Recent Cases

1. Krishna Kumar Singh & Anr vs. State of Bihar & Ors Re-promulgation of “Ordinance” is fraud and a
subversion of democratic legislative process. Articles 123 and 213. The decision was given by a 7
judge bench of the Supreme Court.
2. Abhiram Singh vs. C.D. Commachen (Dead) by LRS and Ors. Section 123(3) of the Representation
of Peoples Act. Seeking votes on the basis of caste, religion or community amounted to corrupt
practices under section 123 of People’s representation Act.
3. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy vs. Sushil Ansal and Another – Ansal was Sentenced
after a long period of judicial determination of his guilt...
4. Hussain and Anr. vs. UOI- Supreme Court directed disposal of Bail pleas within one week. Speedy
trial is a part of Article 21.
5. State of Tamilnadu vs. K Balu- There is no fundamental right to carry on business in liquor since as
a matter of constitutional doctrine, Article 19(1) (g) does not extend to trade in liquor which is
consistently regarded as res extra commercium( a things beyond commerce).
6. Deepa vs. Union of India (Reservation for OBC, SC and ST) - OBC SC ST can qualify in general
category provided that he/ she has not taken special benefit of reserved category for example-
age relaxation or more attempt etc.
7. State (through) CBI vs. Sri Kalyan Singh (Former CM of UP) &Ors. - Supreme Court restored criminal
conspiracy charges against senior BJP leaders L.K.Adwani, Uma Bharati, Murali Manohar Joshi
and 13 Others.
8. Pawan kumar vs. State of H.P. Appeal of the convict was dismissed and the court held out Right
to reject of woman. SC said a woman has an individual choice which has been legally
recognized. It has to be socially respected. No one can compel a women to love. She has
absolute right to reject.”
9. Mukesh and Anr.vs. State for NCT of Delhi- Delhi Nirbhaya Gang Rape Case. Death sentence was
upheld.
10. Suo-Motu Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1 Of 2017 In The Matter Of:- In Re, Hon’ble Shri Justice C.S.
Karnan - The sentence of six months imposed by this Court on Sri Justice C.S. Karnan, shall be
executed forthwith, by the Director General of Police, West Bengal, or through a team
constituted by him.
11. Binoy Viswam vs. UOI - SC upheld constitutional validity of section 139AA of Income Tax Act
which made mandatory linkage of IT returns with AADHAAR subject to the outcome of main case
related to AADHAAR.
12. Bimolangshu Roy(Dead) Through LRs vs. State of Assam vs. Another Assam Parliamentary
Secretaries (Appointment, Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004. Supreme
Court declared this Act as unconstitutional. The Court held that Article 194 of the Constitution of
India does not expressly authorize the State Legislature to create the office of Parliamentary
secretary.
13. Rajesh Sharma &Ors vs. State of UP and Anr. - Supreme Court laid down exhaustive guidelines
regarding section 498A of IPC, 1860.
14. Rakesh kumar Paul vs. State of Assam- Right to get ‘default bail’ under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C..
15. Shayara Bano vs.UOI (Triple Talaq Case)- Practice of Triple Talaq is unconstitutional.
16. Justice K.S.Puttaswami (Retd.) and Anr. vs. UOI and Ors. (Right to privacy is fundamental rights) -
Right to privacy is fundamental rights. In a unanimous decision, a nine-judge Constitution Bench
overruled the Judgment in MP Sharma and Kharak Singh Case.
17. Independent Thought vs. Union Of India & Anr. (Rape with wife) - Section 375 Exception 2 is
arbitrary to Articles 14, 15 & 21 of the Constitution of India. Now in all cases, sexual intercourse
with a women including wife, if she is below the age of 18 years, is rape.
18. Ms. Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India through Secretary general &Ors- Guidelines/norms
for designation of ‘Senior Advocate’ by the Supreme Court and all High Courts of this country
were laid down.
19. 101st Constitutional Amendment- Goods and Services Tax
20. Kamini Jaiswal Vs. Union Of India & anr. (Master of Roster) It was held that CJI alone had the
power to assign the case to a bench even if there were allegations in the matter against him.
21. (Prasad Institute of Medical Science, Lucknow Case).
22. Dr.S.Rajaseekaran(II) vs.Union of India & Ors.- Guidelines for safety of road accident (1) Road
safety policy, (2)State Road Safety Council (3)Load Agency(4)Road Safety Fund(5)Road Safety
Action Plan(6)District Road Safety Committee(7)Engineering Improvement(8)Traffic Calming
Measures(9)Road Sefty Audit etc. 25 guidelines were laid down.
23. Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) vs. UOI and Others
24. Writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.25 (Twenty five) lakhs to be deposited by petitioner before
the Registry of this Court within six weeks where after said amount shall be transferred to the
Supreme Court Bar Association Advocate’ Welfare fund.
25. Ashok Pandey vs. Supreme Court of India Through Its Registrar &Ors. - From an institutional
perspective the Chief Justice is placed at the helm of the Supreme Court. In the allocation of
cases and the constitution of benches the Chief Justice has an exclusive prerogative. As a
repository of constitutional trust, the Chief Justice is an institution in himself.
26. Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M. (Hadia Case) Akhila converted into Hadiya.- Right to choose is a
fundamental rights. SC has restored the marriage of Hadiya with Shafin Jahan, 10 months after
the Kerala high court annulled it.
27. Common Cause (A Regd. Society) Vs. Union of India and Another - Misuse of Public Interest
Litigation. PIL has become industry of vested interests.
28. CBI vs. Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh (Ram Rahim Case) - Convicted for Rape
29. State (ThroughC.B.I.) vs. Shri Lalu Prasad and Anr. Lalu Yadav Case – Convicted for fodder scam.
30. Salman Case- Blackbuck Poaching Case, Five Years Jail. He was sent to Jodhpur Jail.
31. State of Rajasthan vs. Asharam and Anr. (Aasharam Case)- Aasharam was convicted for
committing rape of minor.
32. Navtej singh Johar vs. Union of India- section 377 of IPC which criminalized homosexuality is
unconstitutional.
33. Suresh kaushal vs. union of India- Section 377 is legal and is constitutional.
34. NAAZ Foundation vs. Delhi NCT – Section 377 is unconstitutional and hence has no force. It
violates the fundamental rights of a person and is illegal.
 Important Case Laws for CLAT/AILET 2020

