Case No 1 Respondent 2

GOKHALE EDUCATION SOCIETY’S N. B. T.
LAW COLLEGE , NASHIK 05
GOKHALE EDUCATION SOCIETY’S
NARHAR BALWANT THAKUR LAW COLLEGE ,
NASHIK .
MOOT COURT CASE NUMBER : 01
NATURE OF : CRIMINAL CASE (WRIT PETITION)
CASE (PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)
JUDGEMENT : JOSEPH SHINE VS UNION OF INDIA
REFERRED ( AIR 2018 SC 1676 )
APPEARED AS : RESPONDENT
PRESENTED : PROF. BHARAT G. KAURANI SIR
BEFORE ( ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR )
PRESENTED : SUJAY PUNDLIK WADJE
BY
ROLL : 046
NUMBER
CLASS : L.L.B ( III ) 2020 - 2021
Page 1 of 24
GOKHALE EDUCATION SOCIETY’S N. B. T. LAW COLLEGE , NASHIK 05
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 194 OF 2017
[PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION]
IN THE MATTER OF:
JOSEPH SHINE … PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA ... RESPONDENT
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE

RESPONDENT ( UNION OF INDIA )
[FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE]
________________________________________________________________________
ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT: SUJAY PUNDLIK WADJE.

FILED ON: 10.12.2017
Page 2 of 24

WRIT PETITION
IN THE MATTER OF:
VERSUS

INDEX
PAGE
SR. PARTICULARS
NO.
NO
1 MOOT DETAILS 1
2 COVER PAGE 2
3 INDEX 3
4 VAKALATNAMA 5
5 MEMO OF APPEARANCE 6
6 STATUTE REFERRED 7
Page 3 of 24
7 CASE REEERRED 7

8 8
9 ISSUE RAISED 16
10 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT 17
11 PRAYER 22
12 AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS 23
13 VERIFICATION 23
________________________________________________________________________

FILED ON: 10.12.2017
Page 4 of 24
WRIT PETITION
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS

VAKALATNAMA
(SCR ORDER IV RULE 18)
I, Union of India, the Respondent, herein, in the above Criminal Writ

Petition as Public Interest Litigation do hereby appoint and retain Mr.
Sujay Pundlik Wadje Advocate on Record of Supreme Court of India, to
act and appear for me in the above matter and on my behalf to conduct
and prosecute the same and to appear in all proceedings that may be
taken in respect of any application connected with the same or any
decree passed in therein the said matter and to represent me and to take
all necessary steps on my behalf in the above matter. I agree to rectify all
acts done by the aforesaid advocates in pursuance of this authority.
Dated : 10.12.2017
Place : New Delhi
Identified and Satisfied

Advocate for Respondent
________________________
Mr. Sujay Pundlik Wadje
D-3, Lawyer’s Chambers, P.O. Wing,
Supreme Court Compound,
New Delhi – 110001.
______________________
RESPONDENT
Page 5 of 24
WRIT PETITION
IN THE MATTER OF:
JOSEPH SHINE …..… PETITIONER

VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA …….. RESPONDENT
MEMO OF APPEARANCE
The Registrar,
Supreme Court of India.
New Delhi.
Sir,
Please enter an appearance for the above named respondent in the
mentioned petition.
Date: 10.12.2017
Place: New Delhi
Yours Faithfully
________________________
RESPONDENT-IN-PERSON
D-3, Lawyer’s Chambers, P.O. Wing,
New Delhi – 110001.
Page 6 of 24
STATUTE REFERRED
 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
 THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.
 THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.
CASES REFERRED
 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 2 SCR 621
 R.D. Shetty v. Airport Authority, (1979) 3 SCR 1014

 E.P Royappa V State Of Tamil Nadu, 1974(4) SCC 3.
 Thota Sesharathamma and Anr v. Thota Manikyamma (Dead) by

Lrs. and Others, (1991) 4 SCC 312
 Charu Khurana and Ors v. Union of India and Ors., 2015(1) SCC
192.
 State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75.

 Justice K.S Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India and Ors, (Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 494 OF 2012),
 Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay and Another, AIR 1954 SC
321,
 Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 1618
 V. Revathi v. Union of India, (1988) 2 (SCC) 72.
 W. Kalyani v. State of Tr. Inspector of Police and Another, 2012 (1)

SCC 358
 Re the Special Courts Bill, 1978 (1979) 1 SCC 380.

