1

LEADING CASES DECIDED IN 2017-2020

Krishna Murari Yadav
Assistant Professor,
LC-I, Faculty of Law,
University of Delhi, Delhi
Contact no. -7985255882
Krishnamurari576@gmail.com

S.N DOJ NAME OF REMARKS

. JUDGMENT
2017 2017 2017
1 2 Jan., Krishna Kumar Singh Bench of Seven Judges. Placing “Ordinance” before
2017 & Anr vs. State Of legislature is mandatory. Re-promulgation of
Bihar & Ors1 “Ordinance” is fraud and a subversion of
democratic legislative process. Articles 123 and 213.
2 2 Jan., Abhiram Singh vs. Section 123(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act.
2017 C.D.Commachen Seeking votes on the basis of caste, religion or
(Dead) by LRS and community amounted to corrupt practices under
Ors. section 123 and election of candidate who indulged
in it can be set aside.2
3 09 Association of Victims Ansal was Sentenced.
Feb.2017 of Uphaar Tragedy vs.
Sushil Ansal and
Anotheer
4 09March, Hussain and Anr. vs. Supreme Court directed disposal of Bail pleas
2017 UOI within one week. Speedy trial is a part of Article 21.
5 31-03- State of Tamilnadu vs. There is no fundamental right to carry on business in
2017. K Balu , liquor since as a matter of constitutional doctrine,
(Prohibition of sale of Article 19(1) (g) does not extend to trade in liquor
liquor near roadside) which is consistently regarded as res extra
commercium( a things beyond commerce) . In this
case Supreme Court passed an order that no license
should be granted to sale liquors on national or state
highway.SC said that it must be ensure that liquors
must not be visible or accessible directly within 500
metre from the outer edge of highway or service lane
of highway. To defeat this Order, several State
converted State Highway to District Road.
6 06April, Deepa vs. Union of . Hon'ble JJ, R.Banumat and A M.Khanwilkar
1
UGC NET 2018 (Dec.)
2
UGC NET 2018 (Dec.)

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi
 2

2017. India (Reservation for Regarding this Judgement, There is a lot of rumour.
OBC, SC and ST) Rumour is that OBC, SC and ST candidate can't
qualify in general category. This rumour is not
true.OBC SC ST can qualify in general category
provided that he/ she has not taken special benefit of
reserved category for example- age relaxation or
more attempt etc.
7 19 April State(Through) CBI FIR lodged on 06Dec.1992 for hatching conspiracy
2017 Vs. Sri Kalyn Singh for demolition of Babri Mosque in Ayodhya.
(Former CM of UP) Supreme Court restored criminal conspiracy charges
&Ors. against senior BJP leaders L.K.Adwani, Uma
Bharati, Murali Manohar Joshi and 13 Others.
8 28 April, Pawan kumar vs. State Appeal was dismissed.SC said, “She has an
2017. of H.P.3 individual choice which has been legally recognised.
It has to be socially respected. No one can compel a
woman to love. She has absolute right to reject.”
Women‟s right to love and reject.4
9 05May Mukesh and Anr.vs. Delhi Gang Rape Case. Death sentence was upheld.
2017 State for NCT of Delhi
10 09May, Suo-Motu Contempt The sentence of six months imposed by this Court on
Seven Petition (Civil) No. 1 Sri Justice C.S. Karnan, shall be executed forthwith,
Judges Of 2017 In The Matter by the Director General of Police, West Bengal, or
2017 Of: In Re, Hon‟ble through a team constituted by him.
Shri Justice C.S. Justice Karnan Case / Contempt of Court. This case
Karnan was decided by seven judges.
11 09June Binoy Viswam vs. UOI SC upheld constitutional validity of section 139AA of
2017 Income Tax Act which made mandatory linkage of
IT returns with AADHAAR subject to the outcome
of main case related to AADHAAR.
12 26July, Bimolangshu Assam Parliamentary Secretaries (Appointment,
2017 Roy(Dead) Through Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions)
LRs vs. State of Assam Act, 2004. Supreme Court declared this Act as
vs. Another unconstitutional. The Court held that Article 194 of
the Constitution of India does not expressly
authorize the State Legislature to create the office
of Parliamentary secretary.5
13 27 July, Rajesh Sharma &Ors Supreme Court laid down exhaustive guidelines
2017 vs. State of UP and regarding section 498A of IPC, 1860.
Anr.

