Supreme Court Judgement

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it would not interfere or disturb the Kerala High Court’s order that had denied permission to the victim to marry the convict. Additionally, the Court asked the petitioner to approach the Kerala High Court.

In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), it was held that “Section 66A arbitrarily, excessively and disproportionately invades the right of free speech” hence in the instant case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court felt the need to issue notice against the repeated use of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the order of the National Green tribunal in banning the use of firecrackers during Covid-19 in areas with poor air quality. According to the Court it was the need of the hour.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the Kerala High Court’s decision in upholding the dismissal of permission which was sought by the Public Prosecutor in the Kerala Assembly case and held that vandalism of property cannot be equated to freedom of speech in the House.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that begging is a socio-economic problem and that it was a function of poverty. The Court refused to ban begging, however, agreed to issue notice for rehabilitating beggars.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court refused to entertain the plea and stated that individuals cannot hoard and distribute drugs when the public is suffering from its shortage.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court cancelled the accused person’s bail and stated that a judiciary that is susceptible to political pressures would allow politicians to operate with impunity and incentivize criminality to flourish.

The Supreme Court criticized the Kerala Government’s decision to relax the Covid-19 restrictions for Bakrid and stated that giving in to pressure groups to relax restrictions was a 'sorry state of affairs.'

The activist hailing from Manipur who was arrested and detained under the National Security Act, 1980 was released by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the basis of a Habeas Corpus petition that was filed by the activist’s father.

The Supreme Court stated that all sentiments, including religious, were subservient to citizen’s fundamental right of ‘Right to health’ and ‘Right to life.’ Additionally, the Court asked the State of Uttar Pradesh to reconsider the holding of a symbolic Kanwar Yatra. The Court also asked the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh to file an additional affidavit by 19th July, 2021.

Concerned over the rampant misuse of sedition law provided under Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Hon’ble Supreme Court asked the Centre if a colonial-era sedition law, which was used to silence Mahatma Gandhi, Tilak etc., and suppress freedom, was needed even after 75 years of Independence.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it will not cancel the bail of the 12 accused in Kerala gold smuggling case. However, the Court stated that it would examine the applicability of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 in the gold smuggling case.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court adjourned the matter pertaining to the petition that challenged the constitutional validity of Section 124-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sought responses from the Centre regarding striking down of the sedition law.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order cancelling the bail of an accused in an honour killing case and directed him to surrender before the District judge.

The case was filed with respect to the exorbitant fees that were being levied by the private medical colleges in the state of Kerala. The Kerala High Court had ordered the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee that the audited sheets should be examined to see whether the management expenditure was excluded or not.