 Bowers v. Hardwick 106 S. Ct 2841
 National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC
438
 Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S 558(2003)
 Shafin Jahan v. Ashokan K.M & Ors
 Kalyani v. State of Tr. Inspector of Police and Another
Page 7 of 24
WRIT PETITION
IN THE MATTER OF:
JOSEPH SHINE
Thevadiyil House P.O.,
Koodathai Bazar,
Kozhikode,
Kerala – PIN 673573 … PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, Cabinet Secretariat,
Raisina Hill,
New Delhi, PIN – 110001 …. RESPONDENT

TO
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THE HUMBLE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF

THE RESPONDENT ABOVE NAMED
Page 8 of 24
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
I, Thangkholun Haokip S/o Late Shri H.M. Haokip, working as Under
Secretary (Judicial &PP), aged about 51 years, Office at Ministry of Home
Affairs, Major Dhyan Chand National Stadium, India Gate, New Delhi-
110002, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:
1. That I am duly authorized for and on behalf of Respondent Ministry
to swear the present affidavit. I am fully conversant with the facts
and the circumstances of the present case as per the record
maintained by the Respondent Ministry.
2. I state that I have read and understood the contents of the Writ
Petition and the reply thereto is as under:
3. At the outset, I deny all averments, submissions, contentions as
well as the allegations contained in the present Writ Petition except
those that are expressly and specifically admitted hereinafter.
4. That the respondent is the nodal Ministry with regard to the
questions and issue raised in the present Writ Petition under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The present Writ Petition
challenging the Constitutional vires of Section 497 of The Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and section 198 (2) of The Code of Criminal
Peocedure, 1973is wholly misconceived.
5. Writ present Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India is liable to be liable to be dismissed at the very ouset as
Section 497 of the of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 supports,
safeguards and protects the institution of Marriage. In Smt
Page 9 of 24
Sowmithri Vishnu Vs Union of India 1985 (Supp) SCC 137 this court
has held:
“….. If we were to accept the argument of the petitioner,
section 497 will be obliterated from the statute book and
adulterous relation will have a more free play than now. For
then, it will be impossible to convict anyone of adultery at all.
It is better, from the point of view of the interest of the
society, that at least a limited class of adulterous relationship
is punishable by law. Stability of marriages is not an ideal to
be scorned…”
It is submitted that striking down Section 497 of The Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and Section 198 (2) of The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 would tantamount to decriminalizing the
offence of adultery, thereby eroding the sanctity of the
marriage and the fabric of society at large.
The Government is already seized of the issue relating to gender
bias. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in W. Kalyani v State, (2012) 1
SCC 358 has held:
“…. The provision is currently under criticism from certain
quarters for showing a strong bias for it makes the position of
a married woman almost as a property of her husband. But in
terms of the law as it stands, it is evident from a pain reading
of the Section that only a man can be proceeded against and
punish for the offence of adultery. Indeed, the Section
provides expressly even as an abettor. Thus, the more fact
that the Appellant is a woman makes her completely immune
to the charge of adultery and she cannot be proceeded against
for that offence….”
Page 10 of 24
6. In order to meet address this concerns the Committee on Reforms
of Criminal Justice System has observed in its report of March
2003 at Para 16.3:
"16.3.1 A man commits the offence of adultery if he has
sexual intercourse with the wife of another man without the
consent or connivance of the husband. The object of this
section is to preserve the sanctity of the marriage. The society
abhors marital infidelity. Therefore, there is no good reason
for not meeting out similar treatment to wife who has sexual
intercourse with a married man.
16.3.2 The Committee therefore suggests that Section 497 of
I.P.C should be suitably amended to the effect that
"whosoever has sexual intercourse with the spouse of any
other person is guilty of adultery...".
7. It is submitted that the Malimath Committee in its Report on
Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System has
recommended the amendment of Section 497 of The Indian Penal
Code, 1860 to make it gender neutral. The recommendations of the
Malimath Committee are:
"...Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code regarding the
offence of adultery be amended to include wife who has
sexual intercourse with a married man by substituting the
words 'whosoever has sexual intercourse with the spouse of
any other person is guilty of adultery'...". True typed copy of
the Relevant Extracts of the Malimath Committee Report is
annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure – R-l.
Page 11 of 24
8. It is submitted that striking down Section 497 of IPC and Section
198(2) of Cr.P.C. will prove to be detrimental to the intrinsic Indian
ethos which gives paramount importance to the institution and
sanctity of marriage. The provisions of law under challenge in the
present writ have been specifically created by the legislature in its
wisdom, to protect and safeguard the sanctity of marriage, keeping
in mind the unique structure and culture of the Indian society. The
question of equality with regards to the statute under challenge has
already been observed and the matter is under consideration with
the appropriate authorities.
9. It is submitted that the Parliamentary Standing Committee on
Home Affairs in its 146th Report dated 23.06.2010 has
recommended a comprehensive review of the Criminal Justice
System of the country. Earlier the Parliamentary Standing
Committee in its 111th and 128th Reports had stressed upon the
need to reform and rationalize the Criminal Law of the country by
introducing a comprehensive legislation in Parliament rather than
bringing about piecemeal amendments in the respective Acts. It is
submitted that the Law Commission was requested to take into
account the recommendations made by the Malimath Committee in
this regard. Hence, the recommendation of the Malimath
Committee on amendment of Section 497 Adultery stands referred
to the Law Commission of India which took up the matter for study
and examination on 11.10.2013. True typed copies of letter dated
06.07.2010, 25.04.2013 and 06.2013 are being annexed herewith
and are marked as Annexure – R-2
Page 12 of 24
10. It is submitted, that on 11.12.2014, the Law Commission
intimated that they have identified certain focus areas and formed
sub-groups to deliberate on such areas and that the Commission is
actively pursuing the issues and will finalize views as early as
possible. The status has been reiterated on 11.03.2016. On
08.02.2018, the Respondent Ministry had again sought the status
of comprehensive review of the Criminal Justice System being
carried out by the Law Commission of India. The true typed copies
of letter dated 11.12.2014; 11.03.2016 and 08.02.2018 are being
annexed herewith and is marked as Annexure – R-3, Annexure – R-4
and Annexure R-5 respectively.
11. It is submitted that the final Report of Law Commission is
awaited regarding the amendment of Section 497 IPC. The
Malimath Committee in its report has held that the object of this
section is to preserve the sanctity of the marriage. The
decriminalization of adultery will result in weakening the sanctity
of a marital bond and will result in laxity in the marital bond.
12. That the judgments relied upon by the Petitioner are not
applicable to the present case and the interpretation sought to be
placed on the said judgment is misconceived and erroneous. It is
most humbly submitted that the Law Commission has intimated
that they have identified certain focus areas and formed sub-
groups to deliberate on such areas and is actively pursuing the
issue and will finalize their final views soon.
Page 13 of 24
13. That the contents of the present counter affidavit are confined to
the issues raised and averments made by the Petitioner. That the
Respondent craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to file further
affidavit/documents if and when required.
14. That, hence, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Court be pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition as the averments
made and the issues raised by the Petitioner have no merits.
PRAYER
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be

