The important landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India.
Vishaka v State of Rajasthan 1997 ALL MR (Cri) 1635 (S.C.):
Definition of sexual harassment and guidelines to deal with it laid down. Sexual harassment of working women at workplaces which amounts to a violation of the right to gender equality and right to life and liberty. Absence of law to effectually deal with abuse and harassment of women. Supreme Court laid down guidelines and norms and directing to treat it as the law declared under Art. 141.
Vishaka’s Judgement provides procedural guidelines for use in India in cases of sexual harassment.
Sexual harassment includes
demand or request for a sexual favor
sexually colour remark
any other sexual nature conduct, it may verbal or non-verbal.
Hence the Sexual Harassment Act, 2013 introduced and also set out the constitution of the committee. And this act provides the procedure to file complaints and inquiring into complaints in a time-bound manner.
The main intention of this act to provide a safe work environment for women. There is also a provision of penalty if the employer fails to comply law. Law like employer fails to constitute a committee under the Sexual Harassment act. Here is the full Judgement https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1031794/
Tahsildar Singh Vs State of UP 2010 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 1(Landmark Judgement of Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme court has explained the procedure in detail with how to deal with the statement of a witness made before the police during the investigation. And contradict witness by confronting him with his previous statement. This Judgement helps to all the lawyers while cross-examination of a witness in court.
This the judgment has also explained what is an omission, what is a contradiction, why omission and contradiction need to prove. It has also explained the evidential value of contradiction and omission. The full judgment is available here https://indiankanoon.org/doc/56195/
Khushal Rao vs. the State of Bombay reported in AIR 1958 SC 22 : [2008 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 41], 2018 ALL MR (Cri) 3837
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that to pass the test of reliability, a dying declaration has to be subjected to very close scrutiny. It has to keep in mind that the statement needs to made in the absence of the accused who had no opportunity of testing the veracity of the statement by cross-examination.
However, this judgment has explained evidentially the value of dying declaration, admissibility of dying declaration. Besides, the dying declaration is one of the important pieces of evidence that is admissible in court. Therefore, it is on the court discretion to examine the dying declaration carefully. If the dying declaration is the incomplete court can reject the dying declaration.
But once, the Court has concluded that the dying declaration was the truthful version as to the circumstances of the death and the assailants of the victim. There is no question of further corroboration. Full judgment is available here https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1428689/
Madhu Limaye Vs. State Of Maharashtra 2007 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 191
In this landmark judgment, the supreme court has observed that when inherent powers can be exercised. However, the following principles have followed ordinarily and generally, almost invariably, barring a few exceptions:-
- That the power has not to resorted for the redress of the grievance of the aggrieved party if there is a specific provision in the Code ;
- That powers shall exercise very carefully to prevent the abuse of process of law or else to secure the ends of justice;
- These powers shall not exercise against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provision of the Code.
- The full judgment is available here https://indiankanoon.org/doc/646292/
Laxman Vs. State Of Maharashtra 2002 ALL MR (Cri) 2259 (S.C.)
Dying declaration -Recording of – Absence of doctor’s certificate as to mental fitness of declarant. Voluntary and truthful nature of declaration can establish by other evidence – 2000 ALL MR (Cri) 116 (S.C.) overruled.
Dying declaration – Acceptability – Observation in Paparambaka’s case (1999(7) SCC 695) to the effect that in the absence of a medical certification that the injured was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the declaration, it would very much risky to accept the subjective satisfaction of a Magistrate who opined that the injured was in a fit State of mind at the time of making a declaration – Therefore, Observations are too broadly stated and is not the correct enunciation of the law – Such a hyper-technical view has avoided.
Ayodhya Verdict (Landmark Judgement of Supreme Court of India)
That the Ayodhya land dispute has taken historical, socio-religious and political debate all over India. And that has been taken for several decades. The dispute is focused on a plot of land in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, which is regarded among the Hindus to be the birthplace of the Hindu deity Ram.
According to some people, there had a Hindu temple at the site on the land. And that has demolished to construct a mosque known as Babri Masjid. On the other hand, Muslims claimed that the land has titled to them and in the year 1528 Mir Baqi has built the mosque on orders of the first Mughal emperor, Babur.
The alteration of the temple has become a topic of debate. Some of the Muslims saw an idol of Ram has placed inside in 1949, which was then a mosque. Hindu and Muslim, both sides ask for the title of the site and that led to an ultimate sealed of the area by the government.
On December 17, 1959, Nirmohi Akhara filed a suit claiming the possession of the plot of land and sought the custody of the disputed land. Thereafter, the Sunni Central Board of Waqf also has filed a case claiming ownership of the land on December 18, 1961.
Thereafter on 6 December 1992, Hindu Kar sevaks have demolished Babri masjid. Hence, communal riots took place all over India which resulted in the killing of at least 2,000 people.
Over the years, the matter has brought up by both groups in various courts of the country.
As a result, on September 30, 2010, the Allahabad High Court ruled that the disputed 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya should be divided into three parts among the Hindus, Muslims and the Nirmohi Akhara. The petitioners moved the Supreme Court and the apex court stayed the HC verdict.
In 2016, the court had started a fresh hearing of the case in the year 2016. And thereafter in the year 2017, the SC said that the matter has sensitive and suggested to settle the out of court. It asked stakeholders to hold talks and find an amicable solution. However, no solution achieved. Thereafter the Supreme Court set up a five-judge Constitution Bench to hear the land dispute case in 2018.
Hence, On 26 November 2019, the five-member bench of the Supreme Court headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi has directed the Centre to form a trust within three months. That will build a temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya. SC has given direction to the Centre Government to allot a 5-acre plot of land to the Sunni Waqf Board for building a mosque.
Also, read Cruelty and Domestic Violence