Issue 2 Cases Background

Sri Indra Das v. State of Assam is a significant case where the Supreme Court of India addressed issues related
to citizenship and the rights of individuals belonging to religious minorities. .

Indra Das, along with many others, faced allegations of being an illegal migrant despite being born in India. The
case raised concerns about the discrimination faced by individuals belonging to religious minorities, particularly
Bengali Hindus, in Assam.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, upheld the principle of equality before the law and emphasized the need to
protect the rights of individuals, regardless of their religious affiliation. The Court highlighted the
importance of considering the individual circumstances of each case and ensuring due process in citizenship
matters.

Daryao v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1961), the Supreme Court of India examined the doctrine of estoppel in
administrative law. The case involved the cancellation of a lease agreement by the State of Uttar Pradesh after
initially approving it.

The petitioner, Daryao, entered into a lease agreement with the State of Uttar Pradesh for certain mining rights.
Subsequently, the State sought to cancel the lease, alleging that it was granted erroneously. Daryao challenged the
cancellation, contending that the State was estopped from revoking the lease after initially approving it.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment reported in A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1457, upheld the principle of estoppel against the
State. The Court held that the State's initial approval of the lease created a legitimate expectation on the part of
Daryao, and the State was estopped from revoking the lease unilaterally. This decision established an important
precedent regarding the applicability of estoppel against the government in administrative matters, emphasizing
the need for consistency and fairness in government actions. The court held that governmental decisions must
have a valid legal basis and must not be arbitrary or capricious. It reiterated that government actions must be in
accordance with the law and cannot violate constitutional provisions or fundamental rights.

State of Punjab v. Dalbir Singh (2012), reported in 3 SCC 346, the Supreme Court of India addressed issues
related to the scope and application of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

The case involved the conviction of Dalbir Singh by the trial court for the murder of his wife. Singh was sentenced
to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC. On appeal, the High Court acquitted Singh, nding discrepancies in the
prosecution's case.

The State of Punjab appealed the High Court's decision to the Supreme Court, challenging the acquittal of Singh.
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was suf cient
to establish Singh's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court carefully examined the evidence on record and the ndings of the trial court and
the High Court. After thorough consideration, the Court upheld the High Court's acquittal of Singh, nding that the
prosecution had failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

This case serves as a signi cant precedent in criminal law jurisprudence, emphasizing the principle of legality
in governmental actions. The court held that governmental decisions must have a valid legal basis and must not
be arbitrary or capricious. It reiterated that government actions must be in accordance with the law and cannot
violate constitutional provisions or fundamental rights.

Page 1 of 6
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
Rajendra Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2016), reported in 3 SCC 734, the Supreme Court of India
examined issues related to the interpretation and application of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which
deals with dowry-related deaths.

The case involved the conviction of Rajendra Chaudhary by the trial court for the offense of dowry death under
Section 304B IPC. Chaudhary's wife died under suspicious circumstances within seven years of marriage, and the
prosecution alleged that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for dowry.

On appeal, the High Court upheld Chaudhary's conviction. Chaudhary then appealed to the Supreme Court,
challenging the legality and correctness of the High Court's decision.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court examined the evidence on record and the ndings of the trial court and the High
Court. The Court analyzed the requirements of Section 304B IPC and emphasized the need for the prosecution to
establish the essential ingredients of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

After careful consideration, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and
reasonableness in governmental decisions The principles laid down in this case provide valuable guidance on
assessing the legality and correctness of governmental actions

In Haji Abdool Shakoor & Corporation v. Union of India (2001), reported in AIR 2001 (10) S.C. 438, the
Supreme Court of India adjudicated on customs duty classi cation for imported goods. The petitioner contested
the higher duty rate imposed by customs authorities, arguing for a lower tariff classi cation. The Court scrutinized
the goods' nature and relevant tariff provisions to determine their proper classi cation.

Upholding the customs authorities' classi cation, the Court stressed adherence to statutory provisions and customs
noti cations for consistency in customs assessment. This ruling stands as a signi cant precedent in customs law,
emphasizing the importance Supreme Court has stated that an order depriving a person of his civil rights passed
without affording him right to be heard suffers from the vice of natural justice.

In M.C. Abraham v. State of Maharashtra (2003), reported in 2 SCC 649, the Supreme Court of India
addressed issues related to arbitrary arrest and detention. The case involved M.C. Abraham, who was arbitrarily
arrested by the police without proper justification or adherence to legal procedures.

Abraham challenged his arrest on the grounds of violation of his fundamental rights, particularly the right to liberty
and protection against arbitrary detention under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, emphasized the importance of safeguarding individual liberties and
preventing arbitrary state action. The Court reiterated that arrests must be made in accordance with established
legal procedures and based on reasonable suspicion or credible evidence of wrongdoing.

