{"id":41515,"date":"2017-12-29T12:34:13","date_gmt":"2017-12-29T07:04:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/?p=41515"},"modified":"2017-12-29T12:50:45","modified_gmt":"2017-12-29T07:20:45","slug":"india-legal-compiles-important-judgments-of-2017","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/constitutional-law-news\/courts-news\/india-legal-compiles-important-judgments-of-2017\/","title":{"rendered":"Important Judgments of 2017"},"content":{"rendered":"<div id=\"tdi_1\" class=\"tdc-row\"><div class=\"vc_row tdi_2  wpb_row td-pb-row\" >\n<style scoped>\n\n\/* custom css *\/\n.tdi_2,\r\n                .tdi_2 .tdc-columns{\r\n                    min-height: 0;\r\n                }.tdi_2,\r\n\t\t\t\t.tdi_2 .tdc-columns{\r\n\t\t\t\t    display: block;\r\n\t\t\t\t}.tdi_2 .tdc-columns{\r\n\t\t\t\t    width: 100%;\r\n\t\t\t\t}\n<\/style><div class=\"vc_column tdi_4  wpb_column vc_column_container tdc-column td-pb-span12\">\n<style scoped>\n\n\/* custom css *\/\n.tdi_4{\r\n                    vertical-align: baseline;\r\n                }.tdi_4 > .wpb_wrapper,\r\n\t\t\t\t.tdi_4 > .wpb_wrapper > .tdc-elements{\r\n\t\t\t\t    display: block;\r\n\t\t\t\t}.tdi_4 > .wpb_wrapper > .tdc-elements{\r\n\t\t\t\t    width: 100%;\r\n\t\t\t\t}.tdi_4 > .wpb_wrapper > .vc_row_inner{\r\n\t\t\t\t    width: auto;\r\n\t\t\t\t}.tdi_4 > .wpb_wrapper{\r\n\t\t\t\t    width: auto;\r\n\t\t\t\t    height: auto;\r\n\t\t\t\t}\n<\/style><div class=\"wpb_wrapper\"><div class=\"wpb_wrapper wpb_text_column td_block_wrap td_block_wrap vc_column_text tdi_5  tagdiv-type td-pb-border-top td_block_template_1\"  data-td-block-uid=\"tdi_5\" ><div class=\"td-block-title-wrap\"><\/div><div class=\"td-fix-index\"><p><strong><u>CONSTITUTION OF INDIA<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>SEEKING VOTES IN THE NAME OF RELIGION IS A CORRUPT PRACTICE<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Date of Judgment: January 2, 2017<\/p>\n<p>Describing religion as a private relationship between man and God, a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that a request for votes during elections on the basis of religion, caste, race, community or language will amount to a \u201ccorrupt practice\u201d and called for the disqualification of a candidate making such a request.<\/p>\n<p><strong>AADHAAR LINK TO I-T RETURN A MUST<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Date of Order: June 9, 2017<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court maintained the constitutional validity of Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act which made compulsory the linkage of income tax returns with Aadhaar. In December, the apex court extended the deadline till March 31.<\/p>\n<p><strong>RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Date of Judgment: August 24, 2017<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court held that privacy is a fundamental right because it is an essential part of the right to life. \u201cThe right to privacy is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed in Article 21 of the constitution,\u201d the Court\u2019s nine-judge bench ruled collectively.\u00a0 The Court overruled past judgments on the issue which had ruled that privacy is not a fundamental right.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>FREEDOM OF SPEECH<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>PROTESTS BANNED AT JANTAR MANTAR<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Date of Judgment: October 5, 2017<\/p>\n<p>The National Green Tribunal banned all protests around Jantar Mantar in Delhi. It observed that the state has failed \u201cto protect the right of citizens to enjoy a pollution-free environment in the Jantar Mantar Road area, close to Connaught Place in the heart of the city\u201d.<\/p>\n<p><strong>CAN A RETWEET AMOUNT TO DEFAMATION?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Date of Judgment: December 15, 2017<\/p>\n<p>A bench of the Supreme Court upheld a Delhi High Court order and dismissed an appeal filed by Aam Aadmi Party spokesperson Raghav Chadha for quashing of a defamation case lodged by Union minister Arun Jaitley against him. Chadha had retweeted a defamatory tweet by <a href=\"http:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/topic\/arvind-kejriwal\">Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal<\/a> made against Arun Jaitley. The high court ruled that retweeting will amount to defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>RELIGION AND FAITH<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>NO RESTRICTIONS ON WOMEN ENTERING SABARIMALA TEMPLE<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Date of Judgment: October 13, 2017<\/p>\n<p>Responding to a PIL, a Supreme Court constitutional bench stated that denying women entry to the Sabarimala temple is a form of gender inequality and the temple authorities are breaching their constitutional rights in doing so.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>WOMEN AND CHILD <\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>SEX WITH MINOR WIFE AMOUNTS TO RAPE<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Date of Judgment: October 11, 2017<\/p>\n<p>A two-judge bench of the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/topic\/supreme-court\">Supreme Court <\/a>held that sex with a minor wife is rape. However, it clarified that the judgment is not related to the larger issue of marital rape.<\/p>\n<p><strong>RAPE CHARGES WILL NOT BE QUASHED IF ACCUSED MARRIES VICTIM<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Date of Judgment: August 1, 2017<\/p>\n<p>The Delhi High Court held that it cannot quash rape charges because the accused married the complainant.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>PERSONAL LAWS<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>TRIPLE TALAQ IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Date of Judgment: August 22, 2017<\/p>\n<p>By a majority of 3:2, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court held triple <em>talaq<\/em> illegal and observed that this practice disregards the principal rights of Muslim women as it permanently closes marriage with no hope of compromise.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\"><strong>SOCIAL REFORM<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><strong>NO CURE\/NO SUCCESS IS NOT NEGLIGENCE<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Date of Judgment: December 12, 2017<\/p>\n<p>The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) set aside the State Commission order of directing a doctor to pay Rs 15 lakh as compensation to the client as in vitro fertilisation failed in her case. NCDRC held that \u201cno cure\/no success is not negligence\u201d.