pleased to:
a) Quash the present Writ Petition which argues to Strike down
Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as unconstitutional
being unjust, illegal and arbitrary and violative of fundamental
rights;
b) Quash the present Writ Petition which also argues to Declare
that S.198(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is
unconstitutional being unjust, illegal and arbitrary and violative of
citizen’s fundamental rights;
c) Pass such other Order(s) in favour of the Respondent herein, as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of
Justice
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS RESPONDENT, AS IN DUTY BOUND,

SHALL EVER PRAY.
Page 14 of 24
DRAWN BY: FILED BY:
______________________________
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
D-3,, Lawyer’s Chambers, P.O.Wing,
New Delhi – 110001
DRAWN ON: 20.11.2017
FILED ON: 10.12.2017
NEW DELHI 110001
Page 15 of 24

WRIT PETITION
IN THE MATTER OF: -
JOSEPH SHINE …..… PETITIONER

VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA …..... RESPONDENT
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
I/We, THE UNION OF INDIA Through its Secretary, Ministry of Home

Affairs, North Block, Cabinet Secretariat, Raisina Hill, New Delhi, PIN –
110001, do hereby on solemn affirmation state as under:-
1. That I am the Respondent in the above mentioned matter hence
fully conversant with the facts of the case, as such competent to

swear this affidavit.
2. That the facts stated in the accompanying counter affidavit to
present Writ Petition from Page No. 08 to 14, are true and correct
to my knowledge and furnished along with the counter affidavit to
present Writ Petition are true to my knowledge and belief.