1. NJAC (S.C Judges selection) held unconstitutional - Supreme Court Advocates on Record
Association vs. Union of India
2. Yakub Memon terrorist 1993 blasts midnight hearing - Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs. State of
Maharashtra
3. Section 66A IT Act struck down by S.C- 66A affected Indian citizens' right to free speech. - Shreya
Singhal vs. Union of India
4. No compromise in Rape cases - State of MP vs. Madanlal
5. Unwed mother can become sole guardian of a child - ABC vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
6. Uphaar Verdict - SushilAnsal vs. State through CBI
7. Award Compensation to the victim of crime - Manohar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan
8. Section 364A IPC awarding death penalty not unconstitutional - Vikram Singh vs. Union of India
9. States cannot unilaterally grant remission - Union of India vs. Sriharan
10. Minimum Edu Qualification rule for Panchayat elections upheld - Rajbala vs. State of Haryana
11. Women can be manager of a Joint Family - Shreya Vidyarthi vs. Ashok Vidyarthi
12. Complete Departmental inquiries within six months - PremNath Bali vs. Registrar, High Court of
Delhi
13. RBI also under RTI - Reserve Bank of India vs. JayantilalMistry
14. Acid Attack Victims in disability list - Parivartan Kendra vs. Union of India
15. Writ petitions maintainable against ‘deemed Universities’ - Dr. Janet Jeyapaul vs. SRM University
16. No politician photos in Govt Ads - Common cause vs. Union of India
17. Age determination of rape victim clarified - State of M.P. vs Anoop Singh
18. Amendment in complaint can be done - S. R. Sukumar vs. S.SunaadRaghuram
19. Obscene language cannot be allowed against ‘Historically respected personalities’ - Devidas vs.
State of Maharashtra
20. Appointment of Archakas to be made in accordance with Agamas – Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal
Nala Sanga vs. Government of Tamil Nadu
21. Father of deceased victim has right to appeal - Satya Pal Singh v. State of M.P.
22. Jat reservation held unconstitutional - Ram Singh vs. Union of India
23. Concealing pending criminal cases by elected representative illegal - Krishnamoorthy vs.
Sivakumar
24. Writs against Judicial actions by judiciary not maintainable - Riju Prasad Sarma etc. vs. State of
Assam
25. Constitutional validity of Sec 499 IPC (Defamation) The court held that Criminal Defamation law is
not unconstitutional - Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India
26. Haji Ali Dargah case- Bombay HC opens Haji Ali Dargah to women - Dr. Noorjehan Safia Niaz vs.
State of Maharashtra
27. Plea of Self-defence - Brij Lal vs. State of Rajasthan
28. Extra-Judicial Confession; Kala – Chandrakala vs. State through Inspector of Police
29. District Judge Selection- Vijay Kumar Mishra vs. High Court of Judicature at Patna
30. Upload FIRs in Police Websites - Youth Bar Association of India vs. Union of India
31. Multiple Life Sentences will run concurrently, Remission of one will not affect the other -
Muthuramalingam vs. state
32. Relief Possible against Minors, Women - Hiral P Harsora and ors vs. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora
33. Forcing Husband to Get Separated From His Parents, Amounts To ’Cruelty’ - Narendra vs.
K.Meena
34. Persons in Govt/Judicial service need not resign to participate in District Judge Selection Process.
- Vijay Kumar Mishra and Anr vs High court of Judicature at Patna and Ors
