[Case Brief] Lily Thomas v/s. Union of India.

Background of the Case

The issue of criminality in politics or precisely convicted representative in Parliament and legislature has been debated for a long time and several reforms have been proposed by different forums (Election Commission of India, Supreme Court etc.). Similarly with the parliamentary election had to be conducted in 2014, the Supreme Court came up with three landmark judgments[1] one of them was the constitutionality of Section 8 (4) of RPA, which influenced the conduct of the election.

The two writ petition Lily Thomas v. Union of India[2] and S.N. Shukla v. Union of India[3] was filed as Public Interest Litigation primarily with the objective to declare Section 8 (4), RPA, as ultra vires the constitution.

The provision of the RPA outlines that convicted representative can file an appeal and consequently this will put stay on their conviction, Lily Thomas said thereby “it encourages tainted leaders to contest elections. This should never have been permitted”.[4] This was her reason for filing this petition. Her objective was, the Court to be held in high esteem and declaration of the clause as illegal.[5]Lok Prahari, a Lucknow-based NGO, through its general secretary, had also filed a petition on the identical bearing so both the petitions were adjudicated together.[6]


Continue Reading

[Case Brief] State Bank of India v/s. Santosh Kumar Gupta & Anr.

The constitution of India ensures that there is uniform rule over the entire Union of India. But in order to ensure that the cultural identities, customs, economic and political interests of the certain regions are protected, these regions are governed with special provisions. One such region is the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In the instant judgement, the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution of India is superior to the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir.


Before the Supreme Court of India

Civil Appeal Nos.: 12237-12238 of 2016 [Arising Out Of SLP (C) Nos.30884-30885 of 2015] along with batch of appeals.

Bench: Kurian Joseph & Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.

Decided on: 16/12/2016

Relevant Provisions:

1. Section 140, Transfer of Property Act of Jammu And Kashmir,
2. Section 13, 17, 34, 35, SARFAESI Act.
3. Article 370 and 35A Constitution of India.
4. List 1 of Seventh Schedule – Entry 45 and 95.

List 3 of Seventh Schedule – Entry  6 and 11A.


Continue Reading

[Case Brief] Vijay Narayan Thatte & Ors v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors

“Rules of Interpretation are very important in law courts. When the British came to India they introduced the principles of interpretation of Maxwell, laid down in his classic treatise ‘Interpretation of Statutes’ and these principles are broadly still being followed in our law courts in India. However, our ancient thinkers had created a system of interpretation called the Mimansa Rules of Interpretation, which appears to have been totally suppressed by the British, evidently because they wanted to create an impression that Indians are a race of fools and savages with no worthwhile intellectual achievement to their credit.” – Justice Katju.

Vijay Narayan Thatte & Ors vs State of Maharashtra & Ors

Civil Appeal No. 5614 of 2009

Before Supreme Court of India

Decided on: 18th August 2009

Bench: Markandey Katju, Ashok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.

Author of the Judgement: Justice Ashok Kumar Ganguly

Advocates for Appellants: Shri Harish Salve and Shri Shyam Diva, Learned Senior Counsels

Advocates for Respondent: Goolam Essaji Vahanvati, Attorney General of India and Shekhar Naphade, Advocates


Continue Reading

(DR.) N.B. Khare V/s. State of Delhi

Article 19 (1) (d) guarantees to all citizens of India the right “to move freely throughout the territory of India”. This right is, however, subject to reasonable restrictions mentioned in clause (5) of Article 19. The Supreme Court in the instant case deals with the restriction when it comes to procedure.

N.B. Khare (DR.) V/s. The State of Delhi

Petition No. 37 of 1950

Before the Supreme Court of India

Decided on: 26th May 1950.

Coram: Harilal J. Kania, C.J. and Fazl Ali, Patanjali Sastri, M.C. Mahajan and B.K. Mukherjea, JJ.

Author of the Judgement: Harilal J. Kania, C.J.

Advocate for Petitioner: B. Banerji

Advocate for Respondent: M.C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India


Continue Reading

[Case Brief] Ram Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others

The Supreme Court toppled an administration choice to give reservations to the Jat people group in nine states by incorporating them in the Central List of Backward Classes. The judgment Ram Singh v/s Union of India had created a huge political stir.

Ram Singh and others Vs. Union of India and others (Jat Judgment)

Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 274, 261, 278, 297, 298, 305, 357 and 955 of 2014

Before the Supreme Court of India


Bench: Ranjan Gogoi and Rohinton Nariman, JJ.

Author of the Judgment: Ranjan Gogoi, JJ.

Relevant Acts/ Statutes:

  • Constitution of India-Articles 15, 15(4), 16, 16(4), 29, 38, 46, and 340.
  • The National Commission of Backward Classes Act-Sections 2, 3, 8, 9, 9(1), 9(2), and 11.
  • Code of Civil Procedure-Section 114, Order 47.

Decided on: March 17th, 2015


Continue Reading
Close Menu