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

"Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955)" by GPT4.0

  "Phipps v Rochester Corporation (1955)" is a notable case in English tort law, particularly concerning the duty of care owed to children. This case is important in understanding how the law views the responsibilities of both children and those responsible for areas accessible to children. Here's a detailed summary: Background - Date: 1955 - Parties: Michael Phipps (a minor, represented by his father) vs. Rochester Corporation - Context: The case involved a child who was injured while playing on a housing development site. Facts - Incident: Michael Phipps, a five-year-old boy, was playing with his seven-year-old sister on a housing estate being built by the Rochester Corporation. During their play, Michael fell into a trench and was injured. - Parental Supervision: At the time of the incident, the children were unsupervised. Legal Proceedings - Claim: The parents of Michael Phipps sued the Rochester Corporation for negligence, claiming that the corporation had failed to ...
Post a Comment
Read more

"Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (2003)" by GPT4.0

  "Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (2003)" is a significant case in UK employment law, particularly concerning the issue of sex discrimination. This case provides insight into how employment tribunals approach claims of unfair treatment and discrimination in the workplace. Background - Date: 2003 - Parties: Christine Shamoon (Appellant) vs. Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (Respondent) - Context: The case involved an employment dispute in the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), now known as the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI). Facts - Position and Issue: Christine Shamoon held a senior position in the RUC. She claimed she was unfairly treated in a staff appraisal process and subsequently removed from her post. - Claim: Shamoon argued that her treatment constituted sex discrimination. Legal Proceedings - Initial Tribunal: The employment tribunal initially found in favor of Shamoon, agreeing that she had been unfairly treated. -...
Post a Comment
Read more