democracy in India.
Citation: AIR 1975 SC 2299
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔊 Background
Raj Narain, who contested against Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in the 1971 Lok Sabha elections (Rae Bareli constituency), filed an election petition alleging electoral malpractices.
The Allahabad High Court (1975) set aside Indira Gandhi’s election for misuse of government machinery and violation of election laws.
During appeal in the Supreme Court, the 39th Constitutional Amendment (1975) was passed, inserting Article 329A(4), which barred judicial review of election disputes involving the Prime Minister, President, Vice-President and Speaker.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔊 Issues
Whether the 39th Amendment excluding judicial review in election disputes was valid.
Whether judicial review and free & fair elections form part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔊 Judgment
⚖️ A Constitution Bench struck down Article 329A(4) as unconstitutional.
⚖️ Held that judicial review and free & fair elections are essential features of democracy and part of the basic structure doctrine (as laid down in Kesavananda Bharati, 1973).
⚖️ Indira Gandhi’s election was conditionally upheld, but the amendment was invalidated.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔊 Significance
Reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine.
Strengthened the principle that democracy, rule of law and judicial review cannot be destroyed by constitutional amendments.
Stood as a check against excessive use of constitutional power during the Emergency (1975–77).
👉 This case, along with Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and Maneka Gandhi (1978), forms a trilogy of landmark judgments safeguarding constitutional democracy in India.
YouTube
LAW EXPLORER
This channel is an initiative for providing an aid towards legal study.
Forwarded from 📚 LAW STUDENTS © 📚 (ASIF ALI)
The Court of Session shall be presided over by:
Anonymous Quiz
8%
• A) Judicial Magistrate
17%
• B) Additional Sessions Judge
67%
• C) Sessions Judge
8%
• D) Chief Judicial Magistrate
Forwarded from 📚 LAW STUDENTS © 📚 (ASIF ALI)
🔰 Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 🔰
Citation: AIR 1997 SC 3011
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔔 Background
The case arose after the brutal gang rape of Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan who tried to prevent child marriage.
At that time, there was no specific law in India to address sexual harassment at workplace.
Women’s rights groups filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔔 Issues
Whether sexual harassment at workplace violates Fundamental Rights under the Constitution.
Whether the Court can frame guidelines in absence of specific legislation.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔔 Judgment
⚖️ The Supreme Court held that sexual harassment at workplace violates Articles 14 (equality), 19(1)(g) (right to work) and 21 (right to life and dignity).
⚖️ Recognised gender equality and dignity of women as part of basic human rights.
⚖️ Until legislation was enacted, the Court framed binding Vishaka Guidelines to prevent workplace harassment.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔔 Vishaka Guidelines (Key Points)
🔸 Definition of sexual harassment (physical contact, demands, sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography, unwelcome conduct).
🔸 Employer’s duty to provide a safe working environment.
🔸 Establishment of a Complaints Committee headed by a woman, with at least half members being women and one NGO representative.
🔸 Disciplinary action against offenders.
🔸 Awareness and prevention measures at workplace.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔔 Significance
First comprehensive recognition of sexual harassment as a violation of fundamental rights.
Marked judicial activism in protecting women’s rights.
Became the foundation for the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
👉 This case is often called the “cornerstone of women’s workplace rights in India.”
Citation: AIR 1997 SC 3011
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔔 Background
The case arose after the brutal gang rape of Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan who tried to prevent child marriage.
At that time, there was no specific law in India to address sexual harassment at workplace.
Women’s rights groups filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔔 Issues
Whether sexual harassment at workplace violates Fundamental Rights under the Constitution.
Whether the Court can frame guidelines in absence of specific legislation.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔔 Judgment
⚖️ The Supreme Court held that sexual harassment at workplace violates Articles 14 (equality), 19(1)(g) (right to work) and 21 (right to life and dignity).
⚖️ Recognised gender equality and dignity of women as part of basic human rights.
⚖️ Until legislation was enacted, the Court framed binding Vishaka Guidelines to prevent workplace harassment.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔔 Vishaka Guidelines (Key Points)
🔸 Definition of sexual harassment (physical contact, demands, sexually coloured remarks, showing pornography, unwelcome conduct).
🔸 Employer’s duty to provide a safe working environment.
🔸 Establishment of a Complaints Committee headed by a woman, with at least half members being women and one NGO representative.
🔸 Disciplinary action against offenders.
🔸 Awareness and prevention measures at workplace.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔔 Significance
First comprehensive recognition of sexual harassment as a violation of fundamental rights.
Marked judicial activism in protecting women’s rights.
Became the foundation for the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
👉 This case is often called the “cornerstone of women’s workplace rights in India.”
