The Legal Catalyst

Background The case stems from the assassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi on May 21, 1991 , by a suicide bomber associated with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) . Seven individuals, including V. Sriharan @ Murugan, Santhan, and Perarivalan , were convicted under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and initially sentenced to death. After lengthy legal proceedings, the Supreme Court of India commuted their death sentences to life imprisonment in 2014 , citing the 11-year delay in deciding their mercy petitions . The Court ruled that such an inordinate delay caused mental agony and undue suffering , violating the convicts' fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India . However, a legal battle arose between the Union of India and the State of Tamil Nadu over: Who had the authority to remit or commute their life sentences (Central vs. State Government)? What constitutes "life imprisonm...

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...

The Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India case, also called the Delhi vs. Centre dispute , centered on a power struggle between the elected Delhi government (led by the Aam Aadmi Party) and the Central Government of India . The issue: Who has administrative control over Delhi—the elected government or the Lieutenant Governor (LG), appointed by the Centre? This dispute brought into focus the interpretation of Article 239AA of the Indian Constitution , which outlines the special status of the National Capital Territory of Delhi . Key Constitutional and Legal Issues Does the Delhi government have executive powers under Article 239AA , or does the Lieutenant Governor (LG) have overriding authority ? Can the LG refer decisions of the elected government to the President and effectively stall governance? Who controls Delhi’s services , such as bureaucracy, land, police, and public order ? These questions made it one of the most important constitutional law cases in I...

Background: The Vineet Narain case (popularly known as the Jain Hawala Case ) was a landmark PIL that exposed high-level corruption involving politicians and bureaucrats. It led to major reforms in India's anti-corruption framework, particularly concerning the independence of the CBI and the enforcement of accountability in corruption cases.   Key Facts:   - Hawala Scandal (1991) :   - A diary seized from Jain brothers (money launderers) revealed payments to prominent politicians and officials, including L.K. Advani, V.C. Shukla, and others.     - Despite evidence, CBI & Enforcement Directorate (ED) delayed investigations, allegedly due to political interference.   - PIL Filed (1993):   - Journalist Vineet Narain and others filed a PIL under Article 32, seeking:       1. Independent CBI investigations without government interference.       2. Monitoring by the Court to ensure fair probe...

Overview of the Coalgate Scam The Coalgate Scam , officially known as the Coal Allocation Scam , is one of India’s biggest corruption controversies. It involved the irregular allocation of coal blocks by the Indian government to private companies without competitive bidding between 2004 and 2009 , during the tenure of the UPA government . The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) estimated a potential loss of ₹1.86 lakh crore to the public exchequer, due to the non-transparent and arbitrary allocation of coal-rich blocks to select firms. What Was the Coal Allocation Scam About? Coal blocks are parcels of coal-rich land given to companies for mining. Between 2004–2009 , the government allocated over 200 coal blocks to private companies using a discretionary allotment method . No public auction was held, leading to unjust enrichment of certain private entities. Many companies that received coal blocks had little or no prior experience in coal mining . Supreme C...

Overview of the 2G Spectrum Scam The 2G Spectrum Scam stands as one of the largest financial scandals in India’s history, involving the allocation of telecom licenses in 2008 . Under the leadership of Telecom Minister A. Raja , the UPA government allocated 2G spectrum licenses to telecom companies at significantly underpriced rates , bypassing competitive auction methods. This irregular process led to a loss of ₹1.76 lakh crore to the Indian exchequer, as estimated by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) , sparking national outrage. Key Irregularities: First-Come-First-Serve (FCFS) policy manipulated to benefit select companies. No transparent bidding process, with licenses sold at 2001 prices despite significant market growth. Fake companies with no telecom experience were granted licenses. Supreme Court's Historic Judgment (2012) On February 2, 2012 , the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark verdict on the 2G Spectrum Case , which had far-reac...