35. Public Service Commission shall provide Information about answer sheets and Marks under RTI. -
Kerala Public Service Commission vs State Information Commission
36. No liquor shops near National Highways - State of Tamil Nadu vs. K. Balu
37. National anthem must in Theatres - Shyam Narayan Chouski vs. Union of India
38. SC can transfer cases from Jammu & Kashmir Courts to courts outside it and vice versa - Anita
Kushwaha vs. Pushpa Sudan
39. Upload FIRs in Police Websites., Case - Youth Bar Association of India vs.Union of India
40. Multiple Life Sentences will run concurrently, Remission of one will not affect the other. Case -
Muthuramalingam vs. State
41. SC can transfer cases from Jammu & Kashmir Courts to courts outside it and vice versa.
42. Relief Possible Against Minors, Women - Case Anita Kushwaha vs. Pushpa Sudan
43. Supreme Court struck down the words “adult male” before the word “person” in Section 2(q) of
Domestic Violence Act. Case: - Hiral P Harsora and ors s. KusumNarottamdasHarsora
44. Forcing Husband To Get Separated From His Parents, Amounts To ’Cruelty’- Narendra vs.
K.Meena
45. Directions to Curb Female foeticide Case - Voluntary Health Association vs State of Punjab
46. Persons in Govt/Judicial service need not resign to participate in District Judge Selection Process
Case - Vijay Kumar Mishra and Anr vs High court of Judicature at Patna To and Ors
47. All Tribunals are not necessary parties to the proceedings where legality of its orders challenged -
S. Kazi vs. Muslim education society
48. Public Service Commission shall provide Information about answer sheets and Marks under RTI -
Kerala Public Service Commission vs State Information Commission
49. Social Security to the Legal Profession Becomes an Essential Part of Legal System - Cardamom
Marketing Corporation &Anr. Vs. State of Kerala &Ors
50. Landmark guidelines for disaster /drought management - SwarajAbhiyan vs. UOI
51. People with disabilities also have the Right to Live with Dignity - JeejaGhosh vs. UOI
52. No liquor shops near National Highways - State of Tamil Nadu vs. K. Balu
53. High Court Judges Not Exempt From Airport Frisking - Union of India vs. Rajasthan High Court and
Ors
54. SC issues Guidelines on ‘Appointment of Govt. Lawyers - State of Punjab vs. Brijeshwar Singh
Chahal
55. Krishna Kumar Singh & Anr vs. State of Bihar & Ors - A seven-judge Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar has held that re-promulgation is a fraud
on the constitution.
56. Resolution against Justice Katju can’t be quashed - Justice Markandey Katju vs. The Lok Sabha
SC refused to quash the resolution by both houses of parliament against him for describing
Gandhi as a British agent and Netaji as a Japanese Agent.
57. Cauvery Dispute and SC - State of Karnataka vs. State of Tamil Nadu SC ordered Karnataka to
release 15000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu, Later on a plea by state of Karnataka, it was
modified to 12000 cusecs.
58. SC orders NEET - Sankalp Charitable Trust vs. UoI. Supreme Court ordered to conduct the National
Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET) 2016 in Two Phases.
59. Sedition: Direction to authorities - Common Cause vs Union of India. Supreme Court of India
issued a direction to all the concerned authorities to follow the Constitutional bench judgment in
Kedar Nath v State of Bihar (1962) which limited the scope of sedition.
60. National anthem must in Theatres - Shyam Narayan Chouski vs. Union of India

