Case Archive

Filter By

Case Status

Bench

Sort

Search

Property Owners Association v State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court will decide if private property can be considered “material resources of the community” under Article 39(b) of the Constitution

State of Uttar Pradesh v Lalta Prasad Vaish

The Supreme Court will decide if industrial alcohol falls within the exclusive jurisdiction a state government

Mineral Area Development Authority v Steel Authority of India

The Court will determine whether royalty paid by mine operators to the Union government is a form of tax

Bilkis Yakub Rasool v Union of India

The Supreme Court held that Gujarat government was the incorrect authority to grant remission to 11 men convicted of gangrape in the Bilkis Bano case.

Last Updated: January 9, 2024

Bench:B.V. Nagarathna J, Ujjal Bhuyan J

Tags:Bilkis Bano, Criminal Law, Gujarat Riots, Remission

Kaushal Kishore v State Of Uttar Pradesh

The Constitution Bench held that the Freedom of Speech of public officials cannot be restricted in favour of another persons fundamental rights. However, they held that the State has an obligation to protect the fundamental rights of citizen's even against non-state actors such as other private persons.

Neeraj Dutta v State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

A Constitution Bench led by Justice Nazeer unanimously held that public officials can be convicted for bribery on the basis of circumstantial evidence if there is no direct evidence.

Sukhpal Singh Khaira v State of Punjab

The SC will decide if a new accused can be summoned after the trial has concluded and the Judgment has already been delivered.

Vivek Narayan Sharma v Union of India

The Supreme Court upheld the Union's 2016 demonetisation scheme in a 4:1 split. The majority held that the scheme was proportionate to the the Union's stated objectives and was implemented in a reasonable manner.

Pattali Makkal Katchi v Mayileruperumal

The Supreme Court held that Tamil Nadu's reservation for Vanniyars in education and employment within the Most Backward Classes category was unconstitutional. The Court observed that the reservation was not supported by empirical data on backwardness.