3
UGC NET 2018 (Dec.).
4
UGC NET 2018 (Dec.).
5
UGC NET 2018 (Dec.).

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi
 3

14 16 Aug. Rakesh kumar Paul vs. Right to get „default bail‟ under section 167(2) of
2017 State of Assam Cr.P.C..
15 22Aug Shayara Bano vs.UOI Practice of Triple Talaq is unconstitutional.
2017 ( Triple Talaq Case) Constitutional Bench-Article 145(3) and (5)- 5
Judges, Decision 3:2 Majority Judges(1) Justice
Joseph Kurian (2) J. U.U.Lalit,(3)Justice
.R.F.Nariman Minority-(1) CJI Khehar (2) Justice
Abdul Nazeer. It is violation of Article 14. In
consequences of this decision, Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Divorce) Bill, 2017 was
passed in Lok Sabha.
16 24Aug, Justice Right to privacy is fundamental rights. In a
Aug. K.S.Puttaswami unanimous decision, a nine-judge Constitution
6
(Retd.) and Anr. Vs. Bench overruled the Judgment in MP Sharma and
UOI and Ors. (Right Kharak Sing Case.
to privacy is
fundamental rights)
17 11Oct. Independent Thought Section 375 Exception 2 is arbitrary to Articles 14,
2017 Vs. Union Of India & 15 & 21 of the Constitution of India. Now in all
Anr. (Rape with wife) cases, sexual intercourse with a women including
wife, if she is below the age of 18 years, is rape.
18 12Oct, Ms. Indira Jaising vs. Guidelines/norms for designation of „Senior
2017 Supreme Court of Advocate‟ by the Supreme Court and all High
India through Courts of this country were laid down.
Secretary general
&Ors
18A 13Oct, K.L.N.V. Dispute was regarding publication of Professor
2017 Veeranjaneyulu V. Kancha Ilaiah‟s book. Supreme Court observed,
Union Of India & “every author or writer has a fundamental right to
Ors7. speak out ideas freely and express thoughts
adequately. Curtailment of an individual
writer/author's right to freedom of speech and
expression should never be lightly viewed.” S C
declined to ban on publication of book.
st
19 2017 101 Constitutional Goods and Services Tax
Amendment
20 14/11/201 Kamini Jaiswal Vs. It was held that CJI alone had the power to assign
7 Union Of India & Anr. the case to a bench even if there were allegations in
(Master of Roster) the matter against him.
(Prasad Institute of Medical Science, Lucknow

6
UPPCS J 2018
7
UGC NET 2018(Dec.).

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi
 4

Case).
30Nov. Dr.S.Rajaseekaran(II) Guidelines for safety of road accident (1) Road
21 2017 vs.Union of India & safety policy, (2)State Road Safety Council (3)Load
Ors. Agency(4)Road Safety Fund(5)Road Safety Action
Plan(6)District Road Safety
Committee(7)Engineering Improvement(8)Traffic
Calming Measures(9)Road Sefty Audit etc. 25
guidelines were laid down.
22 01Dec. Campaign for Judicial Writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.25(Twenty
2017 Accountability and five)lakhs to be deposited by petitioner before the
Reforms(CJAR) vs. Registry of this Court within six weeks whereafter
UOI and Others said amount shall be transferred to the Supreme
Court Bar Association Advocate‟ Welfare fund
2018 2018 2018
23 11/01/ Ashok Pandey Vs. From an institutional perspective the Chief Justice is
2018, Supreme Court Of placed at the helm of the Supreme Court. In the
India Through Its allocation of cases and the constitution of benches
Registrar &Ors. the Chief Justice has an exclusive prerogative. As a
(Constitution of repository of constitutional trust, the CHIEF
Benches and Allocation JUSTICE IS AN INSTITUTION IN HIMSELF.
of Cases)
24 08March Shafin Jahan vs. Right to choose is a fundamental rights. SC has
2018 Asokan K.M. (Hadia restored the marriage of Hadiya with Shafin Jahan
Case) Akhila on08 March 2018 10 months after the Kerala high
converted into Hadiya. court annulled it.
S.C., said “Hadiya alias Akhila Asokan is at liberty to
pursue her future endeavours according to law. We
clarify that the investigations by the NIA in respect of
any matter of criminality may continue in accordance
with law”.
25 09 March Common Cause (A (1) Right to die with dignity is a fundamental right
2018 Regd. Society) Vs. under Article 21,
Union of India and (2) Passive euthanasia is legally valid and
Another. (3) Living will is legally valid.
Meaning of Living Will- Living will is a written
document that allows a patient to give explicit
(express) instructions in advance about the medical
treatment to be administered when he or she is
terminally ill or no longer able to express informed
consent.
26 20 March Dr. Subhash This is a Judgment on Scheduled Caste And
2018 Kashinath Mahajan Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
vs. State of 1989 in which anticipatory bail was denied and

