COMPENDIUM ON THE BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Case Name: State of Jharkhand v. State of Bihar, (2015) 2 SCC 431

FACTS OF THE CASE

W.P.(C) No. 1542 of 2003. W.P.(C) No. 1542 of 2003 was filed first in this Court by the
Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Limited, through its Managing Director said to be located in Ranchi in
the State of Jharkhand for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, including
the State of Bihar and what is called the parallel Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Limited, Bailey Road,
Patna, to hand over the entire documents, articles and office records concerning the company.
Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Limited. The company was one registered, when the State of Jharkhand
was not separated from the State of Bihar under the Bihar Reorganisation Act 2000, and the
registered office of the company was at Patna, the then capital of the State. It was a generating
company and the undertaking or the generating station was located in an area which has
subsequently come to the State of Jharkhand. There were claims and counter-claims by the two
States for the ownership over the Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Limited. The Governor of Jharkhand
issued a notification in terms of Section 47 of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. The dispute
was taken to the Central Government and the Central Government passed an order holding that
the assets belonged to the State of Jharkhand. The position thus emerged that whereas the
undertaking and all the activities of the company registered under the Companies Act fell within
the State of Jharkhand, the registered office of the company alone remained in Patna, the capital
of the reorganised State of Bihar. Challenging the order of the Central Government recognising
the right of the State of Jharkhand, a writ petition was filed in the High Court at Patna and the
same is pending.

Source: SCC ONLINE

Case Name: K.S. Puttaswamy v. The Union of India, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 494 OF
2012
Pg-157, Para. 310
FACTS OF THE CASE

A retired High Court Judge K.S. Puttaswamy filed a petition in 2012 against the Union of India
before a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of Aadhaar
because it is violating the right to privacy which had been established on reference from the
Constitution Bench to determine whether or not the right to privacy was guaranteed as an
independent fundamental right under the constitution of India following past decisions from
Supreme Court benches.

Source: Original Judgment, SC Website

Case Name: R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu. 1995 AIR 264

FACTS OF THE CASE

A prisoner (Auto Shankar) held for murder wrote an autobiography. The book discussed his
relationship with many senior prison officials, a lot of whom had been his partners in illegal acts.
At that time, he was going through life imprisonment and was going to be hanged.Before his
death, he gave the autobiography to his wife, by telling the prison officials. The wife then handed
it over to the petitioners to publish it. The Inspector General of Prisons wrote to the publishers
with the claim that the autobiography was false, that publication was against prison rules and
threatened legal action if they proceeded with publishing. The reason why this was done was that
the book was said to be defamatory in nature to the staff and prison authorities.
Source: SCC ONLINE

Case Name: People’s Union for civil liberties v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568

FACTS OF THE CASE

Telephone-Tapping is an irruption of one of the most exclusive possessions of an individual i.e.

privacy. Due to the increased development of largely sophisticated technology, the right to hold a
telephonic discussion, in the privacy of one’s home or office without hindrance, is prone to
abuse. The citizen’s right to privacy has to be safeguarded from being abused by the authorities.
Thus, under Article 32 of the Constitution, this writ solicitation was filed claiming the abuse of
power that the State exercises upon an individual and how police authorities transgress the
fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution time and time again.
Source: SCC ONLINE

Case Name: - I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, Appeal (civil) 1344-45 of 1976

FACTS OF THE CASE

This is also known as the ninth schedule case, the court upheld the judgment delivered by 9
judges’ bench on the validity of the doctrine of basic structure in the Kesavananda Bharati case.
Court also upheld the power of the judiciary to review the law which violates the doctrine of the
basic structure of the constitution. Thus, in this way, this case brings an end to the entire dispute
regarding the validity and implementation of the above-said doctrine. This case arises because
Supreme Court struck down the reserved land in the Janman Estates in the state of Tamil Nadu
as per Gudalur Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 in Balmadies
Plantations Ltd vs. State of Tamil Nadu because this was not found to be an agrarian reform
protected under Article 31-A of the Indian Constitution. Therefore, 9 judges’ bench was asked to
review the Waman Rao Judgement and determine if it needs to be overruled.

Source: SCC ONLINE

S and Marper v UK [2008]

FACTS OF THE CASE

The first applicant, Mr S., was arrested in January 2001 at the age of eleven and charged with
attempted robbery. His fingerprints and DNA samples were taken but he was subsequently
acquitted. The second applicant, Mr Marper, was arrested in March 2001 and charged with
harassment of his partner. His fingerprints and DNA samples were taken. Before a pre-trial
review took place, he and his partner had become reconciled thus the charge was not pressed and
in June 2001 the case was formally discontinued. Both applicants asked for their fingerprints and
DNA samples to be destroyed, but in both cases the police refused. The applicants applied for
judicial review of the police decisions not to destroy the fingerprints and samples. In March 2002
the Administrative Court rejected the application. In September 2002 the Court of Appeal upheld
the decision of the Administrative Court by a majority of two to one and in 2004 the House of
Lords dismissed an appeal by the applicants. The applicants put in applications to the European
Court of Human Rights. The applicants complained under Articles 8 and 14 that the authorities
had continued to retain their fingerprints and cellular samples and DNA profiles after the
criminal proceedings against them had ended with an acquittal or had been discontinued.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------