Overview The Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) v. Union of India (2011) , popularly known as the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) Case , is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India . The Court struck down the appointment of P.J. Thomas as CVC due to his involvement in a pending corruption case. This judgment reinforced the principle of institutional integrity and set a precedent for transparent and ethical appointments to public offices . Key Facts of the CVC Case (2011) P.J. Thomas was appointed as Central Vigilance Commissioner in September 2010 by a three-member high-powered committee comprising Prime Minister Manmohan Singh , Home Minister P. Chidambaram , and Leader of Opposition Sushma Swaraj . Sushma Swaraj dissented , highlighting Thomas's status as an accused in the Palmolein import scam , a high-profile corruption case in Kerala from the 1990s. The appointment was challenged through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by CP...

What Was the Berubari Union Case About? The Berubari Union Case (1960) was a landmark constitutional case in India involving a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan . It all started with the Nehru-Noon Agreement (1958) , where India agreed to give part of the Berubari Union (in West Bengal) to Pakistan to settle a boundary issue. But this raised a big legal question: ➡️ Can the Indian government give away Indian land just through an agreement? Why Did It Go to the Supreme Court? The decision to hand over Indian territory was challenged in court , especially by people in West Bengal , who argued that: This wasn’t just a border adjustment—it was a transfer of Indian territory . Only a constitutional amendment can allow this—not just a decision by the government or Parliament. Key Legal Issues in the Berubari Case Here’s what the Supreme Court of India was asked to decide: Does giving away land to another country need a constitutional amendment under Artic...

📚 Citation:   Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income Tax , 1959 AIR 149, 1959 SCR Supl. (1) 528 When we talk about equality before the law and fair taxation , Basheshar Nath v. CIT stands tall as a constitutional milestone. Decided in 1959, this case reshaped the legal landscape around arbitrary taxation powers and reinforced the right to equality under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The Background Basheshar Nath, a taxpayer, was caught in the web of a special law—the Income Tax Investigation Commission Act, 1947 , enacted to probe large-scale tax evasion. Instead of facing a standard judicial trial, he was hauled before a special Commission which proposed a hefty monetary settlement. He accepted the terms initially but later challenged the constitutional validity of the Act itself. His argument? That the Act gave the Commission uncontrolled discretion , violating his fundamental rights—especially Article 14 (Equality before Law) and Article 20 (Protection again...

In a country where national symbols are deeply revered, what happens when personal faith appears to clash with patriotic expectation? The answer lies in a quiet courtroom revolution from 1986— Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala —a case that profoundly shaped India’s understanding of constitutional freedoms, religious conscience, and the right to dissent . The Background: Faith on Trial In 1985, three schoolchildren— Bijoe, Binu, and Bindu Emmanuel —became unlikely crusaders for constitutional rights. As Jehovah’s Witnesses , a religious denomination that believes in offering allegiance only to God, the Emmanuel siblings refused to sing the Indian national anthem, "Jana Gana Mana," during morning assembly at their school in Kerala. They stood in respectful silence. They did not disrupt or protest. Yet, they were expelled from school for what was seen as an "offense against national dignity." The Kerala High Court upheld their expulsion. But when the case reach...

In the landmark case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2018) —popularly known as the Aadhaar case —the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant verdict that reshaped the conversation around privacy, digital identity, and state surveillance in modern India. What Was the Case About? At the heart of the litigation was the question: Can the State mandate a biometric identity system like Aadhaar without infringing upon citizens’ fundamental rights, especially the right to privacy? Aadhaar, launched as a unique identity project using biometric and demographic data, had gradually become essential for accessing government welfare schemes. But over time, its use expanded—linking it with bank accounts, mobile numbers, school admissions, and more. This raised concerns about surveillance, data misuse, and individual autonomy. The Verdict: A Balancing Act In a 4:1 majority decision , the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Aadhaar but introduced cr...

The Bombay High Court ruling on Wednesday provided crucial clarity on Islamic divorce laws in India, stating that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 , which criminalizes instant triple talaq , does not apply to the traditional Islamic divorce method of Talaq-e-Ahsan . Legal Validity of Talaq-e-Ahsan Under Muslim Personal Law This landmark judicial interpretation of triple talaq came while the court was quashing an FIR on talaq , filed against a Muslim man and his parents. The case involved a husband who followed the Talaq-e-Ahsan legal process —pronouncing talaq once , followed by a 90-day waiting period , allowing room for reconciliation. However, his wife filed a complaint, arguing that the divorce was illegal under the Triple Talaq Ban Act 2019 , which bans Talaq-e-Bidat (instant and irrevocable triple talaq). High Court’s Stance on Islamic Marriage Dissolution A bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh ruled that the Muslim Women Pr...

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Supreme Court of India seeking urgent intervention to ensure enhanced safety and security for tourists in the aftermath of the recent terror attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir . The petition, filed by Advocate Vishal Tiwari , calls for immediate action by the Union Home Ministry and state governments , especially those with hill stations and remote tourist destinations , to prevent such tragedies in the future. Need for Armed Security Forces at Sensitive Tourist Sites The plea emphasizes the lack of security arrangements in high-risk tourist zones such as Pahalgam, which despite being a popular destination, remains vulnerable to terrorist attacks . It urges authorities to deploy armed security forces in hill states and remote regions where large numbers of tourists gather , especially during peak seasons. The petition underscores the necessity of establishing permanent security checkpoints and surveillance in these areas....

Srinagar/Jammu, April 23 – Legal associations across Jammu and Kashmir have strongly condemned the deadly terrorist attack that struck the Baisaran Valley in Pahalgam on April 22, claiming the lives of 28 civilians and injuring several others. In response, multiple bar associations have announced a collective boycott of judicial work today (April 23), in both mourning and protest. The Jammu & Kashmir High Court Bar Association (Jammu) , led by President Advocate K. Nirmal Kotwal, described the attack as a “cowardly and inhumane act of violence” that deliberately targeted innocent people. The association has declared a complete Jammu Bandh and urged all lawyers in the region to suspend court proceedings for the day. It also appealed to civil society organizations to stand in solidarity and demand justice for the victims. In a similar stance, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court Bar Association (Srinagar) , under President Advocate Waseem Gul, called the incident a “barbaric assaul...

A Lucknow court has dismissed a defamation complaint against Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath , brought over his controversial use of the term “Kathmullapan” during a speech in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council in February 2024 . Why the Case Was Dismissed: Court’s Key Findings 1. Immunity Under Article 194 of the Constitution The court emphasized that statements made inside the legislature are protected under Article 194 , which grants legal immunity to lawmakers for anything said within the House. Judge Alok Verma observed: “Since the alleged statements were made by the Chief Minister in the Legislature, he enjoys immunity under Article 194. Therefore, no legal proceedings can be initiated against him in this court for those remarks.” 2. Complainant Not a Directly Aggrieved Party The case was filed by Amitabh Thakur , a former IPS officer and president of the Azad Adhikar Sena , who argued that Yogi’s comments were defamatory and hurt religious sentimen...

The case of Arnab Goswami v. State of Maharashtra revolves around the controversial arrest of Republic TV's editor-in-chief in November 2020, linked to the 2018 suicide case of interior designer Anvay Naik. The incident triggered intense debates on press freedom , alleged misuse of state power , and the role of judiciary in safeguarding personal liberty . Case Background In 2018, Anvay Naik , an interior designer, died by suicide, allegedly leaving a note blaming Arnab Goswami and two others for non-payment of dues that caused financial hardship. The case was closed in 2019 by Maharashtra Police citing lack of evidence. In 2020, the case was reopened after Naik’s family sought judicial intervention. The Arrest (November 2020) Goswami was arrested by the Raigad police under Section 306 IPC (abetment to suicide). He alleged that the arrest was part of a political vendetta by the then-Maharashtra government (MVA: Shiv Sena, NCP, Congress). The arrest sparke...

The Habeas Corpus Case of 1976 The ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla case —popularly known as the Habeas Corpus Case —is one of the most infamous judgments in Indian legal history. Decided during the Emergency period (1975-1977) , this Supreme Court verdict effectively suspended the right to life and liberty , allowing the government to detain citizens without judicial review. It remains a chilling example of how judicial independence can falter under political pressure. Background: The Emergency and Mass Detentions On June 25, 1975 , Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared a National Emergency under Article 352 of the Indian Constitution , citing internal disturbances. This period saw: The suspension of civil liberties. Mass arrests of political opponents. Use of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) to detain citizens without trial. In response, several habeas corpus petitions were filed in High Courts across India under Article 21 – Right to Life and Person...