Mr.

Bhim Singh an MLA of Jammu and Kashmir

was arrested and detained in police custody and
was deliberately prevented from attending the
sessions of the legislative assembly to be held on
11th September 1985.
 He was arrested on an intervening night
between 9th and 10th September 1985 by the
station house officer of Quiz Kunda police
station, on the allegation that a case under
section 153A of Ranbir Penal Code was registered
against him for delivering an
inflammatory/seditious speech at the public
meeting held near parade ground, Jammu on 8th
September 1985.
 He has not produced before the Magistrate
till 13th September. There was also a voting
session at the assembly and he was not able
to vote as he was not allowed to go, where
his vote was very crucial but the person to
whom he wanted to give the vote won but
his right to vote was infringed.
 Thepetitioner a member of legislative
assemble from the state of Jammu and
Kashmir was arrested and detained in police
custody and was deliberately prevented from
attending the parliament sessions to be held
on September 11th, 1985.
 He was arrested t on the allegation that a
case under section 153A of Ranbir Penal Code
was registered against him for delivering a
malicious/seditious speech at the public
gathering near the parade ground in Jammu
on 8th September 1985
 He was not produced before any magistrate
until the 13th of September. There was also a
voting session at the assembly which he
apparently missed, where his vote was very
crucial but the person to whom he wanted to
cast the vote won but his right to vote was
infringed.
 CITATION: AIR 1986 SC 494, 1986 CriLJ 192,
1985 (2) SCALE 1117, (1985) 4 SCC 677, 1986
(1) UJ 458 SC
 Thelegality of detention and whether it
qualified as false imprisonment was in
question.
 violationof the constitutional right of the
accused person under article 21 and 22(2).
 section 153A
 Whenever a person by words, either spoken
or written, or by signs or by visible
representations or otherwise, promotes or
attempts to promote, on grounds of religion,
race, place of birth, residence, language,
caste or community or any other ground
whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of
enmity, hatred or ill-will between different
religious, racials, language or regional groups
or castes or communities
 When he or she commits any act which is
prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony
between different religious, racial, language
or regional groups or castes or communities,
and which disturbs or is likely to disturb the
public tranquillity
 All the crimes comes under SECTION 153A
 Article21 of the Constitution of India – Right
to Life and Personal Liberty
 “No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to a
procedure established by law.” This right has
been held to be the heart of the
Constitution, the most organic and
progressive provision in our living
constitution, the foundation of our laws.
 No person who is arrested shall be detained
in custody without being informed, as soon
as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor
shall he be denied the right to consult, and
to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his
choice
 Every person who is arrested and detained in
custody shall be produced before the nearest
magistrate within a period of twenty four
hours of such arrest excluding the time
necessary for the journey from the place of
arrest to the court of the magistrate and no
such person shall be detained in custody
beyond the said period without the authority
of a magistrate
 The honorable Supreme court Court observed
that the law enforcement officials acted in a
very most arbitrary way and ruled “if the
non-public liberty of a member of
the legislature is to be played within this
fashion one can only wonder what may
happen to lesser mortals”.
 Moving forward the apex court reminded the
duties of “police officials who are the
custodians of law and order within the state
should have the best respect for
private liberty of citizens and will not float
the laws by stopping to such weird acts of
lawlessness.
 Chinnappa Reddy J. and Khalid J. followed the choice of
Supreme Court in Rudul Shah and Sebastian Hongray cases
and expressed the view that when someone involves us
with the complaint that he has been arrested and
imprisoned with mischievous and malicious
intent which his Constitutional and legal rights were
invaded, the mischief or malice and invasion might not be
washed away or whisked-away by his being unfettered.
 In the case of Gloucester Grammar School,
the judgment of not holding the defendant
liable for setting up a rival school next to
that of the plaintiff was in accordance with
the Law of Torts, ‘Tort’ means ‘Civil Wrong’.
 Law of Torts is known to be “An instrument
to make people adhere to conduct of
reasonable behavior and respect the rights
and interests of one another.”
 Thisit does by protecting interests and by
providing for situations when a person whose
protected interest is violated can recover
compensation for the loss suffered by him
from the person who has violated the same
also known as ‘Injuria Sine Damno’ in Latin,
which means ‘injury suffered without an
actual loss’.
 In the case of Gloucester Grammar School,
the defendant was a school teacher in the
plaintiff’s school. Due to some dispute, the
defendant left the plaintiff’s school and set
up a rival school next to that of the plaintiff.
 Asthe defendant was famous amongst
students for his teaching, boys from the
plaintiff’s school left it and joined the
defendant’s school. The plaintiff sued the
defendant for the monetary loss caused.

