Supreme court+ High court judgement

The Process for Withdrawing Closing FIRs

Supreme Court Judgments on Protests and Police Excess 1. Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar (1965) • The Supreme Court distinguished between "law and order" and "public order." • Law and order refers to disturbances affecting individuals or a limited group, whereas public order refers to disturbances affecting the community or society at large. • Significance: The State can restrict protests only when they pose a genuine threat to public order, not merely because they create routine law-and-order issues. 2. Himat Lal K. Shah v. Commissioner of Police (1973) • The Court held that citizens have the right to hold meetings and assemblies on public streets, subject to reasonable regulation. • While the State may regulate the time, place, and manner of assemblies, it cannot impose arbitrary restrictions that effectively extinguish the right to protest. • Significance: Regulation is permissible, but prohibition is unconstitutional. 3. In Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident (2012) • The Court affirmed that peaceful protest is a constitutional right protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b). • It held that police force should be used only as a last resort and with maximum restraint. • Significance: Established the principles of necessity, proportionality, and minimum use of force in handling protests. 4. Anita Thakur v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (2016) • The Supreme Court ruled that the use of excessive police force against peaceful demonstrators violates fundamental rights. • It awarded monetary compensation to protesters injured due to police excesses. • Significance: Recognized State accountability and reinforced the doctrine of constitutional compensation. 5. Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (2018) • The Court reaffirmed that the right to protest is an essential feature of democracy. • While authorities may regulate demonstrations to maintain public order, they cannot extinguish the right to assemble altogether. • Significance: Emphasized the need to balance fundamental freedoms with public convenience. 6. Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020) • The Supreme Court held that dissent and protest are constitutional rights, but they cannot lead to the indefinite occupation of public spaces. • Public roads and highways cannot be blocked indefinitely as it infringes upon the rights of other citizens. • Significance: Reinforced the principle that the right to protest must coexist with the public's right to free movement. Key Takeaway The Supreme Court has consistently held that peaceful protest is a fundamental constitutional right, but it is subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order. While the State has the authority to regulate demonstrations, such regulation must be fair, proportionate, non-arbitrary, and respectful of fundamental rights, and any use of police force must adhere to the principles of necessity and minimum force.

Key Supreme Court Judgments on Anti-Defection 1. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) Upheld the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law). Held that the Speaker/Chairman acts as a quasi-judicial authority while deciding disqualification petitions. Clarified that the Speaker's decisions are subject to judicial review under Articles 136, 226, and 227 after the decision is rendered, ensuring constitutional accountability. 2. Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly (2020) Directed that disqualification petitions should ordinarily be decided within three months, except in exceptional circumstances. Observed that prolonged delays by Speakers defeat the purpose of the Anti-Defection Law. Recommended Parliament consider establishing an independent permanent tribunal (instead of the Speaker) to decide defection cases impartially. 3. Subhash Desai v. Governor of Maharashtra (2023) Held that the Governor cannot order a floor test merely on the basis of internal party disputes or dissent, unless there is objective material indicating that the government has lost the confidence of the House. Reiterated that the "split" exception (one-third members) was abolished by the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003, and therefore cannot be invoked as a defence under the Tenth Schedule. Clarified that disputes over the legitimate political party or whip cannot be resolved by the Governor and must be decided in accordance with constitutional and statutory provisions. 4. Padi Kaushik Reddy v. Speaker, Telangana Legislative Assembly (2025) Reaffirmed the principle laid down in Keisham Meghachandra Singh (2020). Directed the Telangana Speaker to decide long-pending disqualification petitions within three months, emphasizing that undue delay undermines the objective of the Tenth Schedule. Held that the three-month timeline is a binding constitutional requirement, except in extraordinary circumstances, to prevent Speakers from frustrating the anti-defection mechanism through inaction. UPSC Value Addition: 1992: Validity of Tenth Schedule + Judicial Review. 2020: Three-month timeline + Independent Tribunal recommendation. 2023: Governor's powers limited; no revival of the abolished "split" defence. 2025: Three-month timeline made enforceable; delays by Speakers cannot defeat the Anti-Defection Law.

