|
|
Database updates
Judgments (Human Rights)
Jaywant P. Sankpal vs Suman Gholap and other
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 28 Jul 2010]
Human Rights - Criminal - Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, s. 12(a) - Torture at police lock up - Violation of human rights - Petitioner/Police Person allegedly showed undue indulgence to the accused and registered a fictitious case against complainant/1st respondent's son at the behest of the accused and detained and tortured 1st respondent's son in the police custody - 1st respondent filed a complaint before the State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) - SHRC found that petitioner had violated the human rights of 1st respondent's son which was within the scope of s. 12(a) of the Act - Petitioner challenged the SHRC order before the HC - HC dismissed petitioner's petition - Hence the present petition before the SC - Whether the impugned HC order warrant any interference - Held, SHRC and HC looked into sufficient materials and found that 1st respondent's son had been physically tortured while in custody in violation of the norms relating to custody of persons arrested or detained in connection with any offence - SC was not in a position to appraise the evidence further since two forums had already a chance to look into the same - Except for a bare denial, there was no material on record to refute the complaint of torture of 1st respondent's son - 1st respondent's son was treated differently from the accused in that case against whom he had come to make a complaint and ended up being the accused - Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the SHRC order or the HC order - Petition dismissed.
|
Suchita Srivastava and Anotherr vs Chandigarh Administration
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 28 Aug 2009]
Women & Children - Human Rights - Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.s.3(4)(a) - Termination of pregnancy - Mentally retarded woman - Victim become pregnant as a result of an alleged rape that took place while she was an inmate at a govt.-run welfare institution located in Chandigarh - Chandigarh Administration approached HC seeking approval for termination of her pregnancy, keeping in mind that in addition to being mentally retarded she was also an orphan - Expert Body consisting of medical experts was constituted - HC directed termination of pregnancy in spite of Expert Body's findings which show that victim had expressed her willingness to bear a child - Hence, present appeal - (A) Whether it was correct on part of HC to direct termination of pregnancy without consent of woman in question? - Consent is an essential condition for performing an abortion on a woman who has attained age of majority and does not suffer from any 'mental illness' - There is a clear distinction between 'mental illness' and 'mental retardation' for purpose of this statute - Language of Act clearly respects personal autonomy of mentally retarded persons who are above age of majority - Applicable statute clearly contemplates that even a woman who is found to be 'mentally retarded' should give her consent for termination of a pregnancy - Victim condition has been described as that of 'mild mental retardation' which is clearly different from condition of a 'mentally ill person' as contemplated by s.3(4)(a) of Act - Since none of other statutory conditions have been met in this case, it is amply clear that dilution of requirement of consent for proceeding with a termination of pregnancy not permitted - Held, termination of pregnancy cannot be permitted without consent of victim in this case - (B) 'Parens Patriae' jurisdiction - Whether termination of pregnancy is in 'best interests' of victim? - There are two distinct standards while exercising 'Parens Patriae' jurisdiction for purpose of making reproductive decisions on behalf of mentally retarded persons they are 'Best interests' test and 'Substituted judgment' test - Held, direction given by HC to terminate victim's pregnancy was not in pursuance of her 'best interests' - Performing an abortion at such a late-stage (19-20 weeks of gestation period) could have endangered the victims' physical health and same could have also caused further mental anguish to victim since she had not consented to such a procedure - Moreover, there is a need to look beyond social prejudices in order to objectively decide whether a person who is in a condition of mild mental retardation can perform parental responsibilities - Direction issued that best medical facilities be made available so as to ensure proper care and supervision during period of pregnancy as well as for post-natal care - Appeal disposed of.