 CITATION: ((1411), Y. B. 11 Hen. 4, f. 47, pi.

19)
 school teacher in the plaintiff’s school. Due
to some dispute, the defendant left the
plaintiff’s school and set up a rival school
next to that of the plaintiff. As the
defendant was famous amongst students for
his teaching, boys from the plaintiff’s school
left it and joined the defendant’s school. The
plaintiff sued the defendant for the
monetary loss caused.
 Gloucester Grammar School Case did not
violate any legal rights of the plaintiff
 Itwas held that no suit could lie, the
defendant was not liable. Compensation is no
ground of action even though the monetary
loss is caused but if no legal right is violated.
The defendant had lawfully set up his school
and did not violate any legal rights of the
plaintiff in doing so.
 Also,the students earlier studying in the
appellant’s school liked the teaching style of
the defendant, hence it was their choice to
choose the institution to study in. The
appellant could not stop the defendant to
run a business as a competition at his school.
 Ashby v White (1703), is a foundational case
in UK constitutional law and English tort law.
It concerns the right to vote and misfeasance
of a public officer. Lord Holt laid down the
important principle that where there is
injury in the absence of financial loss (iniuria
sine damno) the law makes the presumption
of damage and that it is sufficient to
demonstrate that a right has been infringed.
 Mr Ashby was prevented from voting at an
election by the misfeasance of a constable, Mr
White, on the apparent pretext that he was not
a settled inhabitant.
 At the time, the case attracted considerable
national interest, and debates in Parliament. It
was later known as the Aylesbury election case.
In the House of Lords, it attracted the interest
of Peter King, 1st Baron King who spoke and
maintained the right of electors to have
a remedy at common law for denial of their
votes, against Tory insistence on the privileges of
the House of Commons.
 SirThomas Powys defended William White in
the House of Lords. The argument submitted
was that the Commons alone had the power
to determine election cases, not the courts.

 CITATION:(1703) 92 ER 126, (1703) 2 Ld

Raym 938, (1703) 1 Sm LC (13th Edn) 253
 Ashby v White (1703), is a foundational case
in UK constitutional law and English tort law.
It concerns the right to vote and misfeasance
of a public officer.
 Ashbyv White (1703) 92 ER 126 is a
fundamental case of UK constitutional law
and English tort law.
 Everyinjury imports a damage though it does
not cost the party one farthing. For a
damage not merely pecuniary but an injury
imports a damage, when a person is thereby
hindered of his rights, said the judge
 Mohd. Ahmad Khan V/S Shah Bano
Begum[1]is a landmark lawsuit which has
dealt with the problem of "Triple Talaq
Verdict". This case is normally mentioned as
"Shah Bano Case". It is considered to be a
very debatable and problematic legal contest
in India. This lawsuit has substantiated to be
a milestone in the struggle of rights, freedom
for the Muslim women.
 Itis all about Shah Bano fearless and valiant
struggle against the system of Triple Talaq.
Instead of creating a history or story of a
suppressed women she faced the
embarrassment's of the community and her
husband. Even though she was facing such a
drastic situation in her life she elected to
struggled against her husband and faced the
the world where everyone was in favor of her
husband, and above all she bravely decided
to fight against the male-dominated society.
 Shefought against the system of Triple Talaq
and at last her efforts not went in vain, she
was able to achieve what she wanted and has
altered the system eternally.
 In 1932, Shah Bano was married to Mohd. Ahmad
khan, who was a renowned lawyer in Indore.
They were the parents of 3 sons and 2 daughter
i.e. in total they have 5 children.
 After 14 yrs. Of their marriage Shah Bano's
husband married another women who was
younger than him.
 In 1975, when Shah Bano age was of 62 yrs , she
was disowned by her husband and was thrown
out from her matrimonial home along with her
children.
 In April 1978, she brought a appeal under Sec.
125 of code of criminal procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
in the presence of judicial magistrate of Indore
after when she was thrown away from her
matrimonial home by her husband.
 Shah Bano filled this suit in 1978 because her
husband has abandoned her from the
maintenance of Rs. 200 per month which he
guaranteed to give.
 A wife who is without any income and is
neglected by her husband is entitle to
maintenance, which includes a divorced wife
who is not remarried.
 In Nov. 1978, he gave divorce to his wife Shah
Bano by articulating or uttering "Triple Talaq and
it was irrevocable.
 The argument or conflict between Shah Bano's
children and her husband's other wife were vital
reason or grounds on which divorce was
relinquished and furnished.

