Hibbaan/DIVYADRISHTI huggingface dataset:
ROHINI SUDARSHAN GANGURDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2877/2024
Decision Date: 10-07-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC519

VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA Issue for Consideration Whether the alleged conduct of the appellant-accused in the nature of marital disputes attracts s.306 IPC read with s.107 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 306, 107 – Appellant is wife of deceased who committed suicide – Appellant and deceased purchased by them – Cause of death ‘due to hanging’ – FIR lodged by mother of deceased under s. 306 IPC – Alleging deceased committed suicide because of harassment and beating by appellant on account of demand of money and for transfer of dwelling house in her name 

Summary: Englishमराठी - Marathiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.ROHINI SUDARSHAN GANGURDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 10312024 INSC 519Coram : VIKRAM NATH*, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAIssue for Consideration Whether the alleged conduct of the appellant-accused in the nature of marital disputes attracts s.306 IPC read with s.107 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 306, 107 – Appellant is wife of deceased who committed suicide – Appellant and deceased purchased by them – Cause of death ‘due to hanging’ – FIR lodged by mother of deceased under s. 306 IPC – Alleging deceased committed suicide because of harassment and beating by appellant on account of demand of money and for transfer of dwelling house in her name
IN RE : SECTION 6A OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT 1955versus
Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 274/2009
Decision Date: 17-10-2024
Disposal: Reference answered
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC789

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, SURYA KANT*, M.M. SUNDRESH*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the constitutional validity of s.6A of the Citizenship Act; does s.6A offend preambular values like fraternity; s.6A, if ultra vires Part II of the Constitution; does s.6A create an Art. 14; does s.6A suffer from manifest arbitrariness; does s.6A violate the rights provided to ‘indigenous’ communities u/Art. 29; s.6A, if ultra vires Art. 21; does s.6A violate the political rights of Indian citizens in Assam u/Art. 326; does the operation of s.6A cause Flip viewPDF

Summary: Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.IN RE : SECTION 6A OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT 1955versus-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 9612024 INSC 789Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, SURYA KANT*, M.M. SUNDRESH*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the constitutional validity of s.6A of the Citizenship Act; does s.6A offend preambular values like fraternity; s.6A, if ultra vires Part II of the Constitution; does s.6A create an Art. 14; does s.6A suffer from manifest arbitrariness; does s.6A violate the rights provided to ‘indigenous’ communities u/Art. 29; s.6A, if ultra vires Art. 21; does s.6A violate the political rights of Indian citizens in Assam u/Art. 326; does the operation of s.6A causeFlip viewPDF
SHINGARA SINGHversusDALJIT SINGH & ANR
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 5919/2023
Decision Date: 14-10-2024
Disposal: Dismissed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC770

HRISHIKESH ROY*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court, under the impugned judgment, was justified in holding that the sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no.2/appellant was hit by doctrine of lis pendens and that defendant no.2/appellant is not a bona fide purchaser. – s.52 – Applicability of doctrine of lis pendens – Plaintiff filed a suit on 24.12.1992 seeking specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.08.1990 in respect of the suit land – During the pendency of the suit, the present appellant/defendant no. 2 was impleaded 

Summary: Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.SHINGARA SINGHversusDALJIT SINGH & ANR-[2024] 10 S.C.R. 9012024 INSC 770Coram : HRISHIKESH ROY*, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRAIssue for Consideration Whether the High Court, under the impugned judgment, was justified in holding that the sale deed executed by defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no.2/appellant was hit by doctrine of lis pendens and that defendant no.2/appellant is not a bona fide purchaser. – s.52 – Applicability of doctrine of lis pendens – Plaintiff filed a suit on 24.12.1992 seeking specific performance of agreement to sell dated 17.08.1990 in respect of the suit land – During the pendency of the suit, the present appellant/defendant no. 2 was impleaded
MANILALversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 10440/2024
Decision Date: 10-09-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC675

BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHAN Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the appointment of the appellant to the post of Teacher Grade-III for TSP Area. Headnotes† Service law – Appointment – Post of Teacher Grade III Level II in the Scheduled Area (TSP) – Eligibiity was graduation with minimum 45% – However, candidates who had taken admission in B.Ed course after issuance of notification dated 31.8.09 of National Council for Teacher Education, had to secure minimum 50 % at graduation level or equivalent examination – Appellant applied for the post, he had 44.58% marks in his 

Summary: Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.MANILALversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.-[2024] 9 S.C.R. 2182024 INSC 675Coram : BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI*, K.V. VISWANATHANIssue for Consideration Matter pertains to the appointment of the appellant to the post of Teacher Grade-III for TSP Area. Headnotes† Service law – Appointment – Post of Teacher Grade III Level II in the Scheduled Area (TSP) – Eligibiity was graduation with minimum 45% – However, candidates who had taken admission in B.Ed course after issuance of notification dated 31.8.09 of National Council for Teacher Education, had to secure minimum 50 % at graduation level or equivalent examination – Appellant applied for the post, he had 44.58% marks in his
ANJUM KADARI & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case No.: SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 8541/2024
Decision Date: 05-11-2024
Disposal: Disposed off
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC831

D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to correctness of the order passed by the High Court holding the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 to be unconstitutional on the ground that it violates the principle of secularism and Articles 14 and 21A of Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 – Constitutional validity – Madarsa Act established the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education, to regulate, among other things, the standards of education, qualifications for teachers, and conduct of examinations in Madarsas in the State of 

Summary: Englishਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.ANJUM KADARI & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 11 S.C.R. 3652024 INSC 831Coram : D.Y. CHANDRACHUD*, J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRAIssue for Consideration Issue arose as to correctness of the order passed by the High Court holding the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 to be unconstitutional on the ground that it violates the principle of secularism and Articles 14 and 21A of Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 – Constitutional validity – Madarsa Act established the Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education, to regulate, among other things, the standards of education, qualifications for teachers, and conduct of examinations in Madarsas in the State of
SATYANAND SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL No. 1666/2015
Decision Date: 20-03-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC236

SANJIV KHANNA*, DIPANKAR DATTA Issue for Consideration The issue for consideration before this Hon’ble Court was a challenge to a judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal, which rejected the Appellant’s prayer for a reference of his diagnosis of AIDS, to a fresh Medical Board. The matter arose out of the Army under Rule 13(3), Item III (iii) of the Army Rules, 1954 on the ground that he was suffering from AIDS. The Appellant approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the Order of discharge from service. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Appellant’s writ petition, 

Summary: Englishहिन्दी - Hindiਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.SATYANAND SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.-[2024] 3 S.C.R. 8652024 INSC 236Coram : SANJIV KHANNA*, DIPANKAR DATTAIssue for Consideration The issue for consideration before this Hon’ble Court was a challenge to a judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal, which rejected the Appellant’s prayer for a reference of his diagnosis of AIDS, to a fresh Medical Board. The matter arose out of the Army under Rule 13(3), Item III (iii) of the Army Rules, 1954 on the ground that he was suffering from AIDS. The Appellant approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the Order of discharge from service. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Appellant’s writ petition,
LAL MOHAMMAD MANJUR ANSARIversusTHE STATE OF GUJRAT
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3524/2023
Decision Date: 08-07-2024
Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Neutral Citation: 2024INSC475

ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYAN Issue for Consideration Conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC, if justified. Headnotes† Evidence – Extra-judicial confession – Dying declaration – Reliance upon, when – Murder case wherein prosecution case based on the evidence the appellant-accused to his employer, and the dying declaration made by the victim to one of the prosecution witness – Though few prosecution witnesses who were eyewitnesses turned hostile, courts below relied upon certain parts of their testimony – High Court disbelieved the 

Summary: Englishગુજરાતી - Gujaratiनेपाली - Nepaliਪੰਜਾਬੀ - PunjabiDisclaimer 
						Judgments in  regional languages are also made available alongside the English version. The translations are being done with the help of various human agencies and software tools. 
						Reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate translation.
						 
						 Hindi Judgment as published in Ucchtam Nyayalya Nirnay Patrika are reproduced under approval of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan, Department of legislative affairs, Govt. Of India. 
						 
						Supreme Court Registry will not responsible for incorrect or inaccurate translation and  for any error, omission or discrepancy in the content of translated text. 
						The translation of Judgements is provided for general information  and shall have no legal effect for compliance or enforcement.
						If any questions arise related to the accuracy of the information/statement contained in the translated judgment,  users are advised to verify from the original judgments and also to refer to correct position of law while referring to old judgments.Visitors to the site are requested to cross check the correctness of the information on this site with the authorities concerned or consult the relevant record. The information made available here is not meant for legal evidence. Neither the Courts concerned nor the National Informatics Centre (NIC) nor the e-Committee is responsible for any data inaccuracy or delay in the updation of the data on this website. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for any damage or loss arising from the direct/indirect use of the information provided on the site. However, we shall be obliged if errors/omissions are brought to our notice for carrying out the corrections.LAL MOHAMMAD MANJUR ANSARIversusTHE STATE OF GUJRAT-[2024] 7 S.C.R. 412024 INSC 475Coram : ABHAY S. OKA*, UJJAL BHUYANIssue for Consideration Conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC, if justified. Headnotes† Evidence – Extra-judicial confession – Dying declaration – Reliance upon, when – Murder case wherein prosecution case based on the evidence the appellant-accused to his employer, and the dying declaration made by the victim to one of the prosecution witness – Though few prosecution witnesses who were eyewitnesses turned hostile, courts below relied upon certain parts of their testimony – High Court disbelieved the