|
Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi vs Union of India
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 14 May 2009]
|
Bani Kanta Das and Another vs State of Assam and Others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 08 May 2009]
Human Rights - Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, s. 2(d) Chapter IV, s. 17 - Writ petition u/art. 32 of Constitution of India against order of Governor of State of Assam, wherein death penalty awarded to the accused was commuted to life imprisonment - Impugned order was passed on the recommendation of National Human Rights Commission(NHRC) - Whether NHRC could have entertained any complaint either suo motu or on the basis of an application filed by any person in respect of a judicial order? - Held, No - Though controverted but NHRC proceeded on complaint of one Prof. Ved Kumari, fact of such complaint coming out of materials on record - Documents placed by NHRC, and scheme of Act noted - Name of victim stated and cause of action was stated to be the date of judgement of the Court; complaints and the pursuant enquiry into violation of human rights provided for in the Act - Court noted that there has to be atleast two persons individual, one whose human rights have been violated and the other who has violated the human rights - Pointedly asked as to who has violated the human rights of the accused, came the evasive reply that when any action violated the human rights, there can be human rights violation; such situation is not conceivable in law, Court noted - Date of cause of action was indicated as date of judgement on it Court again pointedly asked, as to whether the Judges of the Supreme Court or the Court itself had violated the human rights, again came the evasive reply - Held further, NHRC proceedings were not in line with the procedure prescribed under the Act, thus recommendations, if any, by the NHRC are non est - Impugned order directing commutation indicated no reason which is contrary to what has been stated by the Court in 'Epuru Sudhakar vs. Govt. AP (2006) 8 SCC 161'; '..in any event, the absence of any obligation to convey the reasons does not mean that there should not be legitimate or relevant reasons for passing the order' - Impugned order set aside, and direction issued for reconsideration of the application filed by the accused for commutation - Petition partly allowed.
|
Dalbir Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 03 Feb 2009]
Criminal - Custodial torture and death - Held, rarely in cases of police torture or custodial death, there is any direct ocular evidence of the complicity of the police personnel alone who can only explain the circumstances in which a person in their custody had died - Vulnerability of human rights assumes a traumatic torture when functionaries of the State whose paramount duty is to protect the citizens and not to commit gruesome offences against them, in reality perpetrate them - Dehumanizing torture, assault and death in custody which have assumed alarming proportions raise serious questions about the credibility of rule of law and administration of criminal justice system - In view of the fact that sanction for prosecution has been granted, charge sheet had been filed and cognizance had been taken, no further direction at present is necessary - Petition disposed of.
|
Eerati Laxman vs State of Andhra Pradesh
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 23 Jan 2009]
|
Deepak Bajaj vs State of Maharashtra and Another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 12 Nov 2008]
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 - Writ petition against the detention order - Held, every person has a fundamental right of liberty vide art. 21 of the Constitution - Though, no doubt, restrictions can be placed on these rights in the interest of public order, security of the State, etc. but they are not to be lightly transgressed - If a person against whom a preventive detention order has been passed comes to Court at the pre execution stage and satisfies the Court that the detention order is clearly illegal, there is no reason why the Court should stay its hands and compel the petitioner to go to jail even though he is bound to be released subsequently - Retractions of the confessions should certainly have been placed before the Detaining Authority, and failure to place them before him, vitiates the detention order - Petition allowed.
|
Ranjit Singh vs State of Haryana
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 11 Sep 2008]
Criminal - IPC, 1860, ss.34, 302, 323, 452 - Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2000 - Juvenile Justice Act, 1986,s 20 - Whether appellant was a juvenile at time of commission of offence and, therefore, provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was applicable? - For bringing applicability of 1986 Act, accused should have been 16 years or less in age at time of occurrence - Admittedly, age of accused-appellant was more than 16 years at time of occurrence - Even if under definition of 'juvenile' has undergone a change by fixing age to be 18 years proceedings shall continue on footing that accused was a juvenile under 1986 Act - Held, in regard to applicability of 2000 Act is concerned, it is not in dispute that appellant on date of occurrence had completed sixteen years of age - Offence having been committed on 16-12-1989, 2000 Act has no application - In terms of Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, 'juvenile' was defined to mean 'a boy who had not attained age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained age of eighteen years' - Appeal dismissed.
|
Union of India and Others vs Priyankan Sharan and Another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 08 Sep 2008]
Defence & Security Forces - Armed Force Medical College - Bond to serve nation on completion of Training - (A) Whether the cadet's prayer for discharge of bond executed to serve the nation for a period of five years on the ground of medical disability has been rightly accepted by the High Court - (B) Interpretation of Statutes - Cadet submitted that proviso of cl. 4(a) has been lost sight of - Relevant clauses 4, 5 and 6 - Construction of - Held, HC's view is a rational one on the facts of each case; these are not the cases where any interference is called for - Held, cl. 4(a) is subject to cl. 6 and the proviso appended to cl. 4 is in the nature of exception; taken note of a maxim 'Ad ea quae frequentius accidunt jura adaptantur' - Appeal Dismissed.
|
Swaran Singh and Others vs State Through Standing Counsel and Another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 18 Aug 2008]
|
State of Maharashtra and Others vs Zubair Haji Qasim
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 11 Jul 2008]
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act of 1974, s. 3(1) - Detention order - High Court quashed the detention order holding that prayer of the detenu for permission to be represented by a legal practitioner was rejected with out proper consideration and on erroneous grounds - Appeal against - Held, although, a detenu has no right under s. 8(e), to legal assistance in proceedings before the Advisory Board, he is entitled to make such a request to the Board and the Board is bound to consider such request when made - no reason to interfere - Appeal dismissed.
|
State of Tamil Nadu and Another vs R. Sasikumar
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 09 Jul 2008]
Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 - High Court quashed order of detention - Appeal against - Held, question of making a representation to the Advisory Board arises only after the order of detention had been passed and served on the detenu - Several incidents have been referred to in the order of detention and the last of such instances was of 22.6.1999 - Detention order was passed on 9.7.1999 and, therefore, it cannot be said to be relatable to stale incidents - Directed State Government and the detaining authority to consider whether there is any need to take the detenu back to detention for serving the remainder of the period of detention - Appeal partly allowed.
|
Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs Union of India and Others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 11 Apr 2008]
Carriers & Transportation - Constitution of India, 1950, art. 32 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Road Traffic Safety Act - Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 - Whether Supreme Court can give any directions for amending an Act or statutory Rules, in instant case regarding road safety and matters covered under Motor Vehicles Act? - Judiciary, as per doctrine of separation of powers cannot encroach into domain of Legislature or Executive Court cannot issue directives of legislative nature - In instant case, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a comprehensive enactment on subject If there is a lacuna or defect in Act, it is for Legislature to correct it by a suitable amendment and not by Court - Held, directives sought for in this petition require expertise of administrative and technical officials, apart from financial resources - Not only should Court not give such directives because that would violate principle of separation of powers, but also because these are highly technical matters to be left to be dealt with by administrative and technical authorities who have experience and expertise in matter - Petition dismissed.
|
(1) Hemani Malhotra; (2) Vineeta Goyal vs High Court of Delhi
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 03 Apr 2008]
Whether introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview, after the entire selection process was completed would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played? -Held, authority making rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum marks both for written examination and vive-voce, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for vive-voce before the commencement of selection process, the authority concerned, cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in the interview - Prescription of minimum marks by the respondent at vive-voce, test was illegal - Petitions allowed.
|
Jyoti Prakash Rai @ Jyoti Prakash vs State of Bihar
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 04 Mar 2008]
Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 - Murder - Claim of the appellant that he was a juvenile - Held, whether an offender was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence or not is essentially a question of fact which is required to be determined on the basis of the materials brought on records by the parties - On the basis of several factors including the fact that school leaving certificate and the horoscope produced by the appellant were found to be forged and fabricated and having regard to two medical reports the courts below have found the age of the appellant as on 1.04.2001 to be above 18 years, no exception thereto can be taken - Appeal dismissed.
|
Balu @ Bakthvatchalu vs State of Tamilnadu
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 12 Feb 2008]
India Penal Code, s. 302; Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 - Held, trial judge should be directed to hold the enquiry in regard to the age of the appellant on the date of commission of the offence and in the event it is found that the appellant was a juvenile within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act, he should proceed with the matter in accordance with law - Appeal allowed.
|
Sudesh Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 29 Jan 2008]
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, s.6; Indian Penal Code, ss. 392 r/w 34 - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Plea of benefit of s.6 - Held, s. 6 would apply to the accused who is under 21 years of age on the date of imposition of punishment by the trial court and not on the date of commission of the offence - If on the date of the order of conviction and sentence by the trial court the accused is below 21 years of age the provisions of Section 6 of the Act applies in full force - Even if the date of birth of the accused is held to be 28.6.1962 as alleged by him in the petition, on the date of delivery of judgment of conviction and sentence on 26.7.1985 by the Additional District & Sessions Judge he was more than 21 years of age and thus was not entitled to the benefit - Appeal dismissed.
|
Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice and Others vs State of Orissa and Another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 22 Jan 2008]
Writ petition has been filed highlighting the problems of residents of KBK districts in State of Orissa and seeking directions to prevent starvation deaths and occurance of famines etc - Held, various recommendations made by the NHRC have empowered the people residing in the locality by providing them with land, irrigation facilities and opportunity to live with some dignity - Both the Union of India and State Government co - operated well and with the joint efforts of all concerned, it is stated that a perceptible change has been brought about in the KBK area, which had earlier been termed as a problem beyond redemption - No further directions are required - Petition disposed of.
|
Nallapati Sivaiah vs Sub-Divisional Officer, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 26 Sep 2007]
Indian Penal Code, s. 302 - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Whether the two dying declarations can be held to be true and voluntary and can be relied upon to convict the appellant?; Whether the dying declarations suffer from any serious infirmities requiring their exclusion from consideration? - Held, where a proper and sufficient predicate has been established for the admission of a statement under dying declaration, Hearsay exception is a mixed question of fact and law - Medical evidence and surrounding circumstances altogether cannot be ignored and kept out of consideration by placing exclusive reliance upon the testimony of person recording a dying declaration - It is unsafe to record conviction on the basis of a dying declaration alone in cases where suspicion is raised as regards the correctness of the dying declaration - Prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt - Appeal allowed.
|
Research Foundation For Science vs Union of India and Another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 06 Sep 2007]
Environment, Wildlife & Animal - Constitution of India, 1950, art. 32 - Hazards associated with Ship Breaking - Held, authorities in India can without certificate at stage of anchorage verify and come to a conclusion that if ship is contaminated same is to be sent back - Directions issued to Govt. to comply with recommendations of committee with regard to ship breaking - Order accordingly.
|
Mahesh Gupta and Others vs Yashwant Kumar Ahirwar and Others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 30 Aug 2007]
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - Interpretation of an advertisement in the light of a circular of the State of Madhya Pradesh as regards recruitment of handicapped persons to some posts - Held, advertisement, however, failed to mention in regard to the reservation for handicapped persons at the outset, but, as noticed hereinbefore, the vacant posts were required to be filled up for two categories of candidates; one for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe candidates and other for handicapped candidates - State chose to terminate the services of some of the employees who had already been appointed - Such a course could not have been taken either in law or in equity - State completely lost sight of its commitment both under its own policy decision as also the statutory provision - Appeals allowed.
|
State of Maharashtra and Others vs Vashishtha Rambhau Andhale
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 17 Aug 2007]
Respondent was arrested during investigation of the crime relating to the organised crime that has come to be known as the stamp scam - Order granting bail to the respondent - Appeal against - Held, High Court was not correct in thinking that all the evidence gathered by the CBI must be treated as evidence gathered belatedly - High Court obviously forgot that the CBI was directed to take up the investigation by this Court only in March 2004 and what this Court was intending, was a thorough investigation by the CBI, especially in the nature of unsatisfactory performance of the State Police and the number of police personnel and higher ups allegedly involved in the organised crime - Appeal dismissed.
|
Central Bureau Investigation vs Pradeep Bhalchandra Sawant and Another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 17 Aug 2007]
Maharashtra Control Of Organised Crime Act, 1999, ss. 3, 24 r/w 2(1)(a)(d); Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988, s. 13(1)(d) - Central Bureau of Investigation challenges the order of the High Court granting bail to the respondent, at the relevant time - Held, reasons given in an order granting bail can only be understood as supporting an order granting bail with only the consequences that flow from it - The observations cannot control the decision to be taken after trial by the concerned court - Appeal dismissed.
|
Silak Ram and Another vs State of Haryana
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 06 Aug 2007]
Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 302 r/w 34; Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2000 - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Held, even though there was some confusion in identification by PW 10, the High Court rightly noticed during examination-in-chief she has correctly identified the accused persons - Evidence of PW 11 has been analysed by the trial court and the High Court and his version has been found to be cogent and credible - Trial court and the High Court were justified in placing reliance on the evidence of eye witnesses - Delay was fully explained as held by the Trial Court and the High Court - Appeal dismissed.
|
Shaik Mastan Vali vs State of Andhra Pradesh
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 03 Aug 2007]
Criminal - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 302 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Conviction of appellant for offence punishable u/s. 302 - Challenged - Conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by touchstone of law relating to circumstantial evidence - Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be justified only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with innocence of accused or guilt of any other person - Held, when evidence on record is analysed inevitable conclusion is that prosecution has established its accusations - Trial Court and High Court have rightly relied upon circumstances to hold accused guilty - Appeal dismissed.
|
|