 After he pronounce irrevocable Triple Talaq, he

took a safeguard that since because of this
divorce she has been terminated to be her legal
wife and due to which he was not accountable to
furnish her with maintenance or alimony.
The local court ( magistrate) court directed
Mohd. Ahmad to furnish her Rs. 25 per month to
Shah Bano in a form of maintenance.
 Shah Bano in July 1908, apart from this, made a
plea to High Court of M.P, to alter the amount of
maintenance to Rs. 179 every month.
 Shah Bano's precedent went to Supreme Court
and filled a petition against the verdict of High
Court of Madhya Pradesh.
 CITATION: [1985 (1) SCALE 767 = 1985 (3) SCR
844 = 1985 (2) SCC 556 = AIR 1985 SC 945],
 Whether Section 125 of the Code Of Criminal
Procedure is concerned with Muslims or not.
 Whether the amount of Mehr given by the
husband on divorce is adequate to get the
husband rid and is liable to maintain his wife
or not.
 whether Uniform Civil Code applies to all
religions or not.
 Section 125
 (1)If any person having sufficient means
neglects or refuses to maintain--
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child,
whether married or not, unable to maintain
itself, or
(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not
being a married daughter) who has attained
majority, where such child is, by reason of
any physical or mental abnormality or injury
unable to maintain itself, or
(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain
himself or herself,
 The verdict of Shah Bano case was conveyed by
C.J, CHANDRACHUD.All India Muslim Personal
Law Board and Jamiat ulema-e-Hind were the
two Muslim Bodies accompanied the lawsuit as
an intervenor.
 On 3rdFeb. 1981, Supreme Court gave an like-
minded conclusion in this case and banished the
plea of Mohd. Ahmad Khan and validate the
verdict of High Court.
 Supreme Court in this case duly held that,
since responsibility of Muslim husband
towards her divorced wife is limited to the
extent of " Iddat" period , even though this
situation does not contemplates the rule of
law that is mentioned in Section 125 of
CrPc.,1973
 According to Supreme Court this rule
according to Muslim Law was against
humanity or was wrong because here a
divorced wife was not in a condition to
maintain herself.
 Thus at the end, after very long procedure
court finally concluded that the husband is
legal liability will come to an end if divorced
wife is competent to maintain herself.
 But this situation will be reversed in the case
when wife is not able in a condition to to
finance or maintain herself after the Iddat
period, she will be entitle to receive
maintenance or alimony under Section 125 of
CrPc
 a case which deals with the evil of Sexual
Harassment of a women at her workplace. It
is a landmark judgment case in the history of
sexual harassment which as being decide by
Supreme Court. Sexual Harassment means an
uninvited/unwelcome sexual favor or sexual
gestures from one gender towards the other
gender. It makes the person feel humiliated,
offended and insulted to whom it is been
done. In many of the cases, it has been
observed that homosexual labor harass an
employee belonging to the same sex to which
he belongs.
 Sexual Harassment violates the fundamental
right of the women of gender equality which
is codified under Article 14 of Indian
Constitution and also the fundamental right
to life and to live a dignified life is
violated/infringed under Article 21 of
constitution of India. Even though there has
been no provision for sexual harassment at
workplace under Indian Constitution.
 Bhanwari Devi who was a social activist/worker in one of the
Rajasthan village. She worked under a social development
program at rural level which was about to stop child marriage in
a village and this social program was administered/ initiated by
the Rajasthan state government.
 Bhanwari Devi en-devoured to stop the marriage of the Ramkaran
Gujjars (thakurs) daughter, who was merely less than one year
old i.e. she was an infant only. As a part of her duty, Bhanwari
Devi tried to terminate the marriage of her infant daughter.
Even of her vain-full efforts to stop the marriage, it happened,
but Bhanwari devi was not excused or pardoned for her this fault.
 She was exposed to or put forward to social punishment or
boycott. September 1992, she was been gang raped by Ramkaran
Gujjar and his five friends in front of her husband.
 The male doctor at normal primary health
center declined to survey her and the doctor at
Jaipur only made confirmation of her age
without any recommendation of her being raped
in her medical report. At police station too she
was been continually taunted by the women
countable for the whole of the midnight.In past
midnight she was been asked by the policeman
to leave her lehnga as the evidence of that
incident and go back to her village. After that,
she was only left with the bloodstained dhoti of
her husband to wrap her body, as a result of
which they had to spend there whole night in
that police station.
 The Trail Court made the discharge of the
accused people for not being guilty.The High
Court in his judgement propounded that it
was a case of gang rape which was
conducted out of revengeful situation.