YouTube
LAW EXPLORER
This channel is an initiative for providing an aid towards legal study.
Forwarded from 📚 LAW STUDENTS © 📚 (ASIF ALI)
Every district shall have:
Anonymous Quiz
14%
• A) Only one magistrate
74%
• B) Chief Judicial Magistrate
9%
• C) Two Executive Magistrates
3%
• D) Only Metropolitan Magistrates
Forwarded from 📚 LAW STUDENTS © 📚 (ASIF ALI)
🔰 Post-Vishaka Case Law Development 🔰
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
1️⃣ Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (1999)
🟣 Facts: A senior officer allegedly tried to molest his female subordinate.
🟣 Held: The Supreme Court upheld dismissal of the officer.
🟣 Principle: Even an attempt to sexually harass a woman is actionable.
🟣 Significance: Reinforced Vishaka guidelines and stressed gender dignity at workplace.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
2️⃣ Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2012)
🔵 Facts: PIL was filed highlighting poor implementation of Vishaka guidelines.
🔵 Held: The Court directed all states and institutions to strictly follow the guidelines until proper legislation is enacted.
🔵 Significance: Immediate precursor to the 2013 POSH Act.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
3️⃣ Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) (related, but broadens protection)
🟢 Held: Protection against harassment must be understood broadly; dignity and autonomy are integral to Article 21.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
4️⃣ Farooqui v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017)
🟡 Held: Consent must be “unequivocal and voluntary”; highlighted importance of respecting women’s autonomy in sexual offence cases.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
5️⃣ Rajasthan High Court v. State of Rajasthan (2019)
🟠 Held: Courts themselves, as workplaces, are bound by the Vishaka guidelines and POSH Act.
🟠 Significance: Judiciary acknowledged as an “employer” under workplace safety laws.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
6️⃣ Union of India v. Mudrika Singh (2021)
🔴 Held: The Supreme Court emphasised strict enforcement of the POSH Act, 2013, directing all organisations (public and private) to have Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs).
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔅 Overall Significance
↪️ These cases collectively strengthened women’s rights at workplaces.
↪️ Ensured the Vishaka Guidelines evolved into statutory protection under the POSH Act, 2013.
↪️ Expanded the meaning of Article 21 (life and dignity) to include safe working conditions for women.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
1️⃣ Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (1999)
🟣 Facts: A senior officer allegedly tried to molest his female subordinate.
🟣 Held: The Supreme Court upheld dismissal of the officer.
🟣 Principle: Even an attempt to sexually harass a woman is actionable.
🟣 Significance: Reinforced Vishaka guidelines and stressed gender dignity at workplace.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
2️⃣ Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (2012)
🔵 Facts: PIL was filed highlighting poor implementation of Vishaka guidelines.
🔵 Held: The Court directed all states and institutions to strictly follow the guidelines until proper legislation is enacted.
🔵 Significance: Immediate precursor to the 2013 POSH Act.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
3️⃣ Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018) (related, but broadens protection)
🟢 Held: Protection against harassment must be understood broadly; dignity and autonomy are integral to Article 21.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
4️⃣ Farooqui v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017)
🟡 Held: Consent must be “unequivocal and voluntary”; highlighted importance of respecting women’s autonomy in sexual offence cases.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
5️⃣ Rajasthan High Court v. State of Rajasthan (2019)
🟠 Held: Courts themselves, as workplaces, are bound by the Vishaka guidelines and POSH Act.
🟠 Significance: Judiciary acknowledged as an “employer” under workplace safety laws.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
6️⃣ Union of India v. Mudrika Singh (2021)
🔴 Held: The Supreme Court emphasised strict enforcement of the POSH Act, 2013, directing all organisations (public and private) to have Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs).
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔅 Overall Significance
↪️ These cases collectively strengthened women’s rights at workplaces.
↪️ Ensured the Vishaka Guidelines evolved into statutory protection under the POSH Act, 2013.
↪️ Expanded the meaning of Article 21 (life and dignity) to include safe working conditions for women.
YouTube
LAW EXPLORER
This channel is an initiative for providing an aid towards legal study.
Forwarded from 📚 LAW STUDENTS © 📚 (ASIF ALI)
The appointment of Judicial Magistrates is done by:
Anonymous Quiz
7%
• A) Governor
42%
• B) High Court
48%
• C) State Government in consultation with High Court
2%
• D) Supreme Court
Forwarded from 📚 LAW STUDENTS © 📚 (ASIF ALI)
🔰 Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 🔰
Citation: (2018) 10 SCC 1
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
⌚️ Background
Section 377 of IPC, 1860 criminalised “carnal intercourse against the order of nature,” which included consensual same-sex relations.
