Important Judgments for Judicial Exam Preparation : Part 1

Important Judgments for Judicial Exam Preparation : Part 1

Criminal Law 

Masalti v. State of UP [1964] GCtR 671 (SC) has held that as a mere proposition of law, it should be difficult to accept the argument that the sentence of death can be legitimately imposed only where an accused person is found to have committed the murder himself.

Lalita Kumari v. Govt of UP [2013] GCtR 210 (SC) has held that the object sought to be achieved by registering the earliest information as FIR is inter alia two fold: one, that the criminal process is set into motion and is well documented from the very start; and second, that the earliest information received in relation to the commission of a cognizable offence is recorded so that there cannot be any embellishment etc., later. It was held that Section 157(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deploys the word 'forthwith'. Thus, any information received under Section 154(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or otherwise has to be duly informed in the form of a report to the Magistrate.

It is held in Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab [2012] GCtR 6553 (SC) that in determining whether any error, omission or irregularity in framing the relevant charges, has led to a failure of justice, the court must have regard to whether an objection could have been raised at an earlier stage, during the proceedings or not.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Nandini Satpathy v. Dani (P.L.) [1978] GCtR 6550 (SC) has held that under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the Miranda exclusionary rule that custodial interrogations are inherently coercive finds expression (section 26), although the Indian provision confines it to confession which is a narrower concept than self-crimination.

Kusal Toppo v. State of Jharkhand [2018] GCtR 6551 (SC) has held that the basic premise of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is to only partially lift the ban against admissibility of inculpatory statements made before police, if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of the information received from the accused. Such condition would afford some guarantee.

It was held in Tomaso Bruno v State of UP [2015] GCtR 6590 (SC) that the principle underlying Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is that the burden to establish those facts, which are within his personal knowledge is cast on the person concerned, and if he fails to establish or explain those facts, an adverse inference may be drawn against him. As per S. 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, if a party in possession of best evidence which will throw light in controversy withholds it, the court can draw an adverse inference against him notwithstanding that the onus of proving does not lie on him. The presumption under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act is only a permissible inference and not a necessary inference. 

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

The remedy under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is an independent and special remedy, wherein the Court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold, without proceeding to record evidence, and conducting a trial, on the basis of the evidence adduced, if it is satisfied that the action should be terminated on any of the grounds contained in this provision. 

It is held in Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar [2025] GCtR 894 (SC) that High Court can go into the findings of facts only if the First Appellate Court has failed to look into the law or evidence or considered inadmissible evidence or without evidence. Section 103 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits the High Court to go into the facts only when the courts below have not determined or rendered any finding on a crucial fact, despite evidence already available on record or after deciding the substantial question of law, the facts of a particular case demand re-determination. For the second limb of Section 103 to apply, there must first be a decision on the substantial question of law, to which the facts must be applied, to determine the issue in dispute.

It was held in Alpha Residents Welfare Association v. Alpha Corp. Development Pvt Ltd [2024] GCtR 3471 (SC) that Part 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with “Suits in General” by which it is clear that a suit in which right to property is involved is a suit of civil nature and the Civil Court shall have the jurisdiction to take cognizance of it until barred expressly or impliedly. S. 15 onwards indicates the place to sue. On perusal, it is clear that such suit ought to be filed in the Court of lowest grade, competent to try it and as per S. 16, the suit be instituted at a place where the subject matter is situate. 

It has been held in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal [2005] GCtR 6551 (SC) that S. 16 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 recognizes a well established principle that actions against res or property should be brought in the forum where such res is situate. A court within whose territorial jurisdiction the property is not situate has no power to deal with and decide the rights or interests in such property. In other words, a court has no jurisdiction over a dispute in which it cannot give an effective judgment.

Constitution of India

His Holiness Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala [1973] GCtR 315 (SC) has held while interpreting Article 368 of Constitution of India that the expression "amendment of the Constitution" is not defined or expanded in any manner, although in other parts of the Constitution, the word "Amend" or "Amendment" has, been expanded. In some parts they have clearly a narrow meaning. The proviso throws some light on the problem. First, it uses the expression "if such amendment seeks to make any change in"; it does not add the words "change of ", or omit "in", and say "seeks to change" instead of the expression "seeks to make any change in".

It is held in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of AP [2004] GCtR 6570 (SC) that it is clear from the Articles in part XVI of the Constitution that the power of the State to deal with the Scheduled Castes list is totally absent except to bear in mind the required maintenance of efficiency of administration in making of appointments which is found in Article 335 of Constitution of India. Therefore any executive action or legislative enactment which interferes, disturbs, re-arranges, re-groups or reclassifies the various castes found in the Presidential List will be violative of scheme of the Constitution and will be violative of Article 341 of the Constitution.

It is held in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [2015] GCtR 5054 (SC) that the Preamble of the Constitution of India inter alia speaks of liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. It also says that India is a sovereign democratic  republic. It cannot be over emphasized that when it comes to democracy, liberty of thought and expression is a cardinal value that is of paramount significance under our constitutional scheme.

Indian Partnership Act, 1932

It is held in Sunkar Tirumala Rao v. Penki Aruna Kumari [2025] GCtR 177 (SC) that it is evident from a reading of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 69 of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 that it assumes a mandatory character. Section 69(1) prohibits a suit amongst the partners of an unregistered partnership firm, for the enforcement of a right either arising from a contract or conferred by the Act, unless the suit amongst the partners is in the nature of dissolution of the partnership firm and/or rendition of accounts. Section 69(2) prohibits the institution of a suit by an unregistered firm against third persons for the enforcement of a right arising from a contract. As a consequence, a suit filed by an unregistered partnership firm and all proceedings arising thereunder, which fall within the ambit of Section 69 would be without jurisdiction.