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi
 5

preliminary inquiry was laid down as a pre-condition

Maharashtra and Anr.
for lodging of FIR.
27 19 April, Tehseen Poonawalla All writ petitions were dismissed. Misuse of Public
2018, and Ors Vs Union Of Interest Litigation. PIL has become INDUSTRY OF
India and Anrs. VESTED INTERESTS.
(Justice Loya‟s Death
Case)
28 17 July, Tehseen S. Supreme Court observed, “It is the duty of this Court
2018 Poonawalla vs Union
under the constitutional framework to deal with the
Of India (Mob
lynching and cow) primary grievance that pertains to cow vigilantism
and other incidents of lynching or, if we may say so,
targeted violence and commission of offences
affecting the human body and against private and
public property by mobs under the garb of self-
assumed and self-appointed protectors of law.”
Supreme Court issued exhaustive guidelines to
control mob lynching. These guidelines were divided
into three categories-
(1) Preventive Measures, (2) Remedial Measures and
(3) Punitive Measures.
All.H.C. Vivekanand Tiwari Reservation for Teaching and Non-Teaching Staffs in
07April, &Anr. vs.UOI & Anr Universities.
2017
29 S.C.21Jul Dr. Lal Chand Prasad Reservation for Teaching and Non-Teaching Staffs in
y 2017 & vs. UOI Universities. Rejection of Review Petition.
S.C.20
March
2018
30 Sept. 06, Navtej Singh Johar & Section 377 is partially struck down. The provisions
2018. Ors. v. Union of India of Section 377 will continue to govern non-
Thr. Secretary consensual sexual acts against adults, all acts of
Ministry of Law and carnal intercouse against minors, and acts of
Justice and Another8 beastiality.
31 Sept. 26 Swapnil Tripathi v. Live streaming of Court proceedings is feasible
2018 Supreme Court of due to the advent of technology and, in fact, has been
India adopted in other jurisdictions across the world. Live
Cases falling under the streaming of Court proceedings, in one sense, with
following categories the use of technology is to “virtually” expand the
shall be excluded as a

8
UP(J) 2018

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi
 6

class from live- Court room area beyond the physical four walls of
streaming: the Court rooms. Technology is evolving with
(i)Matrimonial matters, increasing swiftness whereas the law and the courts
including transfer are evolving at a much more measured pace. This
petitions; (ii) Cases Court cannot be oblivious to the reality that
involving sensitive technology has the potential to usher in tangible and
issues as in the nature
intangible benefits which can consummate the
of sexual assault; and
aspirations of the stakeholders and litigants in
(iii) Matters where
children and juveniles particular. It can epitomize transparency, good
are involved, like governance and accountability, and more
POCSO cases. (iv) The importantly, open the vista of the court rooms,
presiding judge of each transcending the four walls of the rooms to
courtroom shall have accommodate a large number of viewers to witness
the discretion to the live Court proceedings. Introducing and
disallow live-streaming integrating such technology into the courtrooms
for specific cases would give the viewing public a virtual presence in
where, in his/her the courtroom and also educate them about the
opinion, publicity working of the court.
would prejudice the
interests of justice. Etc.
32 Sep. 26, Justice Constitutional Bench 4:1.Supreme Court upholds
K.S.
2018 Puttaswamy constitutional validity of AADHAAR but strikes
(Retd.)And Anr. v. down certain provisions including its linking with
Union Of India and bank accounts, mobile phones and school
Others admissions. CBSE, NEET, JEE, UGC etc. cannot
make the requirement of AADHAR mandatory.
PAN, Income Tax Return9 and for availing welfare
scheme AADHAR is essential.
SC upheld Passing of Aadhaar Act as Money Bill.
33 Sep. 27, Joseph Shine v. Union Section 497 was declared unconstitutional. The
2018 of India decisions in Smt. Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union Of
India & Anr. (27 May, 1985), V. Rewathi v. Union of
India (1988)10 and W.Kalyani v. State Tr.Insp.Of
Police & Anr (1 December, 2011)11 hereby stand
overruled. Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. The State of Bombay
(1954).12
34 Sep. 27, M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. The Supreme Court, by a 2:1 majority, refused to
2018 v. Mahant Suresh Das refer the Ayodhya-Ram Janmabhoomi land dispute
And Others Etc. case to a larger bench. While the majority judgment