Earlier, in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 377.
Several petitioners including dancer Navtej Singh Johar challenged Section 377, claiming it violated Fundamental Rights.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
⌚️ Issues
Whether consensual homosexual acts between adults are protected under Article 21 (right to life & personal liberty).
Whether criminalisation of same-sex relations violates Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination) and 19 (freedom of expression).
Whether Koushal (2013) was rightly decided.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
⌚️ Judgment
A 5-judge Constitution Bench delivered a unanimous verdict.
Section 377 IPC, insofar as it criminalised consensual same-sex relations between adults, was struck down.
Court held:
⚖️ Article 21 guarantees right to dignity, privacy and sexuality.
⚖️ Article 14 & 15 prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
⚖️ Article 19(1)(a) protects expression of one’s sexual identity.
⚖️ Overruled Koushal (2013).
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
⌚️ Significance
Landmark ruling recognising LGBTQ+ rights in India.
Expanded the scope of constitutional morality over social morality.
Reinforced privacy rights laid down in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) (Right to Privacy case).
Marked a step towards inclusivity, equality and dignity under the Constitution.
👉 This case is often called the “Indian Stonewall moment”, comparable to global human rights milestones.
Citation: (2018) 10 SCC 1
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
⌚️ Background
Section 377 of IPC, 1860 criminalised “carnal intercourse against the order of nature,” which included consensual same-sex relations.
Earlier, in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 377.
Several petitioners including dancer Navtej Singh Johar challenged Section 377, claiming it violated Fundamental Rights.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
⌚️ Issues
Whether consensual homosexual acts between adults are protected under Article 21 (right to life & personal liberty).
Whether criminalisation of same-sex relations violates Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination) and 19 (freedom of expression).
Whether Koushal (2013) was rightly decided.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
⌚️ Judgment
A 5-judge Constitution Bench delivered a unanimous verdict.
Section 377 IPC, insofar as it criminalised consensual same-sex relations between adults, was struck down.
Court held:
⚖️ Article 21 guarantees right to dignity, privacy and sexuality.
⚖️ Article 14 & 15 prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
⚖️ Article 19(1)(a) protects expression of one’s sexual identity.
⚖️ Overruled Koushal (2013).
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
⌚️ Significance
Landmark ruling recognising LGBTQ+ rights in India.
Expanded the scope of constitutional morality over social morality.
Reinforced privacy rights laid down in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) (Right to Privacy case).
Marked a step towards inclusivity, equality and dignity under the Constitution.
👉 This case is often called the “Indian Stonewall moment”, comparable to global human rights milestones.
YouTube
LAW EXPLORER
This channel is an initiative for providing an aid towards legal study.
Forwarded from 📚 LAW STUDENTS © 📚 (ASIF ALI)
Judicial Magistrates are under the control of:
Anonymous Quiz
6%
• A) District Collector
90%
• B) Chief Judicial Magistrate
4%
• C) Executive Magistrate
0%
• D) Police Commissioner
Forwarded from 📚 LAW STUDENTS © 📚 (ASIF ALI)
🔰 Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2009) 🔰
Citation: 160 DLT 277 (Delhi HC)
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🧭 Background
Naz Foundation, an NGO, filed a PIL challenging Section 377 IPC on the ground that it criminalised consensual homosexual relations.
They argued that it violated Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🧭 Issues
Whether criminalisation of consensual homosexual acts between adults violates Fundamental Rights.
Whether Section 377 is discriminatory under Articles 14 and 15.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🧭 Judgment (Delhi High Court)
Decriminalised consensual same-sex acts between adults.
Held that:
⚖️ Article 21 protects dignity and privacy, including sexual orientation.
⚖️ Article 14 prohibits arbitrary discrimination; Section 377 lacked reasonable classification.
⚖️ Article 15 includes protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
⚖️ Introduced the principle of “constitutional morality” over “popular morality.”
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🧭 Significance
First time in India that homosexual rights were judicially recognised.
Created space for the LGBTQ+ community’s constitutional protection.
However, this ruling was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013).
Citation: 160 DLT 277 (Delhi HC)
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🧭 Background
Naz Foundation, an NGO, filed a PIL challenging Section 377 IPC on the ground that it criminalised consensual homosexual relations.
They argued that it violated Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🧭 Issues
Whether criminalisation of consensual homosexual acts between adults violates Fundamental Rights.
Whether Section 377 is discriminatory under Articles 14 and 15.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🧭 Judgment (Delhi High Court)
Decriminalised consensual same-sex acts between adults.
