नवनीत कौर बनाम दिल्ली राज्य (भुल्लर मामला)
Curative Petition (Crl.) No. 88 of 2013 — Supreme Court of India
Inordinate delay in disposal of mercy petition and mental illness are supervening circumstances for commutation of death sentence, applicable to all cases including TADA.
Read Full Analysisउप पुलिस महानिरीक्षक बनाम एस. समुत्तिरम
(2013) 1 SCC 598 — Supreme Court of India
Directions issued to combat eve-teasing nationwide — deployment of plain-clothed female police, CCTV installation, complaint committees in all institutions.
Read Full Analysisएपुरू सुधाकर बनाम आंध्र प्रदेश सरकार
2006 AIR (SC) 3385, (2006) 8 SCC 161 — Supreme Court of India
Presidential/Governor's pardon power is not immune from judicial review. Pardon can be cancelled if obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or non-application of mind.
Read Full Analysisडी.के. बसु बनाम पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य
AIR 1997 SC 610, (1997) 1 SCC 416 — Supreme Court of India
Comprehensive guidelines for arrest and detention to prevent custodial violence. Compensation for violation of fundamental rights during custody.
Read Full Analysisरूपन देओल बजाज बनाम के.पी.एस. गिल
AIR 1996 SC 309 — Supreme Court of India
Outraging the modesty of a woman — even touching or patting constitutes an offence. No person, however powerful, is above the law.
Read Full Analysisनिलाबती बेहरा बनाम उड़ीसा राज्य
AIR 1993 SC 1960 — Supreme Court of India
State is liable to pay compensation for custodial death as a public law remedy under Article 32/226, independent of any civil or criminal proceedings.
Read Full Analysisए.आर. अंतुले बनाम आर.एस. नायक
AIR 1992 SC 1701 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Right to speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21. Guidelines laid down for determining when delay violates this right.
Read Full Analysisकेहर सिंह बनाम भारत संघ
AIR 1989 SC 653, (1989) 1 SCC 204 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Presidential pardon power under Article 72 is wide enough to examine even the merits of the conviction. The President can go into the evidence and re-examine the case.
Read Full Analysisभारत के महान्यायवादी बनाम लछमा देवी
AIR 1986 SC 467 — Supreme Court of India
Execution of death sentence by public hanging is barbaric, inhuman, and violative of Article 21. Public hanging is unconstitutional regardless of any Jail Manual provision.
Read Full Analysisटी.वी. वतीश्वरन बनाम तमिलनाडु राज्य
AIR 1983 SC 361 — Supreme Court of India
Delay exceeding two years in execution of death sentence entitles the prisoner to invoke Article 21 for commutation to life imprisonment.
Read Full Analysisबचन सिंह बनाम पंजाब राज्य
AIR 1982 SC 1325, (1982) 3 SCC 24 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Death penalty is constitutional but must be imposed only in the "rarest of rare" cases. Life imprisonment is the rule; death sentence is the exception.
Read Full Analysisखत्री (II) बनाम बिहार राज्य
(1981) 1 SCC 635 — Supreme Court of India
Right to free legal aid is a constitutional obligation. Magistrates must inform accused of this right at first production. State cannot plead financial inability.
Read Full Analysisकिशोर सिंह बनाम राजस्थान राज्य
AIR 1981 SC 625 — Supreme Court of India
Solitary confinement and use of iron fetters on prisoners is inhuman and violates Article 21. To be resorted to only in the rarest of rare cases.
Read Full Analysisप्रेम शंकर शुक्ला बनाम दिल्ली प्रशासन
AIR 1980 SC 1535, (1980) 3 SCC 526 — Supreme Court of India
Handcuffing of prisoners is prima facie inhuman and unconstitutional under Article 21 except in extreme circumstances with recorded reasons.
Read Full Analysisहुसैनआरा खातून (III) बनाम गृह सचिव, बिहार राज्य
(1980) 1 SCC 93 — Supreme Court of India
Undertrials who have served more than the maximum sentence for their alleged offence must be released. Women in "protective custody" must be freed and sent to welfare homes.
Read Full Analysisहुसैनआरा खातून (V) बनाम गृह सचिव, बिहार राज्य
AIR 1979 SC 1360 — Supreme Court of India
Right to speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21. Accused should be released on personal bond without sureties if they have community ties and no risk of absconding.
Read Full Analysisएम.एच. होस्कोट बनाम महाराष्ट्र राज्य
(1978) 3 SCC 544 — Supreme Court of India
Right to free legal aid is a fundamental right under Article 21. Jail authorities must provide copy of judgment to prisoners in time to file appeal. State must provide free legal services.
Read Full Analysisसुनील बत्रा बनाम दिल्ली प्रशासन
AIR 1978 SC 1675, (1978) 4 SCC 494 — Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench)
Prisoners retain their fundamental rights behind bars. Prison walls do not keep out fundamental rights. Solitary confinement and bar fetters violate Article 21.
Read Full Analysisके.एम. नानावती बनाम महाराष्ट्र राज्य
AIR 1962 SC 605 — Supreme Court of India
The Sessions Judge can disagree with a jury verdict if no reasonable body of men could have reached it. This case effectively ended jury trials in India.
Read Full Analysis