The Legal Catalyst

Citation : Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India , AIR 1990 SC 273 The Bhopal Gas Tragedy , which unfolded on the night of December 2–3, 1984 , remains one of the deadliest industrial disasters in history. A lethal chemical, methyl isocyanate (MIC) , leaked from the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) pesticide plant located in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. This catastrophic incident led to the immediate deaths of thousands, with the total toll (including long-term fatalities and injuries) rising to hundreds of thousands over time. In response, the Government of India enacted the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985 , granting itself the exclusive right to represent the victims in legal actions. Subsequently, it filed a suit for damages against Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) , the American parent company of UCIL. Key Legal Issues Liability of UCC : Whether UCC, as a foreign parent company, could be held responsible for the operations and negligence of its...

Calcutta High Court Suspends Conviction in POCSO Case Involving Minor Girl, Reduces Charge from Attempted Rape to Aggravated Sexual Assault In a significant Calcutta High Court judgment concerning the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act , the court has suspended the conviction and 12-year sentence of a man previously found guilty of attempted rape and aggravated sexual assault of a minor girl . The bench, comprising Justices Arijit Banerjee and Biswaroop Chowdhury, clarified that groping the victim’s breasts did not meet the legal threshold for attempted rape under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or the POCSO Act . The High Court in Kolkata observed that both the victim’s testimony and the medical report failed to establish any penetration or intent to penetrate—criteria essential for an attempted rape conviction . The court ruled that the act, while serious, constituted aggravated sexual assault under Section 9 of the POCSO Act , rather than rape or attempted r...

Citation: Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India , AIR 1970 SC 564 This landmark judgment is one of the most important cases in Indian constitutional law. At its core, it’s about a big move by the government to nationalize banks — and the Supreme Court stepping in to protect fundamental rights. What Happened? In 1969, the Indian government, led by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi , decided to nationalize 14 major private banks . The idea was to bring these banks under state control to serve broader social goals. This was done through an ordinance (a kind of emergency law) that was later replaced by the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1969 . But not everyone was happy. R.C. Cooper , a shareholder in the Central Bank of India , challenged this move. He felt that the law violated his fundamental rights , especially his right to property. What Were the Main Legal Questions? The case raised several big constitutional questions: Was the compensatio...

In 2016, Shayara Bano , a Muslim woman, approached the Supreme Court after her husband divorced her through instant triple talaq ( talaq-e-biddat )—saying “talaq” three times in a letter. She challenged this practice, arguing that it was: Arbitrary , one-sided , and violated women’s fundamental rights under: Article 14 (Right to Equality) Article 15 (No discrimination based on gender) Article 21 (Right to life and dignity) The case also questioned whether triple talaq is an essential religious practice protected under Article 25 (Freedom of Religion). Supreme Court Verdict – August 2017 A 5-judge Constitution Bench delivered a split verdict (3:2) : Majority Opinion (Justices Nariman, Lalit, Kurian Joseph): Triple talaq is unconstitutional – it violates Article 14 (equality) . It is not an essential part of Islam , as many Muslim countries have banned the practice. Struck it down with immediate effect . Minority Opinion (CJI Khehar & Justi...

The Joseph Shine case challenged the constitutionality of Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code , a colonial-era adultery law . Under this law: Only a man could be punished for adultery. A woman involved in adultery was not seen as an offender, but as a passive victim. Only the husband of the woman could file a complaint—not the wife. The law denied women equal rights , and treated them as the property of their husbands , not as individuals with agency. What Was Challenged in Court? The petition argued that Section 497 violated: Article 14 – Right to Equality Article 15 – Protection from Gender Discrimination Article 21 – Right to Life, Privacy, and Dignity Supreme Court’s Verdict – September 2018 A 5-judge Constitution Bench (CJI Dipak Misra, Justices Nariman, Khanwilkar, Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra) unanimously struck down Section 497 IPC . Key Supreme Court Rulings: Adultery Law Was Gender-Biased It discriminated against men and infantilized...

Background: The Independent Thought v. Union of India case was a crucial Supreme Court ruling on marital rape exception that challenged Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) . This exception permitted marital rape of girls aged 15–18 years , contradicting child protection laws like the POCSO Act and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA), 2006 . The petition argued that this exception violated fundamental rights under: Article 14 (Right to Equality) Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination) Article 21 (Right to Life & Dignity) Key Legal Issues: Conflict Between Laws While IPC Exception 2 allowed sex with a wife aged 15+ , the POCSO Act criminalized all sexual acts with minors (<18) . This created a legal loophole that enabled child sexual exploitation within marriage. Child Marriage vs. Child Protection The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA), 2006 discouraged child marriages but did not automatically void them , compli...