3. That the Annexures from R-1 to R-4 filed in the affidavit in
present Writ Petition are true copies of their respective originals.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
Verified at Delhi on 08th day of May, 2018 that the content of the above
affidavit are true and correct to the best of knowledge and relief. No part
of it is false and nothing has been concealed there from.
Page 16 of 24
DEPONENT
WRIT PETITION
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA … RESPONDENT
ISSUED RAISED
1. Whether section 497 of the IPC (which makes adultery a criminal

offense) is constitutionally valid?
2. Whether section 198(2) of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 is

violative of fundamental rights (14, 15 and 21)?
3. Whether Section 497 is an excessive penal provision which needs to

be decriminalized?
________________________________________________________________________
Page 17 of 24

FILED ON: 10.12.2017
WRIT PETITION
IN THE MATTER OF:

VERSUS
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
Issue No: 1
Whether section 497 of the IPC (which makes adultery a criminal offense
is constitutionally valid?
Argument:
1. The writ petition under Article 32 of the constitution of India is
liable to be dismissed at the very outset as section 497 of the
Indian penal code, 1860 supports, and safeguards and protects the
institution of marriage. In Sowmithri Vishnu vs Union of India, the
court has supported this view.
Page 18 of 24
“In so far as the second of the three grounds is
concerned, section 497 does not envisage the prosecution of
the wife by the husband for 'adultery'. The offence of adultery
as defined in that section can only be committed by a man,
not by a woman. Indeed, the section provides expressly that
the wife shall not be punishable even as an abettor. No
grievance can then be made that the section does not allow
the wife to prosecute the husband for adultery. The
contemplation of the law, evidently, is that the wife, who is
involved in an illicit relationship with another man, is a victim
and not the author of the crime. The offence of adultery, as
defined in section 497, is considered by the Legislature as an
offence against the sanctity of the matrimonial home, an act
which is committed by a man, as it generally is. Therefore,
those men who defile that sanctity are brought within the net
of the law. In a sense, we revert to the same point: Who can
prosecute whom for which offence depends, firstly, on the
definition of the offence and, secondly, upon the restrictions
placed by the law of procedure on the right to prosecute.”
2. Striking down Section 497 of the Indian penal code, 1860 and
section 198(2) of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 would
tantamount to decriminalizing the offense of adultery, thereby
eroding the sanctity of marriage and the fabric of the society at
large.
Issue No: 2
Whether section 198(2) of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 is
violative of fundamental rights (14, 15 and 21)?
Page 19 of 24
Argument:
1. The said factual discovery will not detain us any further. In Yusuf
Abdul Aziz (supra), the Court was dealing with the controversy that
had travelled to this Court while dealing with a different fact
situation. In the said case, the question arose whether Section 497
contravened Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. In the
said case, the appellant was being prosecuted for adultery under
Section 497 IPC. As soon as the complaint was filed, the husband
applied to the High Court of Bombay to determine the
constitutional question under Article 228 of the Constitution. The
Constitution Bench referring to Section 497 held thus:-
Under Section 497 the offence of adultery can only be
committed by a man but in the absence of any provision to
the contrary the woman would be punishable as an abettor.
The last sentence in Section 497 prohibits this. It runs—
―In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an
abettor.‖ It is said that this offends Articles 14 and 15.
The portion of Article 15 on which the appellant relies is
this:
―The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on
grounds only of ... sex.‖
But what he overlooks is that that is subject to clause
(3) which runs—
―Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from
making any special provision for women ....‖
The provision complained of is a special provision and it
is made for women, therefore it is saved by clause (3).
Page 20 of 24
Since Sec 497 was a special provision for the benefit of
women, it is saved by Art 15(3) which is an enabling
provision providing for protective discrimination.
2. Article 14 is general and must be read with the other provisions
which set out the ambit of fundamental rights. Sex is a sound
classification and although there can be no discrimination in
general on that ground, the Constitution itself provides for special
provisions in the case of women and children. The two articles read
together validate the impugned clause in Section 497 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. The freedom to have a consensual sexual relationship outside
marriage by a married person does not warrant protection under
Art 21. And moreover the right to privacy and personal liberty is
not an absolute one and it is subject to reasonable restrictions
when legitimate public interest is involved.
Issue No: 3
Whether Section 497 is an excessive penal provision which needs to be
decriminalized?
Argument:
1. An act which outrages the morality of society, and harms its
members, ought to be punished as a crime. Adultery falls squarely
within this definition.
Page 21 of 24
2. Family is the fundamental unit in society, if the same is disrupted
it would impact stability and progress. The state therefore has a
legitimate public interest in preserving the institution of marriage.
3. Adultery has the effect of not only jeopardizing the marriage
between the two consenting adults, but also affects the growth and
moral fibre of children. Hence the State has a legitimate public
interest in making it a criminal offence.
4. Though adultery may be committed in private it is not a victim-less
crime. It violates the sanctity of marriage, the right of a spouse to
marital fidelity of their partner and breaks the fundamental unit of
the family affecting the growth and well being of the children, the
family and the society in general.
5. By deterring individuals from engaging in conduct which is
potentially harmful to a marital relationship, Sec 497 is protecting
the institution of marriage, and promoting social well being.
PRAYER
It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be