9
UP (J) 2018 (GS)
10
UP (J) 2018.
11
UP (J) 2018.
12
UP (J) 2018.

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi
 7

was authored by Justice Ashok Bhushan, for himself

and Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Justice S.
Abdul Nazeer delivered the dissenting opinion.
The majority judgment clarified that the observations
made in the Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui and Ors. v.
Union of India and Ors. (1994) judgment, that
mosque was not an integral part of Islam, have to be
understood in the context of land acquisition
proceedings.
35 28 Sept. Indian Young Lawyers 4:1. Justice Indu Malhotra,13 who dissented from
2018 Assn. V. State of the majority opinion, said that essentiality of a
Kerala religious practice or custom has to be decided within
(Entry of female the religion.
devotees between the The main opinion shared by Chief Justice of India
age group of 10 to 50 (CJI) Dipak Misra and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar said,
years to the Lord "One side we pray to goddesses; on the other, women
Ayyappa Temple at of a certain age are considered 'impure'. This dualistic
Sabarimala (Kerala). approach is nothing but patriarchy practised in
religion. The ban 'exacts' more purity from women
than men''.
It said that exclusion on grounds of biological and
physiological features like menstruation was
unconstitutional. It amounted to discrimination based
on a biological factor exclusive to gender. It was
violative of the right to equality and dignity of
women.14
36 Dec. 14, Manohar Lal Sharma CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul,
2018 v. Justice K.M. Joseph. Group of writ petitions, filed
Narendra Damodardas as Public Interest Litigations, relate to procurement
Modi & Ors. of 36 Rafale
Fighter Jets for the Indian Airforce. Para no.
25 of judgment related to report of CAG and PAC
became disputed.

13
UP (J) 2018.
14
The Hindu News Paper

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi
 8

Leading Case 2019 – 2020

S. No. Date of Name of case Remarks

Judgment

1 02/08/2019 Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Court can compel for „Voice‟
Pradesh sample.

2 19/09/2019 Union of India & Anr. v. Tarsem Supreme Court said, “We
Singh & Ors.
3 09/11/2019 M.Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. and
Anotherv. Mahant Suresh Das
(Ayodhya Land Dispute Case)
4 13/11/2019 Central Public Information Constitutional Bench
Officer, Supreme Court Of India
v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal.
therefore declare that the
provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act relating to
solatium and interest contained
in Section 23(1A) and (2) and
interest payable in terms of
section 28 proviso will apply to
acquisitions made under the
National Highways Act.
Consequently, the provision of
Section 3J is, to this extent,
violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India and,
therefore, declared to be
unconstitutional”.
1. The Chief Justice
Ranjan Gogoi,
2. Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y.
Chandrachud,
3. Hon'ble Mr. Justice
Ashok Bhushan,
4. Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.
Abdul Nazeer
Supreme Court under RTI.

