Argument Lab

Key Precedents

• Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1964) 8 SCR 133 — Held that the evidence of a partisan witness must be carefully weighed but not mechanically rejected, and that a relative of the deceased is a natural witness.
• Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1991) 3 SCC 627 — Held that the evidence of a hostile witness is not completely effaced and can be accepted to the extent it is found dependable.
• State of U.P. v. Kishanpal (2008) 16 SCC 73 — Held that minor discrepancies in medical evidence do not destroy the prosecution case if the core finding is consistent.

Key Precedents

• Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294 — Established that the voter's right to know the antecedents of candidates is fundamental to democracy and is embedded in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
• Krishnamoorthy v. Shivakumar (2015) 14 SCC 58 — Held that non-furnishing of information pertaining to criminal antecedents causes undue influence and impedes the free exercise of electoral right, and the question whether the election was materially affected would not arise.
• Pritam Singh v. State (1950 INSC 9) — Established that Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary and will be exercised only in special or exceptional cases; no such case exists here.

Key Precedents

• Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017) 8 SCC 746 — Supports the proposition that where parties have voluntarily settled and consent to divorce, the waiting period under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 can be waived.
• Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023) — Supports the exercise of Article 142 powers in matrimonial settlements.

Key Precedents

• Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2021) 1 SCC 414 — Supreme Court held that the concept of shared household requires the woman to have lived there with the consent of the respondent; consent can be withdrawn.
• S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru (2021) 15 SCC 730 — Supreme Court held that while the right to reside is important, courts must balance the rights of all parties, including senior citizens.

Key Precedents

• Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi (1988) 1 SCC 105 — Held that cruelty depends on the type of life the parties are accustomed to and their social conditions; what is cruelty in one case may not be in another.
• N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane (1975) 2 SCC 326 — Held that the court must consider the context and the conduct of both parties when determining cruelty.

Key Precedents

• Chetan Dass v. Kamla Devi (2001) 4 SCC 250 — Held that matrimonial matters must be decided on their own facts and that irretrievable breakdown should not be applied as a straitjacket formula for grant of divorce.
• N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane (1975) 2 SCC 326 — Held that the petitioner must prove cruelty, and that the standard of proof is the preponderance of probabilities, but the conduct must be such as to cause reasonable apprehension of harm or injury.

Key Precedents

• Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994 INSC 170) — Recognises that arrest must be justified with reasons, but does not require written grounds; the reasons can be recorded in the police diary as required by Section 47(2) of the BNSS 2023.
• Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014 INSC 463) — Requires police to follow procedural safeguards but does not mandate written grounds of arrest for the arrestee; it focuses on the notice to be given before arrest for certain offences.

Key Precedents

• Davies Jenkins & Co. Ltd. v. Davies (1968) AC 1097 — House of Lords decision holding that the word 'where' in statutes is often used as a conditional conjunction meaning 'if' or 'whenever', not as a reference to a physical place.
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241 — The foundational case establishing the Vishaka Guidelines, which the POSH Act was enacted to codify; emphasises that the objective is to provide a safe workplace free from sexual harassment.

Key Precedents

• Sohrab v. State of M.P. (1972 INSC 134) — Cited by the State but actually supports the respondent because the case holds that courts must evaluate whether the discrepancy affects the substratum; here, the High Court found that the discrepancies went to the root of the prosecution case.
• K. Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao (2003) 1 SCC 217 — Held that the presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is rebuttable and if the accused can show that the death was accidental or that there was no demand, the presumption stands discharged.

Key Precedents

• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Taj Trapezium case) (1997) 2 SCC 353 — Established that industrial development and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive; the Court balanced heritage conservation with economic activity by imposing proportionate pollution control measures rather than shutting down all industry.
• Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647 — While establishing the precautionary principle, this Court also held that the principle must be applied in a reasoned, proportionate manner, not as a license for absolute prohibition without evidence.
• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (2005) 2 SCC 324 — Recognised that sustainable development requires integration of conservation and development, and that courts should rely on expert committees for complex environmental fact-finding.

Key Precedents

• Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narian Mishra (1974) 2 SCC 133 — Supports that even without express words, exclusion of the Limitation Act can be implied from the scheme of the special law where it provides a complete and exhaustive limitation mechanism.
• State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha (1969) 2 SCC 187 — Held that where a special statute provides for its own limitation and the consequences of delay, the general Limitation Act does not apply by necessary implication.