Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) No.229 OF2020RAJEEV SURI ...PETITIONER Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS with TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) No.230 OF2020CIVIL APPEAL No....... OF2020(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No../2020) (@ Diary No.8430/2020) WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.510/2020 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.638/2020 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.681/2020 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.845/2020 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.853 OF2020WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.922/2020 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.1041/2020 1 JUDGMENT A.M. Khanwilkar, J.TABLE OF CONTENTS S.No.TOPIC PARAS1 Introduction 1 2. Objectives of the Project 2-10 3. Proceedings and Contentions of the 11-123 Parties Consideration 4. Rule of Law 124-135 5. Democratic Due Process and 136-158 Judicial Review 6. Need for Heightened Judicial 159-167 Review 7. Constitutionalism 168-172 8. Participatory Democracy in India 173-198 9. Change in Land Use 199 a) What is Master Plan and Z...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No../2022 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No../2022 @ Diary No.34207/2018) ZAKIA AHSAN JAFRI . APPELLANT versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. . RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT1 There is a delay of 216 days in filing of this special leave petition against the judgment and order dated 5.10.2017 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad1 in Criminal Revision Application No.205/2014. Even though the explanation offered in the application for condonation of delay is blissfully vague and bereft of any material facts and particulars, keeping in mind the 1 for short, the High Court 2 subject matter involved, we deemed it appropriate to ignore/condone the delay and proceeded to hear the matter on merits.2. We must note that the respondents had faintly objected to the hearing of this matter on merits owing to unexplained delay in filing of the petition. However, they have a serious objection to the joining of Ms. Teesta S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:29. h August, 2016 Pronounced on :08. h February, 2017 + CRL.A. 1284/2015 SUSHIL ARORA ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vikas Arora and Ms. Radhika Arora, Advocates Versus Through: Ms. Aasha Tiwari, APP for State ..... Respondent STATE CRL.A. 53/2016 RAJESH PANDEY ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Vivek Sood, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashim Shridhar, Advocate Versus STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) Through: Ms. Aasha Tiwari, APP for State ..... Respondent CRL.A. 190/2016 HEMANT GARG ..... Appellant Through: Mr. K. Singhal, Advocate Versus STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Aasha Tiwari, APP for State + + Crl. A. No.1284/2015 & connected matters Page 1 of 140 + + CRL.A. 1338/2015 VISHNU S/O PANCHU RAM ..... Appellant Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja and Mr. Rajesh Kaushik, Advocates Versus STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Aasha Tiwari, APP for State CRL.A. 283/2016 Through: Mr. Rajeev Mohan, Advocate ..... Appellant Through: ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRL.) No.48 OF2014Union of India Petitioner VERSUS V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Ors. Respondents With Writ Petition (Crl.) No.185/2014 Writ Petition (Crl.) No.150/2014 Writ Petition (Crl.) No.66/2014 Criminal Appeal No.1215/2011 JUDGMENT FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.The Petitioner has challenged the letter dated 19.02.2014 issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu to the Secretary, Government of India wherein the State of Tamil Nadu proposed to remit the sentence of life imprisonment and to release the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 in the Writ Petition who were convicted in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case. As far as respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, originally they were imposed with the sentence of death. In the judgment reported as V. Sriharan alias Murugan v. Union of India & Ors.-. (2014) 4 SCC242 the sentence of death was commuted by this Court. Immediately thereafter, the impugn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.558 OF2012Kalpana Mehta and others Petitioner(s) Versus Union of India and others Respondent(s) WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.921 OF2013JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, CJI. [For himself and A.M. Khanwilkar, J.]