Leading Cases Leading Cases -2020 Leading Cases -2020

-2020
6 10/01/2020 Anuradha Bhasin & Internet service is fundamental
Ghulam Nabi Azad v. Union right under Article 19.
of India And Ors. Article 19(1)(a) and Article
19(1)(g).
7 29/01/2020 Sushila Aggarwal and others v. Duration or Life of

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi
 9

State (NCT of Delhi) and „Anticipatory Bail‟.

another Constitutional Bench
8 10/04/ 2019 Yashwant Sinha & Ors. v. Review of Refale Judgment.
CBI Through Its Director & Anr Evidence collected even in
illegal manners is admissible

Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (02/08/2019)

Fact -On 7th December, 2009 the In-charge of the Electronics Cell of Sadar Bazar Police Station
located in the district of Saharanpur of the State of Uttar Pradesh lodged a First Information
Report alleging that one Dhoom Singh in association with the appellant – Ritesh Sinha, was
engaged in collection of monies from different people on the promise of jobs in the Police.
Dhoom Singh was arrested and one mobile phone was seized from him. The Investigating
Authority wanted to verify whether the recorded conversation in the mobile phone was between
Dhoom Singh and the appellant – Ritesh Sinha. They, therefore, needed the voice sample of the
appellant and accordingly filed an application before the learned jurisdictional Chief Judicial
Magistrate praying for summoning the appellant to the Court for recording his voice sample.
CJM, Saharanpur by order dated 8th January, 2010 issued summons to the appellant to appear
before the Investigating Officer and to give his voice sample.
High Court -This order of the learned CJM was challenged before the High Court of Allahabad
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C”).
The High Court having negatived the challenge made by the appellant by its order dated 9th July,
2010, the appeal was filed in Supreme Court.
Supreme Court – In the light of decision of State of Bombay vs.Kathi Kalu Oghad it can be
concluded that „Voice‟ does not come under protection provided by Article 20(3) of the
Constitution of India. Cr.P.C. is silent. Supreme Court observed, “We unhesitatingly take the
view that until explicit provisions are engrafted in the Code of Criminal Procedure by
Parliament, a Judicial Magistrate must be conceded the power to order a person to give a sample
of his voice for the purpose of investigation of a crime. Such power has to be conferred on a
Magistrate by a process of judicial interpretation and in exercise of jurisdiction vested in this
Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India”.
Union of India & Anr. v. Tarsem Singh & Ors. (19/09/2019)
Supreme Court said, “We therefore declare that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act
relating to solatium and interest contained in Section 23(1A) and (2) and interest payable in
terms of section 28 proviso will apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act.
Consequently, the provision of Section 3J is, to this extent, violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India and, therefore, declared to be unconstitutional”.

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi
 10

(2)M.Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Mahant Suresh Das (Ayodhya Land Dispute Case) (09/11/2019)
There are following direction –
Hindu
 (i) The Central Government shall, within a period of three months from the date of this
judgment, formulate a scheme pursuant to the powers vested in it under Sections 6 and 7
of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act 1993.
 The scheme shall envisage the setting up of a trust with a Board of Trustees or any other
appropriate body under Section 6.
 The scheme to be framed by the Central Government shall make necessary provisions in
regard to the functioning of the trust or body including on matters relating to the
management of the trust, the powers of the trustees including the construction of a temple
and all necessary, incidental and supplemental matters;
 (ii) Possession of the inner and outer courtyards shall be handed over to the Board of
Trustees of the Trust or to the body so constituted. The Central Government will be at
liberty to make suitable provisions in respect of the rest of the acquired land by handing it
over to the Trust or body for management and development in terms of the scheme
framed in accordance with the above directions; and
 (iii) Possession of the disputed property shall continue to vest in the statutory receiver
under the Central Government, untill in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 6 of the
Ayodhya Act of 1993, a notification is issued vesting the property in the trust or other
body.
Muslim
 (i) Simultaneously, with the handing over of the disputed property to the Trust or body
under clause 2 above, a suitable plot of land admeasuring 5 acres shall be handed over
to the Sunni Central Waqf Board,
 (ii) The land shall be allotted either by: (a) The Central Government out of the land
acquired under the Ayodhya Act 1993; or (b) The State Government at a suitable
prominent place in Ayodhya; The Central Government and the State Government shall
act in consultation with each other to effectuate the above allotment in the period
stipulated.
Anuradha Bhasin & Ghulam Nabi Azad v. Union of India and Ors. (10/01/2020)

Fact -Internet Service all over India especially Jammu and Kashmir.