Held that:
⚖️ Article 21 protects dignity and privacy, including sexual orientation.
⚖️ Article 14 prohibits arbitrary discrimination; Section 377 lacked reasonable classification.
⚖️ Article 15 includes protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
⚖️ Introduced the principle of “constitutional morality” over “popular morality.”
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🧭 Significance
First time in India that homosexual rights were judicially recognised.
Created space for the LGBTQ+ community’s constitutional protection.
However, this ruling was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013).
YouTube
LAW EXPLORER
This channel is an initiative for providing an aid towards legal study.
Forwarded from 📚 LAW STUDENTS © 📚 (ASIF ALI)
The High Court may confer powers to:
Anonymous Quiz
24%
• A) Civil Judges
10%
• B) Police Officers
65%
• C) Judicial Magistrates
2%
• D) Tax Officials
Forwarded from 📚 LAW STUDENTS © 📚 (ASIF ALI)
🔰 Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation (2013) 🔰
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
⏰ Background
After the Delhi High Court decriminalised consensual homosexual acts (Naz Foundation, 2009), the Supreme Court reviewed the decision.
Petitioners, including Suresh Kumar Koushal, challenged the Delhi HC ruling, arguing that Section 377 IPC should remain valid.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
⏰ Issues
Whether decriminalising consensual same-sex relations violates constitutional provisions.
Whether Section 377 is constitutionally invalid.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
⏰ Judgment
Supreme Court overturned the Delhi High Court judgment.
Held that:
⚖️ Section 377 does not affect a “minuscule fraction of the population” and therefore does not violate Articles 14, 15 or 21.
⚖️ Court refused to interfere with Parliament’s power to legislate on the matter.
⚖️ Essentially, homosexuality remained criminalised.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
⏰ Significance
Reversal of the progressive Naz Foundation decision.
Highlighted the need for a Constitution Bench and pointed to the importance of constitutional morality over social morality.
Sparked advocacy leading to Navtej Singh Johar (2018).
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
⏰ Background
After the Delhi High Court decriminalised consensual homosexual acts (Naz Foundation, 2009), the Supreme Court reviewed the decision.
Petitioners, including Suresh Kumar Koushal, challenged the Delhi HC ruling, arguing that Section 377 IPC should remain valid.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
⏰ Issues
Whether decriminalising consensual same-sex relations violates constitutional provisions.
Whether Section 377 is constitutionally invalid.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
⏰ Judgment
Supreme Court overturned the Delhi High Court judgment.
Held that:
⚖️ Section 377 does not affect a “minuscule fraction of the population” and therefore does not violate Articles 14, 15 or 21.
⚖️ Court refused to interfere with Parliament’s power to legislate on the matter.
⚖️ Essentially, homosexuality remained criminalised.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
⏰ Significance
Reversal of the progressive Naz Foundation decision.
Highlighted the need for a Constitution Bench and pointed to the importance of constitutional morality over social morality.
Sparked advocacy leading to Navtej Singh Johar (2018).
YouTube
LAW EXPLORER
This channel is an initiative for providing an aid towards legal study.
Forwarded from 📚 LAW STUDENTS © 📚 (ASIF ALI)
A city is declared metropolitan area if its population exceeds:
Anonymous Quiz
56%
• A) 10 lakhs
11%
• B) 5 lakhs
28%
• C) 1 million
6%
• D) 15 lakhs
Forwarded from 📚 LAW STUDENTS © 📚 (ASIF ALI)
🔰 NALSA v. Union of India (2014) 🔰
Citation: (2014) 5 SCC 438
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🕯 Background
National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) filed a petition seeking recognition of transgender persons’ rights.
Petitioners argued that transgender individuals face discrimination, lack of legal recognition and violation of dignity.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🕯 Issues
Whether transgender persons have a right to self-identification of gender.
Whether discrimination against transgender persons violates Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🕯 Judgment
Supreme Court unanimously held:
⚖️ Transgender persons have the right to self-identify their gender.
⚖️ They are entitled to fundamental rights under the Constitution, including equality, non-discrimination and dignity.
⚖️ Directed central and state governments to:
Provide legal recognition and welfare schemes.
Ensure equal access to education, employment and healthcare.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🕯 Significance
Landmark for transgender rights in India.
Affirmed constitutional morality, inclusivity and protection of marginalized groups.
Preceded and influenced the reasoning in Navtej Singh Johar (2018) regarding sexual orientation.
Citation: (2014) 5 SCC 438
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🕯 Background
National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) filed a petition seeking recognition of transgender persons’ rights.
Petitioners argued that transgender individuals face discrimination, lack of legal recognition and violation of dignity.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🕯 Issues
Whether transgender persons have a right to self-identification of gender.