Most Important Landmark cases for CLAT/AILET 2020 Exam

Jury decision overturned by High Court (KM Nanavati v State of Maharashtra) - 1961
This case is notable for being the last case when a jury trial was held in India. KM Nanavati, a naval
officer, murdered his wife's lover, Prem Ahuja. The jury ruled in favour of Nanavati and declared him
"not guilty" which was eventually set aside by the Bombay High Court.

Amendment masquerades as law (IC Golaknath v State of Punjab) - 1967

Parliament's prevented from taking away individual rights. In the highly famous case of Golaknath V
State of Punjab in 1967 the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could not curtail any of the
Fundamental Rights of individuals mentioned in the Constitution. Parliament's overarching ambitions
nipped in the bud (Keshavananda Bharti vs State of Kerala) 1973.

Elected representatives cannot be given the benefit of doubt

A highly notable case which introduced the concept of "basic structure" of the constitution of India
and declared that those points decided as basic structure could not be amended by the Parliament.
The case was triggered by the 42nd Amendment Act.

Indira Gandhi v Raj Narain – 1975

The trigger that led to the imposition of emergency. In this landmark case regarding election disputes,
the primary issue was the validity of clause 4 of the 39th Amendment Act. The Supreme Court held
clause 4 as unconstitutional and void on the ground that it was outright denial of the right to equality
enshrined in Article 14. The Supreme Court also added the following features as “basic features” laid
down in Keshavananda Bharti case – democracy, judicial review, rule of law and jurisdiction of
Supreme Court under Article 32.
A step backward for India (ADM Jabalpur v Shivakant Shukla Case) - 1976
Widely considered a violation of Fundamental Rights. In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court
declared that the rights of citizens to move the court for violation of Articles 14, 21 and 22 would
remain suspended during emergencies. Triumph of individual liberty (Maneka Gandhi vs UOI) 1978.

Parliament limited by itself (Minerva Mills v Union of India) - 1980

In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India in 1980 strengthened the doctrine of the basic
structure which was propounded earlier in the Keshavananda Bharti Case. Two changes which were
made earlier by the 42nd Amendment Act were declared as null and void by the Supreme Court in
this particular case.

Constitutional validity of individual rights upheld (Waman Rao v Union of India) - 1981
SC ruled that Parliament had transgressed its power of constitutional amendment. This case was a
landmark decision in the constitutional jurisprudence of India. This case has helped in determining a
satisfactory method of addressing grievances pertaining to the violation of fundamental rights by
creating a fine line of determination between the Acts prior to and after the Keshavananda Bharati
case.

Maintenance lawsuit sets precedent (Mohd Ahmed Khan v Shah Bano Begum) - 1985
Muslim woman Shah Bano won the right to get alimony from her husband. The petitioner challenged
the Muslim personal law. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Shah Bano and granted her alimony.
Most favoured it as a secular judgment but it also invoked a strong reaction from the Muslim
community, which felt that the judgment was an encroachment on Muslim Sharia law and hence led
to the formation of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board in 1973.

MC Mehta v Union Of India – 1986

Mounting environment-related concerns. A PIL filed by MC Mehta in 1986 enlarged the scope and
ambit of Article 21 and Article 32 to include the right to healthy and pollution-free environment.

Reservation in central government jobs (Indra Sawhney v UOI November) - 1992

Attempt to correct historic injustices constitutionally. The constitutional bench of the Supreme Court
held in this matter that caste could be a factor for identifying backward classes.

Wrangle over Supreme Court judge appointments (Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record - Association
and another versus Union of India) - 1993
The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act and Constitutional amendment Act passed in
2014 aimed at replacing the collegium system of appointing Supreme Court judges. The act was struck
down as unconstitutionalby the Supreme Court in October 2015.

Power of President's Rule curtailed (SR Bommai v Union of India) - 1994

Persecution of state governments stalled. This landmark case had major implications on Centre-State
relations. Post this case the Supreme Court clearly detailed the limitations within which Article 356 has
to function.

