• Legal Armor

Summary of Selected 5 Landmark Supreme Court Cases

The Indian judiciary system is based on a hierarchy system. The Supreme Court is the highest in India. Every lower court is binding with the decision of the Supreme Court. The Indian judiciary is separated from Legislature and Executives. The legislature is the lawmaking body and the Executive is the implementing source.


Every Decision and Judgments given by the Supreme Court is binding on all lower courts all over India. In 2019, there are several appreciable landmark cases decided by the Supreme Court. Implications of such amendments and striking down certain laws have made substantial changes in society. Ultimately law is connected with society endeavouring certain socio-political effects.


Every Decision and Judgments given by the Supreme Court is binding on all lower courts all over India. In 2019, there are several appreciable landmark cases decided by the Supreme Court. Implications of such amendments and striking down certain laws have made substantial changes in society. Ultimately law is connected with society endeavouring certain socio-political effects.


1. The Famous Ayodhya Ram Mandir case (M Siddiq .v. Mahant Suresh Das )


  • The judgment of this case was pronounced on 9th November 2019 by The Supreme Court.

  • This dispute was around seven decades old and the most controversial case of the Indian judiciary containing issues of possession over the land.

  • Babri Masjid built in the 16th century was demolished 27 years ago, and on the same site, it was believed by Hindus to be the birthplace of Lord Ram known as 'Ram Janmabhoomi'

  • The Supreme Court ordered that the disputed land be handed over to a trust to be created by the government of India to build Lord Ram Temple.

  • The Court also ordered the government to give an alternate 5-acre land in another place to Sunni Wakf Board to build the mosque.

2. The Sabarimala Temple Case (Kantaru Rajeevaru .v. Indian Young Lawyers Association )

  • The Sabarimala Temple of Lord Ayyappa is located in Pathanamthitta District of Kerala, India.

  • The main issue raised in this case was regarding the entry ban of women age between 10 and 50 because of their menstrual cycle happening during this period.

  • This entry ban at Temple was argued to be arbitrary and discriminatory of Article 14, Article 25, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution

  • In September 2018, it was held by the Supreme Court that girls and women of all ages have the right to visit the Lord Ayyappa temple of Sabarimala despite all customs as the ban on such entry was violative of Article 14 and 25 of the Indian Constitution.

3. Striking off Section 377 of Indian Penal Code( Navtej Singh Johar .v. Union Of India )

  • Section 377 of The Indian Penal Code was penalizing unnatural sexual relations.

  • The issue raised was that Section 377 of IPC is violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

  • This issue was first raised by the Naaz Foundation.

  • Supreme Court has scrapped section 377 of IPC, hence put an end to a 158-year-old colonial law that criminalized consensual gay sex.

4. The 2012 Nirbhaya Gang Rape Case (Mukesh & Anr vs State For Nct Of Delhi )

  • It was a heinous crime, which took place on 16th December 2012 and shackled the entire country and forced the government to bring stringent laws on crime against women and subsequently made amendments in Section 375 of IPC.

  • Six people were accused of gang rape on a medical student travelling by bus at night with her one friend.

  • One of the accused was juvenile and was convicted by the Juvenile Justice Board, and the main accused committed suicide in jail.

  • Remaining accused were convicted by the trial court and passed death sentences against them. The conviction and death sentence was upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

  • The Convicted pleaded for Mercy petition which was rejected later.

  • On 20th March 2020, The Supreme Court rejected the final plea, and the four convicts were hanged till death in Tihar jail, New Delhi.

  • As one of the accused was between the age of 16-18, there was confusion regarding the law under which the minor shall be accused, and it had resulted in the subsequent amendment in juvenile laws. The provision was later amended by allowing a person to get tried as an adult if the offence committed by that person is heinous.

5. Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right (Justice K. S. Puttaswamy .v. Union of India )

  • Part III of the Indian Constitution have given certain fundamental rights to all citizens

  • This is the case where the question of the right to privacy was raised.

  • In August 2017, it was held that the right to privacy is a part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Conclusion


Landmark Judgments given by the Supreme Court is its Precedent. Precedent is the rule established in previous cases that are binding on courts to decide further cases on the same issues.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Pooja Dilip Pawar is currently pursuing Law at NBT Law College Nashik.

Edited by: Swathi Ashok Nair

Disclaimer by Legal Armour

We at Legal Armor do not endorse the Authors' views and are in no way responsible for the said views. We are just publishing the Write-ups as blogs with just light editing, and are in no way responsible for any legal claims. Legal Armor shall not be liable for any plagiarized content.

©2020 by Legal Armor. Proudly created with Wix.com