Home Page

Judgments

Supreme Court Of India

The Supreme Court of India, established in 1950, is the highest court of appeal in the country. It was created by the Constitution of India as a means to ensure the rule of law and protect the fundamental rights of citizens. Over the years, the court has played a crucial role in shaping the legal and political landscape of the country.

The Supreme Court consists of the Chief Justice of India and a maximum of 34 judges. The court hears appeals from lower courts and has the power to interpret the Constitution and make binding decisions on all legal matters. The court has delivered several landmark judgments that have had far-reaching implications for the country. Some of the notable judgments include the decriminalisation of homosexuality, the recognition of transgender rights, and the enforcement of environmental laws.

The Supreme Court has also faced criticism for its handling of certain cases and its backlog of pending cases. However, it remains a crucial institution in upholding the rule of law and ensuring justice for all.

Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court of India is located in New Delhi, the capital city of India. It is situated on Tilak Marg, near the iconic Parliament House and the President's Estate. The location of the court is significant as it is easily accessible and in close proximity to the seat of power in the country. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the entire territory of India and has the power to hear appeals from all lower courts and tribunals in the country. It is the final court of appeal and the supreme court decisions are binding on all other courts in the country.

Location of Supreme Court

The court has a wide-ranging jurisdiction and hears cases related to constitutional, civil, criminal, and other matters of public importance. It has the power to interpret the Constitution, adjudicate disputes between the central and state governments, and protect the fundamental rights of citizens.

Jurisdiction of Supreme Court of India

Some of the notable Supreme Court decisions/judgements are listed below,

This landmark judgment, often referred to as the 'basic structure doctrine,' established that certain fundamental features of the Indian Constitution cannot be amended by the Parliament. It limited the amending power of the Parliament and protected the basic structure and principles of the Constitution.

This judgment is significant for expanding the scope of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court held that the right to life and liberty also includes the right to travel abroad, the right to a fair trial, and the right to be heard before a decision is made that affects one's rights.

In this case, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for the prevention of sexual harassment in the workplace. The guidelines, commonly known as the Vishaka guidelines, are binding on all employers until legislation is enacted to address the issue. The judgment recognized sexual harassment as a violation of the fundamental right to equality and dignity and provided a legal framework to address and prevent such harassment in the workplace.

Supreme Court Decisions/Judgements

The Supreme Court of India has a robust system for tracking the status of cases that come before it. The court maintains a digital database that is accessible to the public, which allows anyone to track the progress of a case. To check the status of a case, one can visit the Supreme Court's official website and use the ‘Supreme Court Case Status’ tool. This tool provides information about the stage at which a case is currently being heard, the date of the last hearing, and the next date of hearing.

The Supreme Court case status tool also allows users to download case documents, including pleadings, orders, and judgments. This feature is particularly useful for lawyers and litigants who need to access case documents for their work.

In addition to the online database, the Supreme Court also maintains a physical case diary. The diary contains a detailed record of all cases filed in the court, along with their status and history. This diary is maintained by the court's registry and is used by judges, lawyers, and court staff to keep track of cases.

The SC case status system for tracking is an important tool in ensuring transparency and accountability in the justice system. By providing easy access to information about the SC case status, the court promotes public trust in the judiciary and helps to ensure that justice is delivered in a timely and efficient manner.

The Supreme Court of India case status is closely monitored by citizens, legal professionals, and media personnel alike. It provides valuable insights into the current state of legal proceedings and the potential outcomes of a case. The Supreme Court of India case status is updated regularly and is easily accessible online, making it convenient for anyone to track the progress of a case. The case status is also useful for lawyers to prepare their arguments and presentations before the court.

The Supreme Court of a country holds immense power and authority when it comes to interpreting and enforcing the law. A Supreme Court order is considered the final word on any legal matter and is binding on all lower courts and government institutions. The importance of a Supreme Court judgment cannot be overstated as it has the power to shape the course of the country's legal system and governance.

In recent times, there have been many notable Supreme Court orders that have made headlines and had far-reaching consequences. For instance, the Supreme Court order to ban the sale of firecrackers in the National Capital Region of India during Diwali was a significant step towards reducing air pollution. Similarly, the Supreme Court order to allow women to enter the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, India, challenged age-old customs and traditions.

Supreme Court Case Status

The Judges of the Supreme Court are among the most esteemed legal professionals in the country. They are responsible for interpreting the laws of the land, resolving legal disputes, and upholding the principles of justice and fairness.

