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

"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

"Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993)" by GPT4.0

  "Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993)" is a landmark case in English law, particularly significant in the area of medical ethics and the law regarding end-of-life care. This case dealt with the legal and ethical issues surrounding the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. Here's a detailed summary: Background - Date: 1993 - Parties: Airedale NHS Trust (Plaintiff) vs. Anthony Bland (Defendant) - Context: The case involved Anthony Bland, a victim of the Hillsborough disaster who was left in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Facts - Incident: Anthony Bland had been in PVS for three years following the Hillsborough disaster, with no prospect of recovery. - Medical Condition: He was being kept alive artificially by feeding and hydration tubes. Legal Proceedings - Request: The Airedale NHS Trust sought a declaration that it would be lawful to discontinue life-sustaining treatment, including the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration. - Legal Questions: The key le
Post a Comment
Read more