Furthermore, the Court held that arbitrary arrests and detentions are unconstitutional and violate fundamental rights
guaranteed by the Constitution. The judgment in M.C. Abraham's case serves as a crucial precedent in upholding the
rule of law and protecting individuals from arbitrary state action.

Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana (1980), reported in AIR 1980 SC 1632, the Supreme Court of India
addressed issues related to arbitrary state action and the protection of individual rights under the Constitution.

The case involved Raghbir Singh, whose property was acquired by the State of Haryana under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894. Singh challenged the acquisition, alleging that it was arbitrary and violative of his fundamental rights
under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.

Page 2 of 6
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
fi
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, examined the circumstances surrounding the acquisition and assessed whether
it met the constitutional standards of reasonableness and fairness. The Court emphasized that state action, including
land acquisition, must be for a public purpose and carried out in accordance with law, without arbitrariness or
discrimination.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Raghbir Singh, holding that the acquisition of his property by the
State of Haryana was arbitrary and violated his fundamental rights. This landmark judgment reaffirmed the
principle that state action must be reasonable, non-arbitrary, and in conformity with constitutional
principles, ensuring the protection of individual rights and liberties.

In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997), reported in 1 SCC 416, the Supreme Court of India addressed
issues related to custodial torture and the protection of fundamental rights, particularly the right against arbitrary
arrest and detention.

The case arose from a writ petition filed by D.K. Basu, a social activist, highlighting instances of custodial
violence and torture in India. Basu argued that such practices violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under
Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, which protect the right to life and personal liberty, and provide
safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention.

The Supreme Court, in its landmark judgment, recognized the prevalence of custodial violence and torture in
India and emphasized the need to protect the dignity and rights of individuals in custody. The Court laid down
comprehensive guidelines, known as the "D.K. Basu Guidelines," to be followed by law enforcement agencies to
prevent custodial torture and ensure the humane treatment of detainees.

These guidelines included requirements such as the mandatory presence of a family member or advocate during
arrests, the preparation of arrest memos, and the prohibition of unnecessary restraints or violence during custody.
The Court held that any deviation from these guidelines would be considered a violation of fundamental
rights and could lead to legal consequences.

The D.K. Basu case represents a significant milestone in Indian jurisprudence, setting important precedents for the
protection of individual liberties and the prevention of custodial abuse. It underscored the judiciary's role in
safeguarding fundamental rights and promoting accountability in law enforcement practices.

In the case of Romila Thapar v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) Nos. 260-261 of 2018, the Supreme
Court of India addressed issues related to the arrest of five human rights activists in connection with the Bhima
Koregaon violence case.

The petitioners, including renowned historian Romila Thapar, challenged the arrests and sought an independent
investigation into the allegations against the activists. They contended that the arrests were politically motivated and
aimed at stifling dissent.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, emphasized the importance of safeguarding individual liberties and protecting
dissenting voices in a democratic society. The Court ordered an independent investigation into the allegations
against the activists and granted them interim relief from arrest.

This case sparked nationwide debate on the scope of dissent, freedom of expression, and the role of the state in
addressing political dissent. It underscored the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional values and ensuring
accountability in law enforcement actions.

Page 3 of 6
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), reported in AIR 1950 SC 27, the Supreme Court of India deliberated
on the constitutionality of preventive detention laws under the Constitution of India.

The petitioner, A.K. Gopalan, challenged his detention under the Preventive Detention Act of 1950 by the State of
Madras. Gopalan argued that his detention violated his fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the
Constitution, which guarantee the rights to freedom of speech and expression and protection of life and personal
liberty, respectively.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, interpreted the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act and examined their
conformity with the Constitution. The Court held that the Act did not violate Article 19(1)(a) as it did not directly
curtail freedom of speech and expression. However, regarding Article 21, the Court ruled that preventive detention
could only be used for the purposes specified in the Constitution and that the Act must provide sufficient procedural
safeguards to prevent arbitrary detention.

While the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of preventive detention laws, it laid down important
principles regarding the scope and limitations of such laws in safeguarding individual liberties. This case set
crucial precedents for future interpretations of preventive detention laws in India.

In the landmark case of Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950), reported in AIR 1950 SC 124, the Supreme
Court of India addressed issues concerning the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

The case revolved around the constitutional validity of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949, which
empowered the state government to ban the entry and circulation of a journal, "Cross Roads," edited by Romesh
Thapar, on the grounds of being prejudicial to public order.

Thapar challenged the ban, arguing that it infringed upon his fundamental right to freedom of speech and
expression. The Supreme Court, in its landmark judgment, upheld Thapar's argument, ruling that the state
government's action was unconstitutional and violated the principles of free speech and expression.

The Court emphasized the importance of freedom of speech and expression as a cornerstone of democracy and held
that restrictions on this fundamental right must be reasonable and imposed only for the purposes specified in Article
19(2) of the Constitution.