The Supreme Court Delhi is headed by the Chief Justice of India, who is the highest-ranking judicial officer in the country. The Chief Justice is responsible for leading the Court's proceedings, setting the agenda, and making key supreme court decisions on legal matters.

Apart from the Chief Justice, there are other judges in the Supreme Court who also play a vital role in delivering justice. These judges are appointed by the President of India in consultation with the Chief Justice and other senior judges of the Supreme Court. The judges of the Supreme Court are known for their exceptional legal knowledge, wisdom, and integrity. They are expected to be impartial and independent in their decision-making, and the supreme court judgments are widely respected and followed.

The Judges of the Supreme Court play a critical role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring justice for all. The Supreme Court judgments have a far-reaching impact on society, and they are widely regarded as the guardians of the Constitution and the protectors of individual rights and freedoms.

Judges of Supreme Court

The number of judges present in the Supreme Court Delhi plays a crucial role in the legal system of a country. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and is responsible for interpreting the law and resolving disputes. The number of judges present in the Supreme Court varies from country to country. In India, the Supreme Court has a sanctioned strength of 34 judges, including the Chief Justice of India. However, this number can be increased by the Parliament if necessary.

The presence of a sufficient number of judges is critical in ensuring timely and efficient delivery of justice. It allows for the proper distribution of workload and ensures that cases are heard and decided in a reasonable time frame.

The absence of judges can cause delays in the justice system, leading to long pending cases and backlog. It can also affect the quality of decisions as judges may have to deal with a high volume of cases and may not have sufficient time to devote to each case.

Number of Judges Present in The Supreme Court of India

The appointment of judges to the Supreme Court is a critical aspect of the legal system in many countries. It is a process that ensures that the most qualified and capable legal professionals are appointed to the highest court in the land.

The procedure for appointing judges to the Supreme Court can vary from country to country. In India, the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court is governed by the Constitution of India, which lays down a strict procedure to be followed.

According to the Constitution, judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President of India in consultation with the Chief Justice of India and other senior judges of the Supreme Court. The consultation process involves the formation of a collegium consisting of the Chief Justice of India and four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.

The collegium is responsible for making recommendations for the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court. The recommendations are based on the candidates' legal expertise, integrity, and suitability for the role.

The appointment process also involves a thorough vetting of the candidates' backgrounds and qualifications. The candidates are required to undergo a rigorous selection process, which includes written tests, interviews, and background checks. The appointment of judges to the Supreme Court is a process that is guided by the principles of meritocracy, transparency, and fairness. It ensures that the most qualified and capable legal professionals are appointed to the highest court in the land, and that the judiciary remains independent and free from external influence.

Supreme Court Judges Appointment Procedure

Supreme Court Former Chief Justices

Explore landmark judgments and other supreme court judgements here at the best legal search engine. Stay informed with important supreme court decisions.

Supreme Court Judgements and Orders

Know how the Supreme Court can change the fate of the nation and keep up with the latest legal developments at the Supreme Court with our comprehensive forum. From groundbreaking cases to important supreme court decisions, we provide all the latest judgement of supreme court and information from decades. It's all just a click away in this High Court Judgements Search Portal!

ABHAY S. OKA, J.FACTUAL ASPECTS1. The appellant is the original accused no.9. The appellant and the accused no.10 – Ram Bachan, were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). Accused nos. 1 to 8 were convicted for the Signature Not Verified offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 149 of IPC. The appellant and the accused no.10 were Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2023.04.12 19:13:36 IST Reason:

V. Ramasubramanian, J.Leave granted.2. George Elias and Associates, which is respondent No.1 in the first set of three appeals and which is the appellant in the fourth appeal, filed two writ petitions in WP (C) Nos.10381 and 17920 of 2020 on the file of the High Court of Kerala at Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Ernakulam praying respectively for (i) setting aside an Order of POOJA SHARMA Date: 2023.04.12 16:42:52 IST Reason:the Committee of the Kalloorkad Gram Panchayat refusing to 1 grant license to them for establishing a Hot Mix Plant; and (ii) for a declaration that by virtue of the certificate granted under the Kerala Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act, 20191, all licenses and approvals including the license of the Panchayat should be deemed to have been obtained.

M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Signature Not Verified impugned common judgment and order passed by the Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2023.04.12 16:46:01 IST Reason:High Court of Orissa dated 16.11.2010 passed in Writ Civil Appeal Nos. 1144-1146 of 2011 Page 1 of 103 Petition Nos. 10325 of 2008, 12948 of 2008 and 6863 of 2009 by which the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said writ petitions and has quashed the land acquisition proceedings in question including the notifications under Section 4(1) and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) and the awards passed in the land acquisition proceedings for acquisition of lands in favour of the appellant – beneficiary company and directed that the possession of the acquired lands shall be restored to the respective landowners and on restoration of the possession to the landowners, they shall refund the amounts received by them as compensation or otherwise in respect of their lands. By the impugned common judgment and order, the High Court has also quashed the grant of Government Land in favour of the beneficiary company under Rule 5 of the Government Land Settlement Rules with a direction to the State Government to resume the lands which were granted to the beneficiary company by way of lease, the appellant – the beneficiary company and others have preferred the present appeals.

ABHAY S. OKA, J.1. Leave granted. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents as well as for the State.FACTUAL ASPECTS2. The appellant filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) Signature Not Verified in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class) at Anuppur. Cognizance of the offences Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2023.04.12 16:55:41 IST Reason:

Rastogi, J.1. The instant appeals have been preferred at the instance of State of Tamil Nadu assailing the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court dated 19 th August, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2023.04.11 18:15:08 IST Reason:2014 affirming order of the learned Single Judge dated 23 rd 1 January, 2012 in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution directing the State Government to create the posts under the designation “Village Level Workers” which is called as “Makkal Nala Paniyalargal” (hereinafter being referred to as “MNP”) or by any other name but shall accommodate the persons who were on the rolls of MNP on the date of issuance of G.O.M No. 86 dated 8th November, 2011 against any vacant post in the State Government schools, village Panchayats, town Panchayats, Municipalities, Corporations, Collector Office, village offices or any other Government offices and undertakings of the Government of Tamil Nadu throughout the State of Tamil Nadu, according to the qualification possessed by each candidate, without reference to age in their native, taluk or revenue District. It was further directed that if any one of the MNP who could not be accommodated or is ineligible, the State Government shall pay last drawn salary for the period from 1st December, 2011 to 31st May, 2012.

Rastogi, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10th March, 2016 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand, Nainital whereby the High Court while reversing the finding returned by the learned Single Judge under its order dated 21st July, 2015 upheld the re­auction proceedings Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2023.04.11 18:15:08 IST initiated by the first respondent(Punjab National Bank­secured Reason:

Rajesh Bindal, J.Leave granted.1. The accused has filed the present appeal challenging his conviction and sentence. The impugned judgment of the High Court dated 11.10.2018 is under appeal vide which judgment and order of sentence dated 30.05.2000 passed by the Trial Court was upheld. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is as under:307 IPC RI 5 years and fine of ₹1,500/-, in default of payment to further 17:43:57 IST Reason:undergo RI 1 year.S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6116/20192. The case of the prosecution as is evident from the F.I.R. is that on 04.05.1999 at about 7.15 P.M. when the complainant Salikram was returning back from pond after taking bath, near the barn of Prasanna Kumar, the appellant stopped him, abused and threatened him to kill. Rajkumar alias Munna (PW 6) was also with him. The appellant caused injuries on the left side of his abdomen and left thigh with scissors. The appellant had doubted that the injured had illicit relations with his wife.

Rajesh Bindal, J.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. The appellants have challenged the order dated 20.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Delhi. Vide aforesaid order, writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed holding Signature Not Verified that in view of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2023.04.11 17:43:58 IST Reason:and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Page 1 of 14 D.No.23608/2021 Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “the 2013 Act”), the acquisition in respect to the land in dispute, has lapsed.

Rajesh Bindal, J.1. The plaintiffs are before this Court impugning the orders passed by the High Court in the Regular Second Appeal Nos. 2306 & 2307 of 1997, which upheld the judgments and decrees of the Lower Appellate Court, reversing that of the Trial Court in Suit Nos. 273 and 274 of 1989. The appeals filed by Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Indu Marwah Date: 2023.04.11 the appellants were dismissed.passed in Review Application Nos. RA-RS-25C & 26-C of 2010 against the aforesaid appeals are also under challenge.

V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.1. Delay condoned in Special leave Petition (Civil) @ D.No.10656 of 2023.2. While the first special leave petition arises out of an order passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in an intra-court appeal challenging an order passed by the learned Judge in a Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by POOJA SHARMA Date: 2023.04.11 contempt petition, the other special leave petitions arise out of the 16:04:48 IST Reason:order passed substantially in a writ petition and in a review petition.

Supreme Court Of India - 1948