Whether discrimination against transgender persons violates Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🕯 Judgment
Supreme Court unanimously held:
⚖️ Transgender persons have the right to self-identify their gender.
⚖️ They are entitled to fundamental rights under the Constitution, including equality, non-discrimination and dignity.
⚖️ Directed central and state governments to:
Provide legal recognition and welfare schemes.
Ensure equal access to education, employment and healthcare.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🕯 Significance
Landmark for transgender rights in India.
Affirmed constitutional morality, inclusivity and protection of marginalized groups.
Preceded and influenced the reasoning in Navtej Singh Johar (2018) regarding sexual orientation.
YouTube
LAW EXPLORER
This channel is an initiative for providing an aid towards legal study.
Forwarded from 📚 LAW STUDENTS © 📚 (ASIF ALI)
Which cities are currently considered metropolitan areas?
Anonymous Quiz
7%
• A) Pune, Kanpur, Surat
77%
• B) Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata
10%
• C) Jaipur, Lucknow, Patna
6%
• D) Ahmedabad, Indore, Kochi
Forwarded from 📚 LAW STUDENTS © 📚 (ASIF ALI)
🔰 Marbury v. Madison (1803) – U.S. Case 🔰
(Global constitutional landmark, often cited in India for judicial review concept)
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
💡 Background
William Marbury petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel delivery of his commission as justice of peace.
The question was whether the Supreme Court had authority to issue the writ.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
💡 Issues
Can the Supreme Court declare an act of Congress unconstitutional?
Scope of judicial review in protecting rights.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
💡 Judgment
Chief Justice John Marshall held that:
⚖️ The Supreme Court has judicial review power to strike down laws violating the Constitution.
⚖️ The law (Section of Judiciary Act 1789) that gave the Court power to issue writs was unconstitutional.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
💡 Significance
Established the principle of judicial review.
Ensures Constitutional supremacy over legislative acts.
Inspired Indian Supreme Court jurisprudence on basic structure and judicial review (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973).
(Global constitutional landmark, often cited in India for judicial review concept)
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
💡 Background
William Marbury petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel delivery of his commission as justice of peace.
The question was whether the Supreme Court had authority to issue the writ.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
💡 Issues
Can the Supreme Court declare an act of Congress unconstitutional?
Scope of judicial review in protecting rights.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
💡 Judgment
Chief Justice John Marshall held that:
⚖️ The Supreme Court has judicial review power to strike down laws violating the Constitution.
⚖️ The law (Section of Judiciary Act 1789) that gave the Court power to issue writs was unconstitutional.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
💡 Significance
Established the principle of judicial review.
Ensures Constitutional supremacy over legislative acts.
Inspired Indian Supreme Court jurisprudence on basic structure and judicial review (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973).
YouTube
LAW EXPLORER
This channel is an initiative for providing an aid towards legal study.
Forwarded from 📚 LAW STUDENTS © 📚 (ASIF ALI)
Metropolitan areas are declared by:
Anonymous Quiz
13%
• A) High Court
11%
• B) President
71%
• C) State Government
4%
• D) Supreme Court
Forwarded from 📚 LAW STUDENTS © 📚 (ASIF ALI)
🔰 Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) – UK Case 🔰
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔋 Background
Mrs. Donoghue drank ginger beer containing a decomposed snail.
She suffered illness and sued the manufacturer for negligence.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔋 Issues
Whether manufacturers owe a duty of care to ultimate consumers.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔋 Judgment
Lord Atkin established the “neighbour principle”:
You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would likely injure your neighbour.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔋 Significance
Foundation of modern tort law in negligence.
Duty of care principle influenced Indian tort law (e.g., M.C. Mehta cases on public safety).
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔋 Background
Mrs. Donoghue drank ginger beer containing a decomposed snail.
She suffered illness and sued the manufacturer for negligence.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔋 Issues
Whether manufacturers owe a duty of care to ultimate consumers.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔋 Judgment
Lord Atkin established the “neighbour principle”:
You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would likely injure your neighbour.
https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER
🔋 Significance
Foundation of modern tort law in negligence.
Duty of care principle influenced Indian tort law (e.g., M.C. Mehta cases on public safety).
YouTube
LAW EXPLORER
This channel is an initiative for providing an aid towards legal study.
Forwarded from 📚 LAW STUDENTS © 📚 (ASIF ALI)
Courts in metropolitan areas include:
Anonymous Quiz
11%
• A) Executive Magistrates
75%
• B) Metropolitan Magistrates
11%
• C) Sessions Judge
3%
• D) Panchayats