pleased to:
a) Quash the present Writ Petition which argues to Strike down
Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as unconstitutional
being unjust, illegal and arbitrary and violative of fundamental
rights;
b) Quash the present Writ Petition which also argues to Declare
that S.198(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is
Page 22 of 24
unconstitutional being unjust, illegal and arbitrary and violative of
citizen’s fundamental rights;
c) Pass such other Order(s) in favour of the Respondent herein, as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of
Justice
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS RESPONDENT, AS IN DUTY BOUND,

SHALL EVER PRAY.
DRAWN BY: FILED BY:
______________________________
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
D-3,, Lawyer’s Chambers, P.O.Wing,
New Delhi – 110001
DRAWN ON: 20.11.2017
FILED ON: 10.12.2017
NEW DELHI 110001
Page 23 of 24
ORIGINAL COPY OF JUDGEMENT
Page 24 of 24

Case No 1 Respondent 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case No 1 Respondent 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GOKHALE EDUCATION SOCIETY’S N. B. T.

LAW COLLEGE , NASHIK 05

GOKHALE EDUCATION SOCIETY’S

NARHAR BALWANT THAKUR LAW COLLEGE ,

MOOT COURT CASE NUMBER : 01

NATURE OF : CRIMINAL CASE (WRIT PETITION)

CASE (PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)

JUDGEMENT : JOSEPH SHINE VS UNION OF INDIA

REFERRED ( AIR 2018 SC 1676 )

PRESENTED : PROF. BHARAT G. KAURANI SIR

BEFORE ( ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR )

PRESENTED : SUJAY PUNDLIK WADJE

CLASS : L.L.B ( III ) 2020 - 2021

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 194 OF 2017

[PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION]

IN THE MATTER OF:

JOSEPH SHINE … PETITIONER

UNION OF INDIA ... RESPONDENT

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE

[FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE]

ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT: SUJAY PUNDLIK WADJE.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF:

JOSEPH SHINE … PETITIONER

UNION OF INDIA ... RESPONDENT

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE

10 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT 17

ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT: SUJAY PUNDLIK WADJE.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 194 OF 2017

[PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION]

IN THE MATTER OF:

JOSEPH SHINE … PETITIONER

UNION OF INDIA ... RESPONDENT

I, Union of India, the Respondent, herein, in the above Criminal Writ

Identified and Satisfied

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL WRIT JURISDICTION

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 194 OF 2017

[PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION]

IN THE MATTER OF:

JOSEPH SHINE …..… PETITIONER

UNION OF INDIA …….. RESPONDENT

 THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

 THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

 THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.

 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 2 SCR 621

 R.D. Shetty v. Airport Authority, (1979) 3 SCR 1014

 Thota Sesharathamma and Anr v. Thota Manikyamma (Dead) by

 State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952 SC 75.

Petition (Civil) No. 494 OF 2012),

 Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay and Another, AIR 1954 SC

 W. Kalyani v. State of Tr. Inspector of Police and Another, 2012 (1)

 Re the Special Courts Bill, 1978 (1979) 1 SCC 380.

 National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC