Law enforcement officers, judges, and lawyers have to stay aware of every change on the legal environment to make sure to take the best actions against illegal behavior. If this is a field that is appealing to you and if you look to start a new career in law enforcement, you can get more information here about how to get a master degree in Criminal Justice Administration. It is an online program easy to manage with your daily occupation that will prepare you for a position in the public law enforcement. These new crimes require new methods of policing and enhanced skills. You will learn about leadership effectiveness, surveillance, intelligence and privacy skills, as well as inter-agency collaborating. Here is a list of the 50 most important judgments that have been challenging the legal aspect of the Justice.
1. A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla (The Habeas Corpus Case)
2. Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab
3. Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra
4. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
5. BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India
6. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India
7. Budhan Choudhary v. State of Bihar
8. Chief Forest Conservator (Wild Life) v. Nisar Khan
9. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
10. Daniel Latifi v. Union of India
11. Dr (Mrs.) Vijaya Manohar Arbat v. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai
12. Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh v. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council
13. Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India
14. Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India
15. Forum, Prevention of Envn. and Sound Pollution v. Union of India
16. Gaurav Jain v. Union of India
17. Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar
18. I.C. Golak Nath v . State of Punjab
19. In re, Vinay Chandra Mishra
20. In Re: Death of Sawinder Singh Grover
21. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India
22. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
23. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
24. Laxmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India
25. M/s Modi Cements Limited v. Shri Kuchil Kumar Nandi
26. M/s Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame
27. Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D'costa
28. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
29. Minerva Mills v. Union of India
30. Mr. X v. Hospital Z
31. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani
32. Narayan Prasad Lohia v. Nikunj Kumar Lohia
33. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
34. Poonam Verma v. Dr. Ashwin Patel
35. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India
36. PUCL v. Union of India
37. Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab
38. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra
39. S.P.Sampath Kumar v. Union of India
40. Sakshi v. Union of India
41. Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra
42. Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Miss Subhra Chakraborty
43. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab
44. Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India
45. Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement
46. State of Gujarat v. Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat
47. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India
48. Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration
49. Vincent v. Union of India
50. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan
[/list]
FACTS IN BRIEF :- On June 25 th, 1975 the President in exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of Articles 352 (Proclamation of Emergency) of the Constitution declared that a grave emergency existed whereby the security of India was threatened by internal disturbances. On June 27 th, 1975 in exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of Articles 359 the President declared that the right of any person including a foreigner to move any court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Article 14, Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution and all proceedings pending in any court for the enforcement of the abovementioned rights shall remain suspended for the period during which the proclamations of emergency made under clause (1) of Article 352 of the Constitution on December 3 rd, 1971 and on June 25 th, 1975 were in force. The Presidential Order of June 27, 1975 further stated that the same shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any order made before the date of the aforesaid order under clause (1) of Article 359 of the Constitution.
On January 8 th, 1976 there was a notification passed in the exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 359 of the Constitution whereby the President declared that the right of any person to move any to court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Article 19 of the Constitution and all proceedings pending in any court for the enforcement of the abovementioned rights would remain suspended for the period during which the proclamation of emergency made under clause (1) of Article 352 of the Constitution on December 3 rd, 1971 and on June 25 th, 1975 were in force. Several illegal detentions were thereupon made across the country, pursuant to which various writ petitions were filed throughout the country. Nine High Courts gave decision in favour of detunes, holding that that though Article 21 cannot be enforced, yet the order of detention was open to challenge on other grounds such as that the order passed was not in compliance of the Act or was mala fide. Against these orders, many appeals were filed before the Supreme Court. Disposing of all the appeals together, the Supreme Court set aside that the decisions of the High Courts which had held the declaration and the subsequent detentions as illegal and upheld the declaration and suspension of the said rights.
ARGUMENTS:- Before the Supreme Court, the Attorney General pleaded that Article 21 of the Constitution, fundamental right which provides for security of life and liberty of any person, had been suspended and therefore, the suspension of that Article meant that the detenu had no remedy even against an illegal detention i.e. all the remedy to secure life and the personal freedom ended with the suspension of Article 21. The detunes agued that they had a right to seek remedy under Article 226 (Power of HC to issue Writs) and therefore a remedy against illegal detention was available to them despite the suspension of Article 21 as the remedy under Article 226 which provided for enforcing any other legal right, was not suspended by the Presidential Order.
JUDGMENTS: - Marking the black day of Indian legal history, the Supreme Court rejected the arguments of the Respondents and held that Article 21 of the Constitution was the sole repository of right to life and liberty and therefore, the suspension of it implied that all the remedies protecting this right under any other law shall also be suspended. The Court while construing Article 21 as the sole repository of life and personal liberty denied all available remedies to the detenus on any ground that any challenge to the detention order for the enforcement of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 could not be so done on account of the presidential order suspending it being in force. The majority further held that even the order of detention could not be challenged even on any other ground, even if the detention order was passed mala fide, rendering the detenu without any remedy even against an illegal detention. Therefore, the Court declared, “in view of the Presidential Order dated June 27 th, 1975 no person has any locus standi to move any writ petition under Article 226 before a High Court for habeas corpus or any other writ or order or direction to challenge the legality of an order of detention on the ground that the order is not under or in compliance with the Act or is illegal or is vitiated by mala fides factual or legal or is based on extraneous considerations”, closing its doors to any sort of relief whatsoever to any person suffering from illegal detention.
FOR COMMON MAN:- Dubbed as “a scar on Indian Judiciary”, the judgment exposed the dangers facing the Constitution (read total anarchy) if the judicial wing was unwilling to stand firm and intolerant to violation of constitutional mandate. However Justice Khanna, who gave the dissenting judgment, was praised for his integrity of duty to deliver justice. Later, with the next government came in power, the Constitution was amended whereby it was provided that Article 21 could not be ever suspended, even in case of emergency. Thus the reoccurrence of such a situation has been amended by a Constitutional Amendment where the right of life and personal liberty cannot be suspended in any situation.
(2) Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209
FACTS IN BRIEF :- The Indian Railways issued a circular on February 28 th, 1997 to the effect that the reserved candidates promoted at roster points could not claim seniority over the senior general candidates promoted later. This was done following the law laid down by the Supreme Court - that it was "permissible" to follow that reserved candidates who get promotion at the roster points would not be entitled to claim seniority at the promotional level as against senior general candidates who got promoted at a later point of time to the same level and that "it would be open" to the State to provide that as and when the senior general candidate got promoted to the level to which the reserved candidate was promoted earlier, the general candidate would have to be treated as senior to the reserved candidate at the promotional level as well, unless, of course, the reserved candidate got a further promotion by that time to a higher post. Similarly, the State of Punjab was proceeding to revise seniority lists and make further promotions of the senior general candidates who had reached the level to which the reserved candidates had reached earlier.
At that point of time, another three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the general rule in the Service Rules relating to seniority from the date of continuous officiation would be attracted even to the roster point promotees as otherwise there would be discrimination against the reserved candidates. In light of above two contrary decisions, State was in a quandary what to do and the same was brought before the Supreme Court wherein the issues inter alia were;
Could the roster point promotees (reserved category) count their seniority in the promoted category from the date of their continuous officiation vis-à-vis the general candidates who were senior to them in the lower category and who were later promoted to the same level?
Whether the 'catch-up' principles claimed by the general candidates are tenable?
[/list]
JUDGMENT:- The judgment of the Court can be summarized as follows;
The roster point promotees (reserved category) could not count their seniority in the promoted category from the date of their continuous officiation in the promoted post vis-à-vis the general candidates who were senior to them in the lower category and who were later promoted. On the other hand, the senior general candidate at the lower level, if he reached the promotional level later but before the further promotion of the reserved candidate would have to be treated as senior, at the promotional level, to the reserved candidate even if the reserved candidate was earlier promoted to that level.
The Apex Court held that decision of Jagdishlal v. State of Haryana (AIR 1997 SC 2366) arrived at an incorrect conclusion because of applying a rule of continuous officiation which was not intended to apply to the reserved candidates promoted at roster points. There was no conflict in the principles laid down in the two judgments of Union of India v. Virpal Singh (1993) 6 SCC 685 and Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab (1996) 2 SCC 215. In
1. A.D.M. Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla (The Habeas Corpus Case)
2. Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab
3. Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra
4. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
5. BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India
6. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India
7. Budhan Choudhary v. State of Bihar
8. Chief Forest Conservator (Wild Life) v. Nisar Khan
9. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
10. Daniel Latifi v. Union of India
11. Dr (Mrs.) Vijaya Manohar Arbat v. Kashirao Rajaram Sawai
12. Dr. Mahachandra Prasad Singh v. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council
13. Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India
14. Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India
15. Forum, Prevention of Envn. and Sound Pollution v. Union of India
16. Gaurav Jain v. Union of India
17. Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar
18. I.C. Golak Nath v . State of Punjab
19. In re, Vinay Chandra Mishra
20. In Re: Death of Sawinder Singh Grover
21. Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India
22. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
23. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
24. Laxmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India
25. M/s Modi Cements Limited v. Shri Kuchil Kumar Nandi
26. M/s Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame
27. Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D'costa
28. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
29. Minerva Mills v. Union of India
30. Mr. X v. Hospital Z
31. Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani
32. Narayan Prasad Lohia v. Nikunj Kumar Lohia
33. Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India
34. Poonam Verma v. Dr. Ashwin Patel
35. Parmanand Katara v. Union of India
36. PUCL v. Union of India
37. Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab
38. Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra
39. S.P.Sampath Kumar v. Union of India
40. Sakshi v. Union of India
41. Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra
42. Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Miss Subhra Chakraborty
43. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab
44. Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India
45. Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement
46. State of Gujarat v. Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat
47. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India
48. Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration
49. Vincent v. Union of India
50. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan
[/list]
FACTS IN BRIEF :- On June 25 th, 1975 the President in exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of Articles 352 (Proclamation of Emergency) of the Constitution declared that a grave emergency existed whereby the security of India was threatened by internal disturbances. On June 27 th, 1975 in exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of Articles 359 the President declared that the right of any person including a foreigner to move any court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Article 14, Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution and all proceedings pending in any court for the enforcement of the abovementioned rights shall remain suspended for the period during which the proclamations of emergency made under clause (1) of Article 352 of the Constitution on December 3 rd, 1971 and on June 25 th, 1975 were in force. The Presidential Order of June 27, 1975 further stated that the same shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any order made before the date of the aforesaid order under clause (1) of Article 359 of the Constitution.
On January 8 th, 1976 there was a notification passed in the exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 359 of the Constitution whereby the President declared that the right of any person to move any to court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by Article 19 of the Constitution and all proceedings pending in any court for the enforcement of the abovementioned rights would remain suspended for the period during which the proclamation of emergency made under clause (1) of Article 352 of the Constitution on December 3 rd, 1971 and on June 25 th, 1975 were in force. Several illegal detentions were thereupon made across the country, pursuant to which various writ petitions were filed throughout the country. Nine High Courts gave decision in favour of detunes, holding that that though Article 21 cannot be enforced, yet the order of detention was open to challenge on other grounds such as that the order passed was not in compliance of the Act or was mala fide. Against these orders, many appeals were filed before the Supreme Court. Disposing of all the appeals together, the Supreme Court set aside that the decisions of the High Courts which had held the declaration and the subsequent detentions as illegal and upheld the declaration and suspension of the said rights.
ARGUMENTS:- Before the Supreme Court, the Attorney General pleaded that Article 21 of the Constitution, fundamental right which provides for security of life and liberty of any person, had been suspended and therefore, the suspension of that Article meant that the detenu had no remedy even against an illegal detention i.e. all the remedy to secure life and the personal freedom ended with the suspension of Article 21. The detunes agued that they had a right to seek remedy under Article 226 (Power of HC to issue Writs) and therefore a remedy against illegal detention was available to them despite the suspension of Article 21 as the remedy under Article 226 which provided for enforcing any other legal right, was not suspended by the Presidential Order.
JUDGMENTS: - Marking the black day of Indian legal history, the Supreme Court rejected the arguments of the Respondents and held that Article 21 of the Constitution was the sole repository of right to life and liberty and therefore, the suspension of it implied that all the remedies protecting this right under any other law shall also be suspended. The Court while construing Article 21 as the sole repository of life and personal liberty denied all available remedies to the detenus on any ground that any challenge to the detention order for the enforcement of the right to personal liberty under Article 21 could not be so done on account of the presidential order suspending it being in force. The majority further held that even the order of detention could not be challenged even on any other ground, even if the detention order was passed mala fide, rendering the detenu without any remedy even against an illegal detention. Therefore, the Court declared, “in view of the Presidential Order dated June 27 th, 1975 no person has any locus standi to move any writ petition under Article 226 before a High Court for habeas corpus or any other writ or order or direction to challenge the legality of an order of detention on the ground that the order is not under or in compliance with the Act or is illegal or is vitiated by mala fides factual or legal or is based on extraneous considerations”, closing its doors to any sort of relief whatsoever to any person suffering from illegal detention.
FOR COMMON MAN:- Dubbed as “a scar on Indian Judiciary”, the judgment exposed the dangers facing the Constitution (read total anarchy) if the judicial wing was unwilling to stand firm and intolerant to violation of constitutional mandate. However Justice Khanna, who gave the dissenting judgment, was praised for his integrity of duty to deliver justice. Later, with the next government came in power, the Constitution was amended whereby it was provided that Article 21 could not be ever suspended, even in case of emergency. Thus the reoccurrence of such a situation has been amended by a Constitutional Amendment where the right of life and personal liberty cannot be suspended in any situation.
(2) Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209
FACTS IN BRIEF :- The Indian Railways issued a circular on February 28 th, 1997 to the effect that the reserved candidates promoted at roster points could not claim seniority over the senior general candidates promoted later. This was done following the law laid down by the Supreme Court - that it was "permissible" to follow that reserved candidates who get promotion at the roster points would not be entitled to claim seniority at the promotional level as against senior general candidates who got promoted at a later point of time to the same level and that "it would be open" to the State to provide that as and when the senior general candidate got promoted to the level to which the reserved candidate was promoted earlier, the general candidate would have to be treated as senior to the reserved candidate at the promotional level as well, unless, of course, the reserved candidate got a further promotion by that time to a higher post. Similarly, the State of Punjab was proceeding to revise seniority lists and make further promotions of the senior general candidates who had reached the level to which the reserved candidates had reached earlier.
At that point of time, another three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that the general rule in the Service Rules relating to seniority from the date of continuous officiation would be attracted even to the roster point promotees as otherwise there would be discrimination against the reserved candidates. In light of above two contrary decisions, State was in a quandary what to do and the same was brought before the Supreme Court wherein the issues inter alia were;
Could the roster point promotees (reserved category) count their seniority in the promoted category from the date of their continuous officiation vis-à-vis the general candidates who were senior to them in the lower category and who were later promoted to the same level?
Whether the 'catch-up' principles claimed by the general candidates are tenable?
[/list]
JUDGMENT:- The judgment of the Court can be summarized as follows;
The roster point promotees (reserved category) could not count their seniority in the promoted category from the date of their continuous officiation in the promoted post vis-à-vis the general candidates who were senior to them in the lower category and who were later promoted. On the other hand, the senior general candidate at the lower level, if he reached the promotional level later but before the further promotion of the reserved candidate would have to be treated as senior, at the promotional level, to the reserved candidate even if the reserved candidate was earlier promoted to that level.
The Apex Court held that decision of Jagdishlal v. State of Haryana (AIR 1997 SC 2366) arrived at an incorrect conclusion because of applying a rule of continuous officiation which was not intended to apply to the reserved candidates promoted at roster points. There was no conflict in the principles laid down in the two judgments of Union of India v. Virpal Singh (1993) 6 SCC 685 and Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab (1996) 2 SCC 215. In