Supreme Court gave important decision — yr associates
By: Y.R. Advocate Associates
Tags: Supreme Court, Advocate, Associates, Lawyers, Law

Supreme Court gave important decision — yr associates

In 2019, the Supreme Court gave important decisions and new arrangements

The year 2019 has also been important in many ways for the Supreme Court. This year, in many such cases, the Supreme Court gave its verdict or gave a new order, which created history. In the Ayodhya case which has been in legal trouble for many years, the Supreme Court gave its important decision this year. Let us look at some such cases: -

Memory card is also an important document

The Supreme Court has made the provision of the memory card an important document in criminal cases. A bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari ruled in a case of Yain harassment. This case is of February 2017. According to the allegation, a Kerala actress was sexually assaulted in a car in Kochi, whose video is in a memory card of a fan.

Contention comment on pollution

Expressing concern over the increasing pollution in Delhi, the court commented on the government and said that it is better to breathe in the air than kill the public in one blast. During this time, the court even said that the Delhi government has no right to remain in power. This type of comment was made for the first time on behalf of the Supreme Court against any government.

Extremism rape case based on agreement

The Supreme Court, bypassing the Kerala High Court’s order, has ordered the rape accused to terminate the ongoing proceedings in the rape case after her agreement with the victim woman. The Kerala High Court refused to close the case. The court said that the matter is made under 376 even after the consensual sexual relationship. Therefore it cannot be canceled. Against this, the accused had approached the Supreme Court, after which, considering the affidavit of the complainant girl and the circumstances of the case, the court believes that criminal proceedings should be ended against the appellant.

Order to prove majority to Maharashtra government

When the opposition approached the Supreme Court against the Devendra Fadnavis government who took oath in Maharashtra overnight, the court not only ordered them to prove their majority in the Assembly but also to telecast it live. A division bench of Justices NV Ramana, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Sanjeev Khanna also ordered the Governor to appoint a temporary chairman. The bench said that there would be no secret voting in the house.

Clean chit to the government on Rafale

Rejecting the petition filed for the Rafale aircraft deal, the Supreme Court not only gave a shock to the opposition but also gave its seal to the deal being fully corrected. The court said that there is no need for any kind of hearing again in this case.

CJI under the purview of RTI

The Supreme Court, while announcing the decision to keep the office of Chief Justice also under the purview of RTI, made it clear that its accountability to the public cannot be denied. However, the court also believed that nothing can be given through RTI. The court said that the independence of the judiciary has to be taken care of by filing RTI. In this case, the Delhi High Court, in its judgment on 10 January 2010, said that the CJI’s office comes under the purview of the RTI Act. It said that judicial independence is not the prerogative of the judge, but a responsibility. The court delivered the verdict 3–2. The CJI said that an institution should not be harmed in the name of transparency.

Inept but can contest elections

The Supreme Court upheld the disqualification of 17 MLAs by the former Speaker of the Legislative Assembly amidst political turmoil in Karnataka. The court said that despite this, he can contest elections. The court ruled that the resignation does not end the speaker’s authority.

Janitor is the case

In the case of Chowkidar Chaur Hai, the Supreme Court, considering the application for forgiveness of Rahul Gandhi, left him with instructions. The court said that the statement should be given carefully to the people sitting on constitutional posts. It is worth noting that during the elections, Rahul Gandhi had publicly said that in many public meetings, the watchman is a thief who has directly targeted PM Modi.

Ayodhya case

In the Ayodhya case, the Supreme Court, delivering its historic verdict, handed over the entire disputed land to Ramlala Virajman. Apart from this, the court also ordered the government to give 5 acres of land to the Muslim side from the state government. The court in its order has also asked for a trust to be built for the construction of the temple. Court has also been ordered to include this trust Nirmohi Akhara. With this court order, the case of years old has been closed.

Yogesh and Ram Bajad & Associates with law firm. A law firm is normally an organization between legal counselors who have met up to offer their skill to customers under one name. We provide you this service like — Cyber Law, criminal law, corporate law, and Tenant lawyer advice.

Contact us : 098275 25296