Why in the news : 75 -year-old man from Kerala who recently travelled to Vietnam and Cambodia has been diagnosed with the bacterial disease murine typhus.

Murine typhus is an infectious disease caused by the bacteria Rickettsia typhi, which is transmitted by fleas

No vaccine is currently available for murine typhus.

https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-health/kerala-murine-typhus-flea-borne-9618057/

Indian Govt expels 6 Canadian diplomats in a massive action🔥. This a big message to the deep state. Ties between India & Trudeau led Canada hit all time low. Justin Trudeau Government had said it will investigate Indian ambassador and diplomats to probe terrorist Nijjar's murder. Indian Govt also withdraws its High Commissioner and other targeted diplomats & officials

पवन तनय संकट हरण; मंगल मूरती रूप।
राम लखन सीता सहित। हृदय बसहु सुर भूप।।.. 🏵❣️

affected*

During a Ramleela performance in Amroha, Uttar Pradesh, actors portraying Ram and Ravan engaged in a physical fight on stage, abandoning their roles.

Important Supreme Court Judgements | Landmark cases in India

✔️A.K. Gopalan vs The State Of Madras (1950)
✔️Romesh Thapar vs State of Madras (1950)
✔️Kedar Nath Singh vs State Of Bihar (1962)
✔️Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951)
✔️ Berubari Union case (1960)
✔️Golaknath Vs State of Punjab (1967)
✔️Rustom Cavasjee Cooper vs Union Of India 1970
✔️DC Wadhwa case 1987
✔️Kesavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala case ( 1973)
✔️Maneka Gandhi vs Uol case (1978)
✔️Minerva Mill vs Union of India (1980)
✔️Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
✔️Krishna Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar 2017

source : twitter handle (X)

A.K. Gopalan vs The State Of Madras (1950)

Theme: Right to life

Judgement

Supreme Court of India contented that there was no violation of Fundamental Rights enshrined in Articles 13, 19, 21 and 22 under the provisions of the Preventive Detention Act, if the detention was as per the procedure established by law.

Here, the SC took a narrow view of Article 21. The majority opinion in the A.K. Gopalan case was that article 21 covering procedure established by law would simply mean the law established by the state.

Romesh Thapar vs State of Madras (1950)

Theme: Freedom of speech and expression

Supreme Court of India ruled that freedom of speech lay at the foundation of all democratic organisations.

The full court ruled that the imposition of pre- censorship on a journal is a restriction on the liberty of the press, which is an essential part of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1)(a).

It said the freedom of speech and expression is one of the most valuable rights guaranteed to a citizen by the Constitution and should be jealously guarded by the courts.

The verdict added that free political discussion is essential for the proper functioning of a democratic government.

The rationale behind this judgement set a healthy precedent both in terms of protecting press freedom and defining the scope of reasonable restrictions on the fundamental rights as provided in Part III of the cons.

Kedar Nath Singh vs State Of Bihar (1962)

Theme: Sedition Law

The Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code that penalized sedition.

Kedar Nath Singh had been convicted for sedition and inciting public mischief because of a speech in which he criticized the government and advocated for the Forward Communist Party.

The Supreme Court of India reasoned that the penalization of sedition is a constitutionally valid restriction on the right to freedom of expression only when the words are intended to disturb public peace by violence.

The Court emphasized that the phrase "Government established by law" under section 124A must be distinguished from criticism of a specific party or persons.

The purpose of the crime of sedition was to prevent the Government established by law from being subverted because "the continued existence of the Government established by law is an essential condition of the stability of the State".

Shankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India (1951)

Theme: Amendability of Fundamental Rights

This case dealt with the amendability of Fundamental Rights (the First Amendment's validity was challenged).

The Supreme Court of India contended that the Parliament's power to amend under Article 368 also includes the power to amend the Fundamental Rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution.

Further, it said that a constitutional amendment act enacted to abridge or take away the fundamental rights is not void of article 13(2).

Berubari Union case (1960)

Theme: Article 3 related

Case was regarding the Parliament's power to transfer the territory of Berubari to Pakistan.

The Supreme Court examined Article 3 in detail and held that the Parliament cannot make laws under this article in order to execute the Nehru-Noon agreement. Hence, the 9th constitutional Amendment Act was passed to enforce the agreement.

Golaknath Vs State of Punjab (1967)

Theme: Right to Property is it a Fundamental Right?

Supreme Court of India ruled that Parliament doesn't have the power to restrict any of the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Hence, State of Punjab couldn't take away Golaknath or any other citizen's land as Right to Property was deemed to be fundamental Beginning with its ruling in GOLAKNATH, the Court developed jurisprudence around what was known as the basic structure doctrine.

According to this doctrine, the Court was in charge of preventing the erosion of those enduring values that constitute the essence of constitutionalism.