Skip to main content

Top 10 Supreme Court cases in India by GPT 4.0

 Here are links to more detailed information about some of the landmark Supreme Court judgments :

1. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan (1951): This case led to the first amendment of the Indian Constitution. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Madras_v._Champakam_Dorairajan)

2. Golaknath v. State Of Punjab (1967): This judgement significantly impacted the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golaknath_v._State_of_Punjab)

3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): This landmark case introduced the Basic Structure doctrine. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesavananda_Bharati_v._State_of_Kerala)

4. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka (1992): This case established the right to education as a part of the right to life. (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1031794/)

5. Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India (1992): A key case on the issue of reservations and the concept of the "creamy layer". (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1363234/)

6. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India: This ruling struck down Section 66A of the IT Act. (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110813550/)

7. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum (1985): This case extended the right of maintenance to a divorced Muslim woman. (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/823221/)

8. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018): This judgment decriminalized adultery in India. (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/168671544/)

9. Navtej Singh Johar and others v. Union of India (2018): This landmark ruling decriminalized homosexuality. (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/168671806/)

10. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India and others (2020): This case addressed the issue of Internet shutdowns in Jammu and Kashmir. (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159418004/)

Each of these judgments has played a crucial role in shaping the legal and constitutional framework of India.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Factortame Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport (1990)" by GPT4.0

  "Factortame Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport (1990)" is a landmark case in UK constitutional and European Union law. The case is particularly notable for its implications regarding the supremacy of European Union law over national laws of member states. Here's a detailed summary: Background - Date: 1990 - Parties: Factortame Ltd (Appellant) vs. Secretary of State for Transport (Respondent) - Context: The case involved a conflict between British legislation and European Community law. Facts - Legislation in Question: The UK's Merchant Shipping Act 1988 imposed certain conditions on fishing vessels registered in the UK, affecting many Spanish fishermen who operated in British waters under the British flag. - Issue: Factortame Ltd, representing the interests of these Spanish fishermen, argued that the Act contravened European Community law, specifically the principle of freedom of establishment. Legal Proceedings - Application for Interim Relief: Factortame sough...
Post a Comment
Read more

"Woolmington v DPP (1935)" by GPT4.0

  "Woolmington v DPP (1935)" is a landmark case in English criminal law, particularly concerning the principle of the burden of proof in criminal trials. Here's a detailed summary: Background - Date: 1935 - Parties: Woolmington (Appellant) vs. Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) - Context: The case revolved around a murder charge against Reginald Woolmington. Facts - Incident: Woolmington was charged with the murder of his wife. Initially, it was presumed that he needed to prove he had not murdered her. - Initial Trial: Woolmington was found guilty at the initial trial, where the burden was effectively placed on him to prove his innocence. Legal Proceedings - Appeal: The case was appealed up to the House of Lords, challenging the conviction on the grounds of misdirection regarding the burden of proof. Judgment - Decision: The House of Lords overturned Woolmington’s conviction. - Reasoning:   - The Lords established the principle famously known as the “Golden Thre...
Post a Comment
Read more

"Pepper v Hart (1993)" by GPT4.0

  "Pepper v Hart (1993)" is a significant case in UK law, particularly in the area of statutory interpretation. This case established a precedent in the way courts interpret legislation. Here's a detailed summary: Background - Date: 1993 - Parties: Pepper (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes) (Appellant) vs. Hart (Respondent) and others - Context: The case involved a dispute over the interpretation of a specific tax provision related to the taxation of fringe benefits received by employees. Facts - Issue: The dispute centered around whether or not the private school fees paid by an employer for the children of their employees should be taxed as a fringe benefit. - Previous Interpretation: There was ambiguity in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1976 regarding how these fringe benefits should be treated for tax purposes. Legal Proceedings - Claim: Teachers at Malvern College argued that the tax exemption should apply to them, reducing their tax liability. - Legal Quest...
Post a Comment
Read more