Supreme Court observed,

1. “We declare that the freedom of speech and expression and the freedom to practice any
profession or carry on any trade, business or occupation over the medium of internet
enjoys constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g). The
restriction upon such fundamental rights should be in consonance with the mandate under
Article 19 (2) and (6) of the Constitution, inclusive of the test of proportionality.
2. An order suspending internet services indefinitely is impermissible under the Temporary
Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Service) Rules, 2017.
3. Suspension can be utilized for temporary duration only.

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi
 11

4. Any order suspending internet issued under the Suspension Rules, must adhere to the
principle of proportionality and must not extend beyond necessary duration. Any order
suspending internet under the Suspension Rules is subject to judicial review based on the
parameters set out herein”.

Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (January 29, 2020)
(Constitutional Bench)
Abstract – In this Case Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court discussed several cases
relating to anticipatory bail to decided life/ duration of „Anticipatory Bail‟. Especially
Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Case (1980), Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh Case (1995) and
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (2010).
Reason of Conflicting opinion

In case of Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) Constitutional Bench said,
“The normal rule should be not to limit the operation of the order in relation to a
period of time”. It was followed till Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of
Maharashtra15. It was stated in Salauddin Case that grant of anticipatory bail should not
mean that the regular court, which is to try the offender, would be “bypassed”.
Supreme Court fixed the outer date for the continuance of the bail and further directed
that the petitioner, upon expiry, should move the regular court of bail. It means
„Anticipatory bail‟ is for limited period. Generally this judgment was followed till
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2010).16 In this case it was
observed that life of anticipatory bail cannot be curtailed. Constitutional Bench of
Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and
another (January 29, 2020) settled this controversy. In this case Supreme Court said that
ruling of Sibbia Case must be followed. Salauddin Case( 1995) and Siddharam Case
(2010) are of extreme views which cannot be accepted.

Yashwant Sinha & Ors. v. CBI Through Its Diector & Anr17 (April 10, 2019)

In this case „Review Petition‟ was filed on the grounds of discloser of new facts related to
„Rafale Deal‟ which were collected by members of The Hindu News Paper. These facts were
also published in the News Paper. Maintainability of Review Petition was challenged on the
ground of lack of bona fide. Attorney General claimed that these copies have been taken illegally
. Attorney General contended that documents were unauthorisely removed from the Ministry in
violation of several laws.
But Supreme Court did not accept this contention and accepted „Review Petition‟. Hon‟ble
Justcie K.M. Joseph observed, “ Under the common law both in England and in India the context
for material being considered by the court is relevancy. There can be no dispute that the manner

15
(1996) 1 SCC 667
16
(2011) 1 SCC.
17
Available at : https://www.thehindu.com/news/resources/article26793859.ece/BINARY/Rafale-Review-
Judgement_10-Apr-2019.pdf (Last visited on February 19, 2020).

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi
 12

in which evidence is got namely that it was procured in an illegal manner would not ordinarily be
very significant in itself in regard to the Courts decision to act upon the same”.

UPSC (8 March, 2020)

Question - Which among the following citations is more relevant to the judgement relating to
“Sabarimala Temple”?
(a) Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. v. State of Kerala
(b) Justice Puttaswamy v. State of Kerala
(c) Ayyapaa Temple Trustees v. State of Kerala
(d) Sabarimala v. State of Kerala.
Answer – A.

CASES DECIDED BY SPECIAL COURT

Krishna Murari Yadav

Assistant Professor,
LC-I, Faculty of Law,
University of Delhi, Delhi
Contact no. -7985255882
Krishnamurari576@gmail.com

S.N. DOJ NAME OF JUDGMENT REMARKS

1 26/08/2017 CBI vs.Gurmeet Ram Rape
Rahim Singh
(Ram Rahim Case)
2 All.H.C. Vivekanand Tiwari &Anr.Reservation for Teaching and Non-Teaching
07April, vs.UOI & Anr Staffs in Universities.
2017
3 23Dec.2017 State(ThroughC.B.I.) vs. Fodder Scam
Shri Lalu Prasad and Anr.
(Lalu Yadav Case

4 05April, Salman Case Blackbuck Poaching Case, Five Years Jail. He

2017 was sent to Jodhpur Jail.
5 25/04/2018 State of Rajasthan vs. Aasharam was convicted for committing rape of
Asharam and Anr.( minor.
Aasharam Case)

Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi