Author: PRASANNASRI26092001

Case Commentary – STATE OF MADRAS VS CHAMPAKAM DORIAIRAJAN & ANOTHER

T. JAYAVARTHINI

STUDENT OF GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, CHENGALPATTU

Best Citation – T. JAYAVARTHINI, STATE OF MADRAS VS CHAMPAKAM DORIAIRAJAN & ANOTHER, 2 (5) & 48 of 2022, IJLR.

ABSTRACT

                This case mainly focus on Article 13, 29(2), 46 of constitution of India, The main objective of Article 13 is to secure the paramountcy of the constitution especially with regard to fundamental rights. Article 29 (2) States no citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institutions maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. In this instance case the respondent has filed a petition in high court that the fundamental right has been infringed under Article 29(2) in the criterion of caste. State of Madras went appeal against the order given by the high court.

Keywords:- Supreme court, Reservation, Fundamental rights, Educational rights, Brahims and Non-Brahmins.

Case Commentary – BIJOE EMMANUEL VERSUS THE STATE OF KERALA

Akash singh

Student of ARMY LAW COLLEGE PUNE

Best Citation – Akash singh, Case Commentary – BIJOE EMMANUEL VERSUS THE STATE OF KERALA, 2 (5) & 45 of 2022, IJLR.

Abstract

The song Jana – gana – mana , composed originally in Bangla by Rabindranath Tagore, was adopted in its Hindi version by the Constituent Assembly as the National Anthem of India on January 24, 1950. Article 51A of the Indian constitution constitutes it as a constitutional duty. It makes every citizen’s duty to abide by the Constitution and respect its deal and institutions, the nation flag and thenational anthem. The Prevention of Insults to National Honours Act , 1971 is an Act of the Parliament of india which prohibits the disrespect or insult to the country’s national symbols , including the national flag, national emblem, national anthem, the constitution, and map of India including contempt of Indian constitution.

Keywords: Supreme Court, National Anthem.

Case Commentary – DEVIDAS RAMACHANDRA TULJAPURKAR VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS

Subhashini S & Anjanah G J

STUDENTS OF SASTRA DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY

Best Citation – Subhashini S & Anjanah G J, Case Commentary – DEVIDAS RAMACHANDRA TULJAPURKAR VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS, 2 (5) & 41 of 2022, IJLR.

ABSTRACT

“The relation between reality and relativity must haunt the Court’s evaluation of Obscenity, expressed in society’s pervasive humanity, not law’s penal perspective”

Krishna Iyer J^[1]

The Supreme Court issued a ruling in May 2015 that upheld a filthy poem about Gandhi, setting a new standard for obscenity when the subject is related to historical figures. The Hicklin Test, which was widely used to test obscenity, and more than 50 decisions from various jurisdictions addressing issues ranging from the appropriateness of tests to the right to freedom of speech and expression^[2] were also examined by the court in this decision.

Devidas Tuljapurkar, editorial director and publisher of a magazine for the All India Bank Association, filed an appeal in this matter. He has fought the charges against him for publishing a poetry by Marathi author Vasant Dattatray Gujjar in 1994. The sonnet “GANDHI MALA BHETLA” is said to have insulted Gandhi using vulgar and rude language, and its author was found responsible by the court. Three main areas of interest are covered by the case. It first brings up the shortcomings of the in-court examination of decency. Next considers the court’s clarifications regarding historically reputable figures and raises some relevant issues. The case concludes by advocating a better methodology and making arguments for dissecting the issue in light of its particular circumstances and the intended interest group.

Keywords: Obscenity, Article 19(1)(a), Historically esteemed personality, Section 292 IPC,

---

[1] Raj Kapoor and Ors. vs. State and Ors. (1980) 1 SCC 43

[2] Section 19(1)(a)

Case Commentary – ABHIRAM SINGH VERSUS C.D. COMMACHEN (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS

Amrutha B.N

Student of Vidyodaya Law College

Best Citation – Amrutha B.N, Case Commentary – ABHIRAM SINGH VERSUS C.D. COMMACHEN (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS, 2 (5) & 37 of 2022, IJLR.

ABSTRACT

The true essence of democracy is when the representatives are elected by people. The Representation of Peoples act 1951 gives us guidelines about, qualification of voters, preparation of electoral rolls, delimitation of constituencies, allocation of seats in the parliament, etc. The interpretation of Section 123(3) of the act, which gives about corrupt practices was questioned in the case of Abhiram Singh v. C.D Commachen by LRS. And others. The question in this case was if the “his” used in the section was questioned if it applies only to the candidates or the voter as well. This case is known as the electoral appeals case. This is an important case law with respect to competitive exams. Though not a very relevant case for our day-to-day legal practice, it still is an important case to have its knowledge. This paper is aimed at to examine the Supreme Court’s order  in the case of Abhiram Singh v. C.D Commachen by LRS. And others.

Keywords- The representation of peoples act 1951, electoral appeals case, corrupt practices, supreme court.

Case Commentary – DR. SUBHASH KASHINATH MAHAJAN VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (AIR 2018 SC 1498)

Shraddha Sharma – Law graduate from Sardar Patel Subharti Institute of Law & Aadil Abbas – Law Graduate from SRM University

Best Citation – Shraddha Sharma & Aadil Abbas, Case Commentary – DR. SUBHASH KASHINATH MAHAJAN VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (AIR 2018 SC 1498), 2 (5) & 32 of 2022, IJLR.

ABSTRACT

The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Act was enacted to safeguard the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes people from different types of discrimination and atrocities and other problems they are facing in the society.

Recently Supreme Court announced the judgement of Subhash Kashinath Mahajan V. State of Maharashtra to prevent the misuse of the Act by Dalits and other SC and ST people. This verdict led to protests in various states of country by Dalit groups who shows disregards about the said judgement. This judgement is a landmark judgement in the history of the era.

Keywords : Supreme Court, Scheduled Caste, atrocities , Arrest, Right to Life etc

Case Commentary – BUDHADEV KARMASKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

P. RATHNA PRABHAVATHI

Chennai Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, Pudupakkam.

Best Citation – P. RATHNA PRABHAVATHI, Case Commentary – BUDHADEV KARMASKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS., 2 (5) & 28 of 2022, IJLR.

Abstract

Even though the Indian Constitution guarantees  equal rights and powers to every person in the nation, it is repeatedly necessary to reclaim this right to some weaker peoples like sex workers. In the case of Budhadev Karmaskar v State of West Bengal , a sex worker was murdered in brutal manner for denied to have sexual intercourse with the appellant. So the sex workers are challenged to live in the society. Prostitutes are not considered as a normal people because many of them involved forced sexual intercourse. In this case, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, 1950 the right to life. This is one of the landmark judgement by the Supreme Court for the protection of the sex workers and give the wide interpretation of the Article 21, right to dignity of the sex workers. The Supreme Court’s decision to convert the current Criminal Appeal into a Suo Moto suit was a progressive move toward recognising the rights of India’s sex workers. Because the constitution protects their right to practise their profession and live a decent life as they are legally entitled to, it also protects their right to do so similarly to the rights of other citizens.

Keywords: Sex workers, Right to life with dignity, Right to practice profession , right to live  a decent life,

Case Commentaries – COMMON CAUSE VERSUS UNION OF INDIA

Gurrashmeet Singh

Student of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Law University, Sonepat.

Best Citation – Gurrashmeet Singh, Case Commentaries – COMMON CAUSE VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, 2 (5) & 24 of 2022, IJLR.

Abstract

This recent Supreme Court ruling on the subject of extensive advertising is examined in this case remark. The advertising, which were initially intended to inform the public about new government initiatives, citizen rights and entitlements, safety information, and information relating to public health, among other things, have become less effective. These advertisements have recently undergone a radical transformation in how they are printed and distributed, moving from commercials to political propaganda. This advertisement’s message not only devalued democracy as a whole, but it also stood in direct opposition to its core values. The general people are not only duped by such commercials that simply work to promote personality cults and political parties’ and candidates’ candidates’ images, but they are also forbidden from questioning them. When the same commercials sway voters’ decisions by revealing the candidates’ own party affiliation, this also violates the concept of fair elections. The Court only lately understood the significance of putting a stop to the problem in light of the extravagant expenditure on such advertisements made with tax payer money and money from the national exchequer. The statement examines the precedents on the topic and explores the issue in relation to the ideas that the Court has accepted or rejected. The comment’s broader context identifies this case as a significant perspective on the subject matter where the Legislature has not yet codified a law.

Keywords: Democracy, Expenditure, Fair Election, Guidelines, Informative Advertisements, Political Advertisements, Political Mileage, Public Funds

Case Commentary – BABULAL PARATE VERSUS STATE OF BOMBAY AND ANOTHER

Manasvi Pandey

Student of Shri Vaishnav Institute of Law, Indore

Best Citation – Manasvi Pandey, Case Commentary – BABULAL PARATE VERSUS STATE OF BOMBAY AND ANOTHER, 2 (5) & 20 of 2022, IJLR.

ABSTRACT

The State Reorganisation Act 1956 has re organized territory of Bombay and created a composite state under Section 8 (1) of the act the constitution of India in the first part talks about the Union and its territory and gives a wide range of power to the Parliament to constitute and state and alter it under section 3 Article 3 of Indian constitution. In formation of Bombay under the State Re-organisation act was not proposed in the bill of State Re-organisation and the was sought to be impugning of article 3 Indian Constitution this paper talks about the analysis on the case of Babulal parate versus state of Bombay and another on whether the creation of Bombay under the State Re-organisation Act 1956 not originally proposed in the bill of the state of article 3 Indian constitution or not.

KEYWORDS: Supreme Court, state, Constitution, Bombay, union, parliament.

Case Commentary – COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA

S.SRINIDHI

Student of  SAVEETHA SCHOOL OF LAW, SAVEETHA INSTITUTE OF TECHNICAL AND MEDICAL SCIENCES, CHENNAI.

Best Citation – S.SRINIDHI, Case Commentary – COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, 2 (5) & 16 of 2022, IJLR.

Abstract

Common Cause, a registered group, filed this petition in an effort to have Article 21 of the Constitution interpreted to include both the right to live and die with dignity. It also requested instructions for the State to create suitable policies that would let people with declining health or terminal illnesses to execute living wills or advance medical directives. The Court determined that the right to a dignified death falls under Article 21 after carefully examining domestic and international precedent, including the ruling in K.S. Puttaswamy & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. ((2017) 10 SCC 1). A number of obviously clear effects would surely result from the recognition of human autonomy as a component of Article 21. In the recent case of Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India, the Apex Court upheld the right of citizens to obtain living wills and authorizations from attorneys, which would indicate a person’s decision to stop receiving care if they are terminally ill or in a permanent vegetative state. This decision is an ode to individual autonomy. This paper is aimed at examining the Supreme Court’s order using Article 21 in the case of Common Cause v. Union of India

Keywords: Euthanasia, Right To Life, Right To Die, Indian Constitution, IPC