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>EDUCATION<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>NEET FOR ALL MEDICAL COLLEGES<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Date of Order: August 23, 2017<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court directed all medical colleges in India to get admissions through NEET. Tamil Nadu requested exemption on the plea that many students are from rural and poor backgrounds and cannot get private tuitions for high scores in NEET and JEE. The apex court exempted Tamil Nadu for one year only.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>ENVIRONMENT<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>ALL BS-III VEHICLES BANNED<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Date of Order: March 29, 2017<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court observed that the health of the public is more important than the commercial interest of manufacturers and restricted the sale and registration of vehicles with BS-III rating from April 1, 2017.<\/p>\n<p><strong>NO MULTI-LEVEL STOPPING IN THE TAJ TRAPEZIUM ZONE<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Date of Order: November 20, 2017<\/p>\n<p>A Supreme Court bench declined to give authorisation for the development of a multi-level stopping in the Taj Trapezium Zone (TTZ), asking the Uttar Pradesh government to give visitors a chance to walk in the 10,400 square foot area surrounding Taj Mahal.<\/p>\n<p><strong>RS 5 CRORE COMPENSATION IMPOSED ON ART OF LIVING<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Date of Judgment: December 7, 2017<\/p>\n<p>The National Green Tribunal directed the Art of Living Foundation to pay a compensation of\u00a0 Rs 5 crore for dealing with pollution on the floodplains of the Yamuna following the World Culture Festival held by it.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>CONTEMPT<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>CONTEMPT ON SITTING HIGH COURT JUDGE<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Date of Judgment: May 9, 2017<\/p>\n<p>A former high court sitting judge, Justice CS Karnan, was found guilty of contempt of court and awarded a six-month jail term by a seven-judge bench headed by former Chief Justice JS Khehar of the Supreme Court. He was held liable for making false allegations against fellow judges and was the first sitting high court judge in India to serve a prison term.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>ANIMAL RIGHTS<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>BAN ON CATTLE MARKET AT INDIA-BANGLADESH BORDER<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Date of Order: August 4, 2017<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court directed the centre to guarantee that there are no cattle markets within 20 kilometres of the 4,096-kilometre India-Bangladesh border where cattle smuggling are rampant in four states.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>CIVIL RIGHTS<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>JAYPEE LIQUIDATION<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Date of Order:\u00a0 November 22, 2017<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court directed Jaypee Associates to pay back money of homebuyers evaluated at over Rs 2,000 crore. Jaypee Infratech is facing bankruptcy charges affecting homebuyers in projects all over Noida. \u201cPay up like pleasant young men,\u201d the chief justice of India told the Jaypee chiefs.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>CONSUMER RIGHTS<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>NO VAT CAN BE CHARGED ON DISCOUNTED PRICE<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Date of Judgment: November 9, 2017<\/p>\n<p>The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that the MRP of a product includes all taxes and a seller cannot charge VAT again on the discounted price.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>CRIMINAL LAW<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>DEATH SENTENCE TO NIRBHAYA RAPE CONVICTS<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Date of Judgment: May 5, 2017<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court maintained the death punishment of convicts in the Nirbhaya rape and murder case. The bench was pronouncing its decision on appeals filed by Mukesh, Pawan, Vinay and Akshay against capital punishment granted to them by the trial court on September 13, 2013, which was maintained by the Delhi High Court on March 12, 2014.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>JUDICIARY<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>NEW PROCESS FOR DESIGNATION OF SENIOR ADVOCATES<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Date of Judgment: October 12, 2017<\/p>\n<p>For making transparent the designation of senior advocates, a Supreme Court bench decided on a new system for senior designation, to be followed by the Supreme Court and all high courts.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>POLITICAL<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>FOUR-YEAR JAIL TO SASIKALA<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Date of Judgment:\u00a0 February 14, 2017<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court held VK Sasikala guilty of corrupt practices and gave her a four-year sentence. The bench also imposed a Rs 10 crore fine on her.<\/p>\n<p><strong>ALL ACQUITTED IN 2G SCAM<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Date of Judgment: December 21, 2017<\/p>\n<p>A special CBI court at Patiala House Courts complex acquitted all accused including MK Kanimozhi and former telecom minister A Raja.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>PATRIOTISM<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>NATIONAL ANTHEM CASE<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Date of Order: October 23, 2017<\/p>\n<p>The Supreme Court observed that individuals don&#8217;t have to stand up in theatres to show their patriotism, directing that the centre consider correcting the guidelines for playing of the national anthem before a film.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: right;\"><em>\u2014Compiled by Vinay Vats<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":41518,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false}}},"categories":[246],"tags":[515,1435,20232],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/d2r2ijn7njrktv.cloudfront.net\/IL\/uploads\/2017\/12\/Untitled-new-apn.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41515"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=41515"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41515\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/41518"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41515"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41515"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41515"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}