Foundation for a female workforce (Vishaka v State of Rajasthan) - 1997

Definition of sexual harrassment and guidelines to deal with it laid down. In this case Vishakha and
other women groups filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against State of Rajasthan and Union of India
to enforce fundamental rights for working women under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. This
resulted in the introduction of Vishaka Guidelines. The judgment of August 1997 also provided basic
definitions of sexual harassment at the workplace and provided guidelines to deal with it. Hence the
importance of the case as a landmark judgment.
Afzal Guru's death sentence sparked protests – 2002
Shaukat Hussain Guru vs . State (NCT) Delhi and Ors. Awarded death sentence for role in 2001
Parliament attacks. Afzal Guru was sentenced to death on February 2013 for his role in the December
2001 attacks on the Indian Parliament. The judgment faced widespread criticism on three grounds –
lack of proper defense, lack of primary evidence and judgment based on collective conscience
rather than rule of law.

State of Tamil Nadu V Suhas Katti - November 2004

Short conviction time of seven months. This was notable for being the first case involving conviction
under the Information Technology Act, 2000. A family friend of a divorced woman was accused of
posting her number online on messenger groups which led to her being harassed by multiple lewd
messages. The accused was later convicted and sentenced.

Rameshwar Prasad v Union Of India - 2005

Dissolution of Bihar Assembly unwarranted. In this case, the petitioner challenged the constitutional
validity of a notification which ordered dissolution of the legislative Assembly of the state of Bihar. The
dissolution had been ordered on the ground that attempts were being made to cobble a majority by
illegal means and lay claim to form the government in the state which if continued would lead to
tampering with constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court held that the aforementioned notification
was unconstitutional.

Victims of sexual assault or not? (Om Prakash v Dil Bahar) - 2006

Controversial ruling had many opponents. The Supreme Court in the above case declared that a rape
accused could be convicted on the sole evidence of the victim in spite of medical evidence not
proving that it was rape.

Jessica Lal Murder Case - December 2006

Sidhartha Vashisht v s. State (NCT of Delhi) Civil society makes big gains. A model in New Delhi working
as a bartender was shot dead and the prime accused Manu Sharma, son of Congress MP Vinod
Sharma who was initially acquitted in February 2006 was later sentenced to life imprisonment in
December 2006 by a fast track hearing by the Delhi High Court. On 19 April 2010, the Supreme Court
of India approved the sentence.

Sanjay Dutt plays prisoner in real life

Sanjay Dutt vs State through C.B.I 1994 Conviction under TADA changed under milder Arms Act. Well-
known actor Sanjay Dutt was sentenced to five year imprisonment by the Supreme Court for illegal
weapons possession in a case linked to the 1993 serial blasts in Mumbai. The Supreme Court also cited
that the circumstances and nature of offence were too serious for the 53-year-old actor to be
released on probation.

Nithari serial murders. Appeal turned down by Supreme Court

Surendra koli vs State of U.P Koli was served with multiple death sentences. A Special Sessions Court
awarded death sentence in 2009 to Surinder Koli and Moninder Singh Pandher for the murder of a 14-
year-old girl. The murders believed to have been committed through 2006 involved instances of
cannibalism. Pandher was later acquitted by the Allahabad High Court and was released on bail but
Koli’s death sentence was upheld by both the High Court as well as the Supreme Court.
Aarushi Talwar murder – 2008
Rajesh Talwar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors. Verdict delivered under unusual
circumstances. A case which received heavy media attention involved the double murder of 14-year-
old Aarushi Talwar and her 45-year-old domestic help in Noida. After five years a Sessions court
convicted both her parents Rajesh and Nupur Talwar and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

Section 377 case (Naz Foundation v Govt of NCT of Delhi) - July 2009
Cause for rejoicing for homosexuals. In 2009 the Supreme Court declared Section 377 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 as unconstitutional. The said section earlier criminalised sexual activities “against the
order of nature” which included homosexual acts. This judgment however, was overturned by the
Supreme in December, 2013.

Meagre closure for controversial Ayodhya (Ayodhya Ram Mandir Babri Masjid Case) - September
2010
Ruled that the land was to be divided into three parts. The high court of Allahabad had ruled that the
disputed land in Ayodhya where the Babri Masjid was situated before it was demolished in 1992 shall
be divided into three parts. Two-thirds of the land was to be awarded to the Hindu plaintiffs and one-
third to the Sunni muslim Waqf board.

