Termination for hiding facts during Selection

14 November 2021Posted inCivil law, Constitutional law
In  Avtar Singh v Union of India & Ors delivered on 21 July, 2016, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court (SC) considered various decisions on the question of suppression of information or submitting false information in the verification form as to the question of having been criminally prosecuted, arrested or as to pendency of a criminal case. In the judgement the SC resolved the conflict of opinion in the various earlier decisions of its Division Benches and arrived at some guidelines in deciding such issues.

When a Judgement becomes Operative?

2 September 2021Posted inConstitutional law
The decision which is pronounced or intimated must be a declaration of the mind of the court as it is at the time of pronouncement. The mode or manner of delivery is unimportant but it must be done in a judicial way in open court. It must be an expression of the mind of the court at the time of delivery. That is the first judicial act touching the judgment which the court performs after the hearing.

A High Court can Stay a Central Law & Make it Inoperative

22 August 2021Posted inConstitutional law
In 2004, the Supreme Court (SC) in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v Union of India [(2004) 6 SCC 254] held that a High Court can pass an order in regard to the constitutionality of a Law of Parliament, it will have effect in the entire territory of India, where the law is applicable. In the above case, the Division Bench of the SC held that an order passed on a writ petition questioning the constitutionality of a Parliamentary Act, whether interim or final, will have effect throughout the territory of India subject to the applicability of the Act.

Privileges do not Protect Legislators from Crimes

8 August 2021Posted inConstitutional law, Criminal law
In a landmark judgement in State of Kerala v K Ajith, the Supreme Court (SC) allowed to continue the criminal proceedings against some former MLAs in Kerala and declared categorically that the privileges and immunities of the MLA does not protect them from criminal offences in which they engage in. This writeup highlights the essential points in the judgement in an easy-to-learn language.

How to obtain Call Data Records (CDRs)?

10 June 2021Posted inConstitutional law, Criminal law
A Call Data Record (CDR) is a set of information relating to the mobile phone calls, of a mobile user, for a particular period. However, the CDR does not include contents of a telephone conversation or messages exchanged. The CDR is available with telecom operators. The record contains critically sensitive information such as Mobile Station International Subscriber Directory Numbers (MSISDNs), International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI), International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI), and location details of mobile subscribers. This string of information of the CDR includes details such as the name of the subscriber, the details of calls made by this subscriber during a given period, the duration of each call, whether the call terminated normally or abnormally, location of the caller, location of the call recipient, and such other details.

Maneka Gandhi judgment simplified

23 May 2021Posted inArticles, Constitutional law
The judgment in Maneka Gandhi case ( Maneka Gandhi v Union of India: AIR 1978 SC 597) was a landmark judgment in the judicial history of India. It was a conscious attempt on the part of the Supreme Court (SC) in restoring the people’s faith in the judiciary which reached at its low in the seventies, particularly after the ADM Jabalpur judgment which is considered to be the most infamous judgment in India.