 CITATION: ((1997) 6 SCC 241)

 theenactment of guidelines mandatory for
the repudment of sexual harassment of
women at workplace.
 Article 14
 Article 21
 Article 14(2) of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights provides that the right to seek and
to enjoy asylum, as guaranteed in article 14(1),
“may not be invoked in the case of prosecution
genuinely arising from non-political crimes or
from acts contrary to the purposes and principles
of the United Nations”. As an expression of the
concept that certain persons who flee
persecution are nevertheless denied
international protection as refugees because of
their involvement in certain serious crimes,
article 14(2) of the Universal Declaration
represents an “exclusion” provision.
 Article21 of the Constitution of India – Right
to Life and Personal Liberty
 “No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to a
procedure established by law.” This right has
been held to be the heart of the
Constitution, the most organic and
progressive provision in our living
constitution, the foundation of our laws.
 Article19 (3) of the Constitution provides
that nothing in the right to assemble
peaceably shall affect the operation of any
existing law in so far as it imposes, or
prevents the State from making any law
imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty
and integrity of India or public order,
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of
that right. The restrictions pertaining to
sovereignty and intergrity were added after
the adoption of the Constitution
 The judgment of Vishakha's case was
conveyed by Chief Justice J.S Verma as a
representative of Justice Sujata Manihar and
Justice B.N Kripal on account of writ petition
which was file by Vishakha the victim of this
case. The court observed that the
fundamental rights under Article 14[2],
19[3](1)(g) and 21[4]of Constitution of India
 The Supreme Court held that, women have
fundamental right towards the freedom of sexual
harassment at workplace. It also put forward
various important guidelines for the employees
to follow them and avoid sexual harassment of
women at workplace. The court also suggested
to have proper techniques for the
implementation of cases where there is sexual
harassment at workplace. The main
aim/objective of the Supreme Court was to
ensure gender equality among people and also to
ensure that there should be no discrimination
towards women at there workplace.
 Afterthis case, the Supreme Court made the
term Sexual harassment well defined,
accordingly any physical touch or conduct,
showing of pornography, any unpleasant
taunt or misbehavior, or any sexual desire
towards women, sexual favor will come
under the ambit of sexual harassment.
 The case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of
Kerala (Kesavananda Bharati) is perhaps the
most well-known constitutional decision of
the Supreme Court of India (Supreme
Court). While ruling that there is no implied
limitation on the powers of Parliament to
amend the Constitution, it held that no
amendment can do violence to its basic
structure (the “Basic Structure Doctrine”).
Further, it established the Supreme Court’s
right of review and, therefore, established
its supremacy on constitutional matters.
 Thisdecision may be said to have played a
major role in preserving India’s
parliamentary democracy. However, as some
of the implications of this case are even now
becoming apparent, it is clear that its
complexity and lack of clarity on certain
important questions left much to be decided
by posterity.
 Kesavananda Bharati challenged the
Constitution (29th Amendment) Act, 1972,
questioning the Kerala government’s
attempts, under two-state land reform acts,
to impose restrictions on the management of
its (mutt) property.
 Senior lawyer Nani Palkhivala, Fali Nariman, and
Soli Sorabjee fought the case for Kesavananda
Bharati. A 13-judge bench was formed to preside
over the case, heard over 68 days. In which, 11
different judgments were delivered in what is
said to be a 7:6 majority.
 Indira Gandhi government struck back against the
Kesavananda Bharati verdict. Chief Justice of India S M
Sikri retired the day after the verdict. Justice A N Ray, who
was among the six dissenting judges succeeded him and
became the 14th CJI superseding Justices Shelat, Grover
and Hegde, who were on the side of the majority in the
case. The case was again re-opened as Attorney General
Niren De moved the Supreme Court, however, no review
petition was filed. A 13-judge Bench was constituted to
review the verdict by CJI Ray, as Master of the
Roster. However, on November 12, 1975, the Bench was
dissolved after CJI Ray yielded to immense peer pressure.

