CLAT PG Case Laws Law Notes:- Judicial Services, CLAT, Public Prosecutor

Important Case Laws on Constitution for CLAT PG | LLM

by admin

Updated On: April 11, 2024 9:50 am

Important Case Laws on Constitution for CLAT PG 2023 | LLM | Judicial Services

---Advertisement---

Table of Contents

Important Case Laws on Constitution for CLAT PG | LLM | Judicial Services

CLAT PG | LLM Entrance Exams Notes: Click here

Freedom of Speech

1. Anuradha Bhasin Case (2020) Right to Internet Access

Section 144 of the CrPC, Indian Telegraph Act (1885), Information Technology Act, Article 21, Article 19(1) & Article 19(1)(g).

Held

The SC made the Internet as an integral part of the freedom of expression guaranteed under 19(1) of the Constitution.

2. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002):

One-sided information, disinformation, misinformation and non-information, all equally create an uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce.
Freedom of speech and expression includes the right to impart and receive information which includes the freedom to hold opinions.

3. Ram Monohar Lohia Case 1960

SC said reasonable restrictions establish a relationship of proportionality between what the state wants to achieve and the extent to which it restricts speech. .

Note: Other cases related to Freedom of speech

Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras 1950
Shreya SInghal v. UOI 2015
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu 1994

Right to Life and Personal Liberty

Euthanasia/Right to die with dignity/merch killing:

1. Common Cause v. Union of India 2018

The Supreme Court in Common Cause v. Union of India 2018 ruled that to passive euthanasia in a landmark verdict and permitted ‘living will’ by patients on withdrawing medical support if they slip in irreversible coma.

ISSUE

Right to die vs. Right to live with diginity

Constitutional and Legislative provisions involved:

Article 21

Judgement delivered:

Right to Die- The Supreme Court has upheld that the fundamental Right to life and dignity incudes right to refuse treatment and die with dignity.
In P. Rathinam v. Union of India- Supreme Court observed Life is not mere living but living in meant and health is not the absence of illness but the glowing vitality’.

2. Aruna Shanbaug Case 2011

The Supreme Court of India held and set guidelines for euthanasia in the Indian legal system and made a distinction between ‘active and ‘passive’ euthanasia. It said that causing the death of a person who is in a permanent vegetative state, with no chance of recovery; by withdrawing artificial life support is not a “positive act of killing” and court be permitted on a case-by-case basis.