Vodafone's name cleared in tax battle (Vodafone-Hutchison tax case) - January 2012
Vodafone International Holdings B.V. vs. Union of India (UOI) Landmark decision on taxability of
offshore transactions. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Vodafone in the two-billion-dollar tax case
citing that capital gains tax is not applicable to the telecom major. The apex court also said that the
Rs 2,500 crore which Vodafone had already paid should be returned with interest.

Clean chit to Prime Minister Narendra Modi - 2012

Questions remains and victims of families yet to get closure. In April 2012 the Supreme Court appointed
Special investigation Team (SIT) gave current Prime Minister Narendra Modi a clean chit in the post-
Godhra Gulberg massacre case citing that it found no evidence against him. Narendra Modi went on
to become the Prime Minister of India with a huge mandate.

Mohd Ajmal Amir Kasab v State of Maharashtra - 2012

One of the most high-profile executions in the country. The Supreme Court observed that the acts on
November 26, 2008, had shaken the collective conscience of Indian citizens and had confirmed the
death sentence awarded to prime accused Ajmal Kasab by the trial court and affirmed by the
Bombay High Court, for waging war against India.

NOTA Judgment – 2013

People's Union for Civil Liberties and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. The right to reject candidates
formalised. In 2013, the Supreme Court introduced negative voting as an option for the country’s
electorate. According to this judgment an individual would have the option of not voting for any
candidate (None-Of-The-Above) if they don’t find any of the candidates worthy.

Patent troubles of Pharma company Novartis (Novartis v Union of India & Others) - 2013
Case accused of dealing a death blow to innovation in medicine. Novartis’ application which
covered a beta crystalline form of imatinib, a medicine the company brands as "Glivec", which is very
effective against chronic myeloid leukaemia (a common form of cancer) was denied patent
protection by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The Supreme Court in its ruling upheld the
board’s decision which eventually led to the medicine being made available to the general public at
a much lower cost.
Illegalising convicted MPs and MLAs (Lily Thomas v Union Of India) - July 2013
Effected much-needed cleansing of legislative bodies.
The Supreme Court of India, in this judgment, ruled that any member of Parliament (MP), member of
the legislative assembly (MLA) or member of a legislative council (MLC) who was convicted of a crime
and awarded a minimum of two-year imprisonment, would lose membership of the House with
immediate effect.

Uphaar fire tragedy (Sushil Ansal vs State Thr CBI) - March 2014
Split judgment couldn't reach a decision on sentencing. August 2015: Eighteen years after 59 people
were killed in a fire in Delhi’s Uphaar cinema, the Supreme Court held that the prime accused did not
necessarily need to go back to jail as they were fairly aged. The court further held that “ends of justice
would meet” if the accused paid Rs 30 crore each as fine.

Nirbhaya case shook the nation - March 2014

State vs Ram Singh and Ors. Judiciary spurred into action and laws were strengthened for sex
offenders. Four out of the five accused in the horrific gang-rape case of Nirbhaya were convicted and
given the death sentence. The case also resulted in the introduction of the Criminal Law (Amendment)
Act, 2013 which provides for the amendment of the definition of rape under Indian Penal Code, 1860;
Code of Criminal Procedures, 1973; the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Recognising the Third gender (National Legal Services Authority v Union of India) - April 2014
In a landmark judgment the Supreme Court in April, 2014 recognised transgender persons as a third
gender and ordered the government to treat them as minorities and extend reservations in jobs,
education and other amenities.

Section 66A struck down (Shreya Singhal v Union of India) - March 2015
Cracking down on "offensive" online content not easy. Controversial section 66A of the Information
Technology Act which allowed arrests for objectionable content posted on the internet was struck
down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in March 2015.

Yakub Memon sentenced to death (Yakub Abdul Razak Memon V State of Maharashtra and Anr) -
July 2015
No reprieve for the accused in 1993 Mumbai serial blasts. Yakub Abdul Razak Memon was convicted
and sentenced to execution by hanging in March 2015 for his involvement in the 1993 Bombay serial
blasts. His conviction sparked a nationwide debate on capital punishment in India.

Dance bars functional again

Indian Hotel & Restaurant Association and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors After a gap of two
decades, dance bars open. The Supreme Court in July 2013 passed a judgment directing the state
government to reopen dance bars in Maharashtra which had earlier been banned under the
Maharashtra Police Act. The resultant ban by the Bombay High Court was stayed.