. I N D E X Heading Page No.S. No.A. Introduction B. The factual background B.1 The Reference C. Contentions of the petitioners D. Contentions of the respondents E. Supremacy of the Constitution F. Constitutional limitations upon the legislature 3 4 6 8 12 14 17 2 G. Doctrine of separation of powers H. Power of judicial review I. Interpretation of the Constitution The nature of duty cast upon this Court I.1 Interpretation of fundamental rights I.2 Interpretation constitutional provisions of other J.K. A perspective on the role of Parliamentary Committees International position of Parliamentary Committees K.1 Parliamentary Committees in 21 28 34 40 42 48 54 54 England K.2 Parliamentary Committee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2023 INSC1058IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL WRIT / APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Civil) No.1099 of 2019 IN RE: ARTICLE370OF THE CONSTITUTION With Writ Petition (C) No.871 of 2015 With Writ Petition (C) No.722 of 2014 With SLP (C) No.19618 of 2017 With Writ Petition (C) No.1013 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1082 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1068 of 2019 1 With Writ Petition (C) No.1037 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1062 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1070 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1104 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1165 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1210 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1222 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.396 of 2017 With Writ Petition (C) No.756 of 2017 With Writ Petition (C) No.398 pf 2018 With 2 Writ Petition (C) No.924 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.1092 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.1162 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.1048 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1268 of 2019 And With Writ Petition (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable INTHESUPREMECOURTOFINDIA CRIMINALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION CRIMINALAPPEALNOS.12171219OF2017 [ArisingoutofS.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.26402642of2016]. Ms.Eera ThroughDr.ManjulaKrippendorf...Appellant(s) Versus State(Govt.ofNCTofDelhi)&Anr.Respondent(s) JUDGMENT DipakMisra,J.Leavegranted. 2. Thepivotalissuethatemanatesforconsiderationin theseappeals,byspecialleave,pertainstointerpretation ofSection2(d)oftheProtectionofChildrenfromSexual OffencesAct,2012(forshort,thePOCSOAct),andthe primary argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the definition in Section 2(d) that defineschildtomeananypersonbelowtheageof18 2 years, should engulf and embrace, in its connotative expanse, the mental age of a person or the age determined by the prevalent science pertaining to psychiatry so that a mentally retarded person or an extremelyintellectuallychallengedpersonwhoevenhas crossedthebiologicalageof18yearscanbeincluded withintheholisticconceptionoft...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4440 OF 201.(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.27335 of 2012) G. Sundarrajan . Appellant Versus Union of India and others Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.4441 OF 201.(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.27813 of 2012) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.4442 OF 201.(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.29121 of 2012) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.4443 OF 200.(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.32013 of 2012) JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. We are in these appeals concerned with an issue of considerable national and international importance, pertaining to the setting up of a nuclear power plant in the South-Eastern tip of India, at Kudankulam in the State of Tamil Nadu. The incidents occurred in Three Miles Island Power Plant USA, Chernobyl, Ukraine, USSR, Fukoshima, Japan, Union Carbide, Bhopal might be haunting the memory of the people living in and around Kudankulam, leading to large-scale agitation and emotional reaction to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Delivered on :05. 03.2015 CRL.A.124/2013 REKHA SHARMA .. Appellant .. Respondent Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, Advocate : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocates CRL.A.152/2013 RAKSHA JINDAL .. Appellant .. Respondent Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atul Bhuchar, Advocate : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocates CRL.A.159/2013 NIRMAL DEVI .. Appellant .. Respondent Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jatin Sehgal and Ms. Naina Dubey, Advocates : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Delivered on :05. 03.2015 CRL.A.124/2013 REKHA SHARMA .. Appellant .. Respondent Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, Advocate : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocates CRL.A.152/2013 RAKSHA JINDAL .. Appellant .. Respondent Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atul Bhuchar, Advocate : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocates CRL.A.159/2013 NIRMAL DEVI .. Appellant .. Respondent Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Appellant For the Respondent : Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jatin Sehgal and Ms. Naina Dubey, Advocates : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, SPP with Ms. Monica Gupta and Ms. Nidhi Sharma, Advocate...
Tag this Judgment!