Conflicting Supreme Court Judgments on Written 'Grounds of Arrest' Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023): The Supreme Court held that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) must mandatorily furnish the grounds of arrest in writing to every arrested person under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. The Court reasoned that mere oral communication is prone to factual disputes and fails to adequately safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused. Prabir Purkayastha v. State (2024): Extending the principle beyond the PMLA, the Court ruled that persons arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967 are also entitled to receive the grounds of arrest in writing. It emphasized that this requirement is a fundamental constitutional safeguard under Article 22(1). Constitutional Basis: The Court observed that Articles 22(1) and 22(5) employ nearly identical language regarding the communication of grounds. Therefore, the well-established principles governing the communication of grounds in preventive detention under Article 22(5) equally apply to the communication of grounds of arrest under Article 22(1). Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (November 2025): The Supreme Court further broadened the principle, holding that written grounds of arrest are mandatory in all arrests, including those under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)/Indian Penal Code (IPC), to ensure meaningful compliance with constitutional guarantees. Dr. Rajinder Rajan v. Union of India (April 2026): Reaffirming the emerging jurisprudence, the Supreme Court upheld that furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing is a constitutional requirement, strengthening procedural safeguards against arbitrary arrest. The Conflict: Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (February 2025) In a conflicting ruling, a coordinate Bench held that although communicating the grounds of arrest is an indispensable constitutional safeguard, providing them in writing may not be practicable in every case. The Bench concluded that effective oral communication of the grounds may satisfy the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1), and an arrest would not automatically become invalid merely because the grounds were not supplied in writing. Result: The two lines of precedent have created a judicial inconsistency. While Pankaj Bansal, Prabir Purkayastha, Mihir Rajesh Shah, and Dr. Rajinder Rajan endorse written communication as a constitutional mandate, Vihaan Kumar permits oral communication where written supply is impracticable, leaving the law awaiting authoritative resolution by a larger Bench.

Right to be Forgotten in India: Court Judgments: K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): The Supreme Court constitutionally recognized privacy, including informational privacy and information self-determination, as a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21. Laksh Vir Singh Yadav v. Union of India (2026): The Delhi High Court ruled that the right to be forgotten naturally flows from Article 21’s guarantee of dignity and informational privacy operating even against private commercial entities. The Structured Proportionality Test: The Delhi High Court established that the retention of digital records must have a legitimate purpose, and any harm to privacy must be carefully weighed against the public interest.

Important Judgments on Voting Rights: N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer (1952): The Supreme Court held that the rights to vote and contest elections are statutory rights created by legislation. Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal (1982): The Court reaffirmed that electoral rights, though vital for democracy, remain statutory rather than fundamental rights. Kuldip Nayar v Union of India (2006): A Constitution Bench reiterated that while democracy is part of the basic structure, the individual right to vote flows from statute. ADR (2002) & PUCL (2003): The Court recognized voters’ fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) to know candidates’ criminal, financial, and educational backgrounds. NOTA (2013) & Anoop Baranwal (2023): The Court recognized the right to reject as protected political expression and later emphasized voting as a constitutional right.

Important Supreme Court Judgments on Marriage in India 1. Shah Bano Case - Established maintenance rights of divorced Muslim women under Section 125 CrPC. 2. Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995) - Held that conversion to Islam for second marriage without dissolving first Hindu marriage is invalid 3. Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) - Declared instant triple talaq (talaq-e-biddat) unconstitutional. 4. Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) - Struck down adultery as a criminal offence, recognising marriage as a partnership of equals, not male property rights. 5. Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (Hadiya Case, 2018) - Affi rmed right to choose one’s partner as part of Article 21 (personal liberty). 6. Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017) - Criminalised sexual intercourse with a wife below 18 years, reinforcing child protection within marriage. 7. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) - Recognised right to privacy, impacting marital autonomy, choice of partner, and reproductive decisions. 8. Supriyo v. Union of India (2023) - Declined legal recognition of same-sex marriage, but reaffi rmed constitutional protection of queer relationships and urged legislative action. 9. In Velusamy v. Patchaiammal (2010), the SC ruled that women in long-term live-in relationships are entitled to maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act. 10. In Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023), the SC ruled it can grant a divorce under Article 142 without waiting for the mandatory six-month cooling-off period. 11. In the Shakti Vahini Case (2018), the SC issued strict guidelines to prevent Khap Panchayats from interfering in inter-caste or inter-religious marriages.

Oral Remarks and Institutional Limits

When does a Chief Minister cease to hold office? JUDGEMENTS

MTP ACT INFOGRAPHIC

MCC ( MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT ) KEY LAWS AND THINKERS

❤️Environment Laws & Conventions | Quick Revision in One Shot👇 https://youtube.com/@visualeconomist1?si=7mXSEr_eUYD2Y_T0

Essential Religious Practices (ERP) Doctrine – Key Judgements Acharya Jagadishwaranand Avadhuta v. Commissioner of Police (1984) The Anand Margi practice of performing the Tandava dance with skulls was held not essential to the religion and could be restricted by the state. Mohd. Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar (1958) Cow slaughter on Bakrid was held not essential to Islam; hence, state restrictions were valid. Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) Triple Talaq was declared not an essential religious practice and was struck down as unconstitutional. Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) Article 25 does not include the right to convert others, but only to propagate one’s religion. → Only voluntary conversions are valid; forced conversions can be restricted. Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala Case, 2018) Practices that violate constitutional values (e.g., gender exclusion) cannot be treated as essential religious practices.

Right to Privacy Puttaswamy Judgement (2017)

Legal Safeguards against ChemicalIndustrial Disasters

Daily polity Mindmaps and Infographics https://t.me/upsc_uppsc_politymindmap

Judicial Position on Parliamentary Privileges