 CITATION—(1983) 4 SCC 225; AIR 1973 SC 1461

 Bharatialso challenged three Constitutional
amendments – the 24th, 25th and 26th
amendments – introduced by the Indira
Gandhi government. The principal question
that was raised in the case was about the
power of Parliament to amend the
Constitution in totality especially with
respect to fundamental rights
 The ‘basic structure’ doctrine has since been
interpreted to include the supremacy of the
Constitution, the rule of law, Independence
of the judiciary, doctrine of separation of
powers, federalism, secularism, sovereign
democratic republic, the parliamentary
system of government, the principle of free
and fair elections, welfare state, etc.
 THIS CASE INVOLVES FOUR AMENDMENTS
 24th AMENDMENT (fundamental rights, 1971)
 25th AMENDMENT (property rights, 1972)
 26th AMENDMENT (privy purses, 1971)
 29th AMENDMENT (land reform acts, 1972).
 The Twenty-fourth Amendment of
the Constitution of India, officially known as The
Constitution (Twenty-fourth Amendment) Act,
1971, enables Parliament to dilute Fundamental
Rights through Amendments of the Constitution.
It also amended article 368 to provide expressly
that Parliament has power to amend any
provision of the Constitution. The amendment
further made it obligatory for the President to
give his assent, when a Constitution Amendment
Bill was presented to him
 The Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of
India, officially known as The Constitution (Twenty-
fifth Amendment) Act, 1971, curtailed the right to
property, and permitted the acquisition of private
property by the government for public use, on the
payment of compensation which would be
determined by the Parliament and not the
courts.[1] The amendment also exempted any law
giving effect to the article 39(b) and (c) of Directive
Principles of State Policy from judicial review, even if
it violated the Fundamental Rights.
 In India, a privy purse was a payment made to the
ruling families of erstwhile princely states as part of
their agreements to first integrate with India in 1947
after the independence of India, and later to merge
their states in 1949 whereby they lost all ruling
rights.
 The privy purses continued to be paid to the royal
families until the 26th Amendment in 1971, by which
all their privileges and allowances from the central
government ceased to exist, was implemented after
a two-year legal battle.[1] In some individual cases
however, privy purses were continued for life for
individuals who had held ruling powers before 1947.[a]
 The Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (Act 1 of 1964), in
the principal land reform law in the State of Kerala and
was included in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution.
In the course of implementation, the State Government
faced serious practical difficulties and to overcome
them, that Act was extensively amended by the Kerala
Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act 35 of 1969)
and by the Kerala and Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1971
(Act 25 of 1971). Certain crucial provisions of the
principal Act as amended were challenged in the High
Court of Kerala and in the Supreme Court, creating a
climate of uncertainty in the effective implementation
of land reforms.
 All these laws comes under challenge in the
Kesavananda Bharati case.
 The Constitutional Bench-led by Chief Justice
SM Sikri -- ruled by a 7-6 verdict held that
Parliament can amend every Article in the
Constitution but should be restrained from
altering the ‘basic structure’ of the
Constitution.
 The court held that under Article 368, which
provides Parliament amending powers,
something must remain of the original
Constitution that the new amendment would
change.
 The court did not define the ‘basic
structure’, and only listed a few principles —
federalism, secularism, democracy — as
being its part. Since then, the court has been
adding new features to this concept.
 The 39th Amendment prohibited any challenge
to the election of the President, Vice-President,
Speaker and Prime Minister, irrespective of the
electoral malpractice. This was a clear attempt
to nullify the adverse Allahabad High Court ruling
against Indira Gandhi.

 The 41st Amendment prohibited any case, civil

or criminal, being filed against the President,
Vice-President, Prime Minister or the Governors,
not only during their term of office but forever.
Thus, if a person was a governor for just one day,
he acquired immunity from any legal
proceedings for life.