The Romesh Thapar case established a significant precedent in Indian constitutional law, reaffirming the
judiciary's role in safeguarding fundamental rights and ensuring the protection of free speech and expression
from arbitrary state action.

Shri DK Basu, Ashok Kumar Johri v. State of West Bengal, AIR (1997) SC 610:

This case, often referred to as the "DK Basu case," is crucial for establishing guidelines to prevent custodial
violence and ensure the protection of human rights. The Supreme Court laid down comprehensive guidelines to be
followed by law enforcement agencies during arrest and detention.

Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1994) 4 SCC 26:

In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of safeguarding individual liberties during arrest and
detention. It highlighted the need for law enforcement agencies to adhere to procedural safeguards and ensure the
rights of the accused, even during the investigative stage.

Page 4 of 6
Bhim Singh, MLA v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1985) 4 S.C.C. 677 (India):

This case involved the arrest and detention of Bhim Singh, a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), under
the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act. The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the Act and
emphasized the need for procedural safeguards to prevent abuse of preventive detention laws.

In the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011), reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 and
(2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514, the Supreme Court of India addressed issues related to anticipatory bail and the rights of
the accused.

The case involved Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre, who sought anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal case
registered against him. Mhetre argued that he was entitled to anticipatory bail as a matter of right under Article 21 of
the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, emphasized the importance of safeguarding personal liberty and protecting
individuals from arbitrary arrest and detention. The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted liberally,
except in cases where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused would misuse the liberty granted to
them.

The judgment laid down important principles regarding the grant of anticipatory bail, emphasizing that it should
not be denied merely on the basis of the gravity of the offense alleged. The Court underscored the need to
balance the rights of the accused with the interests of justice and society.

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, reported in AIR 2017 SC 4161, the Supreme Court of
India addressed the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other
Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016.

The case stemmed from several petitions challenging the Aadhaar Act, which mandated the use of Aadhaar, a
unique identification number, for availing various government subsidies, benefits, and services. The petitioners
argued that the mandatory linking of Aadhaar to essential services violated the right to privacy, which they
contended was a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.

In its landmark judgment, the Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right intrinsic to
the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court held that any infringement
upon this right must satisfy the test of proportionality and be justified by a legitimate state interest.

The Justice K.S. Puttaswamy case is significant as it reaffirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental right and
set important precedents regarding its scope and protection in the digital age.

In the case of People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. State of Maharashtra (2014), reported in 10 SCC
635, the Supreme Court of India addressed issues related to custodial violence and the rights of prisoners. The
case highlighted the importance of protecting the rights of individuals in custody and preventing custodial abuse.

Page 5 of 6
In Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983), reported in 2 SCC 277, the Supreme Court dealt with the constitutional
validity of Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code, which imposed a mandatory death penalty for certain offenses.
The Court held that Section 303 violated the right to equality under Article 14 and the right to life and
personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and declared it unconstitutional.

Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1997), reported in 1 SCC 416, focused on the rights of women prisoners,
particularly those in custody with their children. The Supreme Court emphasized the need to protect the rights
and dignity of women prisoners and their children, including access to healthcare, nutrition, and education.

These cases collectively underscore the judiciary's role in protecting fundamental rights, ensuring fairness and
justice in the criminal justice system, and safeguarding the rights of marginalized and vulnerable populations.

In Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1989) 1 SCC 204, the Supreme Court of India examined the scope of
executive powers in the context of commuting death sentences. The case centered on the President's refusal to grant
clemency, leading to execution. The Court ruled that judicial review could be exercised to prevent arbitrariness and
ensure fairness in the exercise of executive powers, thereby emphasizing the importance of checks and balances in
the Indian constitutional framework.

In Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1980 SC 1535), the Supreme Court of India addressed
the failure of the government to implement treaty obligations, specifically related to the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights. The case highlighted the duty of the State to comply with international agreements
ratified by India and underscored the judiciary's role in ensuring adherence to treaty obligations, thereby
emphasizing the importance of international law in the Indian legal system.

In Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (AIR 1998 SC 431), the Supreme Court dealt
with similar issues regarding the government's failure to implement treaty obligations, particularly in the context of
human rights violations in conflict areas. The case emphasized the duty of the State to protect and uphold human
rights, even in areas affected by internal conflict, and reiterated the significance of international norms and
standards in guiding domestic law and policy.

In State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (AIR 1999 SC 2378), the Supreme Court underscored the necessity of
judicial review in ensuring the proper application and interpretation of laws. The case involved a dispute over land
acquisition by the state government. The Court emphasized that judicial review serves as a crucial mechanism for
scrutinizing administrative actions and preventing abuse of power. It reiterated the judiciary's role as a guardian of
constitutional rights and affirmed its authority to intervene when executive or legislative actions are arbitrary,
unreasonable, or contrary to law, thus upholding the rule of law in the country.

Page 6 of 6