🔰 Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala (Sabarimala, 2018) 🔰

Citation: (2019) 11 SCC 1

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

📒 Brief Facts

Women aged 10–50 were banned from entering Sabarimala temple.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

📒 Issues

Whether ban violates Articles 14 (Equality), 15 (Non-discrimination), 25 (Freedom of Religion).

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

📒 Judgment

Supreme Court held:

⚖️ Ban violates constitutional morality and equality.

⚖️ Freedom of religion cannot override fundamental rights.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

📒 Significance

Landmark for gender equality over religious practice.

🔰 Central Bureau of Investigation v. CBI Officers Association (2019) – Anti-Corruption 🔰

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

📕 Brief Facts

Case on independence and accountability of investigative agencies, especially CBI.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

📕 Issues

Whether government interference violates rule of law and impartiality.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

📕 Judgment

Supreme Court emphasised:

⚖️ Autonomy and impartiality of investigative agencies are essential for constitutional governance.

⚖️ Appointments, transfers and removal must follow transparent process.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

📕 Significance

Strengthened anti-corruption institutional integrity.

Ensured CBI independence from executive interference.

🔰 MC Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case, 1987) 🔰

Citation: AIR 1987 SC 1086

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

📗 Brief Facts

Gas leak from Oleum plant endangered public health.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

📗 Issues

Whether plant owners are liable for hazardous industrial activity.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

📗 Judgment

⚖️ Supreme Court introduced absolute liability:

⚖️ Hazardous industries are strictly liable for accidents.

⚖️ No exceptions for acts of God, employee negligence or third parties.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

📗 Significance

Landmark in environmental and industrial safety law.

Strengthened public health and safety protections.

🔰 India Today Group v. Union of India (PIL – Right to Information) 🔰

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

📘 Brief Facts

Petition sought access to government-held information under PIL framework.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

📘 Issues

Whether citizens have right to access information affecting governance.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

📘 Judgment

Supreme Court held that:

⚖️ Right to information is part of Right to Freedom of Speech and Article 21.

⚖️ Government transparency is essential in a democracy.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

📘 Significance

Basis for RTI Act, 2005.

Strengthened accountability and transparency in governance.

🔰 Common Cause v. Union of India (Passive Euthanasia, 2018) 🔰

Citation: (2018) 5 SCC 1

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

📙 Brief Facts

Petition sought recognition of right to die with dignity for terminally ill patients.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

📙 Issues

Whether passive euthanasia violates Article 21 (Right to Life & Dignity).

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

📙 Judgment

Supreme Court held:

⚖️ Right to die with dignity is part of Article 21.

⚖️ Passive euthanasia allowed under strict safeguards and procedure.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

📙 Significance

Landmark for end-of-life care and personal autonomy.

Emphasised dignity as core of Right to Life.

🔰 Courts to Try All Civil Suits Unless Barred – Section 9, CPC 🔰

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

1️⃣ Statutory Provision:

Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides:

“The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.”

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

2️⃣ Meaning:

Civil courts are courts of general jurisdiction.

They can try all suits of a civil nature unless:

The jurisdiction is expressly barred by a statute, or

Impliedly barred by necessary implication of law.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

3️⃣ Civil Nature:

A dispute affecting private rights such as property, office, reputation or contractual rights is of civil nature.

Even if the case involves a religious element, if it concerns civil rights (like right to property or office), it remains of civil nature.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

4️⃣ Express Bar:

When a specific statute clearly excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts.

Example: Section 293 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 bars civil court jurisdiction regarding tax assessments.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

5️⃣ Implied Bar:

When the law provides an alternative remedy or a special tribunal, it is implied that civil court jurisdiction is excluded.

Example: Industrial Disputes Act creates Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals for workmen disputes.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

6️⃣ Case Laws:

📌 Dhulabhai v. State of M.P. (AIR 1969 SC 78):

Laid down principles to determine when civil court jurisdiction is excluded.

Civil court has jurisdiction unless the statute gives finality to orders of special tribunals and provides adequate remedies.

📌 Secretary of State v. Mask & Co. (AIR 1940 PC 105):

Civil court’s jurisdiction is presumed unless clearly or necessarily excluded.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

7️⃣ Key Principle:

“Civil courts have inherent jurisdiction to decide all civil matters unless excluded by law, either expressly or by necessary implication.”

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

8️⃣ Example:

A dispute over ownership of property → Civil Court has jurisdiction.

Dispute over income tax assessment → Civil Court has no jurisdiction (barred by statute).

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

9️⃣ Objective:

To ensure access to justice for enforcement of civil rights and to provide a general remedy where no special law applies.

🔰 Stay of Suit – Section 10, CPC 🔰

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

1️⃣ Statutory Provision:

Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with “Stay of Suit.”

“No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties… pending in the same or any other Court having jurisdiction.”

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

2️⃣ Meaning:

When two suits involving the same subject matter and same parties are filed, the court may stay (pause) the later suit to avoid duplication and conflicting decisions.

This is known as the doctrine of res sub judice.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

3️⃣ Purpose / Object:

To prevent:

Multiplicity of suits

Conflicting judgments

Waste of judicial time

Harassment of parties by parallel proceedings

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

4️⃣ Effect of Stay:

The court cannot proceed with the trial of the subsequent suit, but other proceedings (like interim orders) may continue.

It is a mandatory provision when conditions of Section 10 are fulfilled.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

5️⃣ Nature:

It does not bar the institution of the later suit;

It only stays the trial (proceedings) of the later suit until the earlier one is decided.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

6️⃣ Important Case Laws:

📌 Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation (1998) 5 SCC 69:

Section 10 applies only when the matter in issue is directly and substantially the same in both suits.

📌 National Institute of Mental Health v. C. Parameshwara (2005) 2 SCC 256:

The object of Section 10 is to prevent courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits.

📌 Aspen Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Orbit Corporation Ltd. (2008 Bom):

Stay of the suit is procedural and aims at avoiding conflicting decisions.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

7️⃣ Exception:

Section 10 applies only to civil suits, not to:

Writ petitions

Proceedings under special laws

Summary suits under Order 37 CPC

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

8️⃣ Example:

A files a suit in Delhi for ownership of property.

B later files a suit in Mumbai on the same property and same cause of action.

➡️ The Mumbai court shall stay the later suit under Section 10 CPC.

🔰 Res Judicata – Section 11, CPC 🔰

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

1️⃣ Statutory Provision:

Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 lays down the rule of Res Judicata.

“No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties... and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.”

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

2️⃣ Meaning:

The doctrine of Res Judicata means that a matter once finally decided cannot be reopened or re-litigated between the same parties.

The term “Res Judicata” is Latin for “a thing already adjudicated.”

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

3️⃣ Object / Purpose:

To prevent:

Multiplicity of litigation

Conflicting judgments

Harassment of parties

Waste of judicial time

Promotes finality in judicial decisions.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

4️⃣ Important Case Laws:

📌 Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi (AIR 1960 SC 941):

Res Judicata applies at different stages of the same proceedings.

📌 Daryao v. State of U.P. (AIR 1961 SC 1457):

The rule of Res Judicata applies even to writ petitions under Article 32 and 226 of the Constitution.

📌 Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kunwar (AIR 1966 SC 1332):

If the decision in the earlier suit is final, the second suit on the same matter is barred.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

5️⃣ Exceptions to Res Judicata:

Res Judicata does not apply when —

The earlier decision was obtained by fraud or collusion.

The court lacked jurisdiction in the earlier case.

Change in law or new facts have arisen.

Writ of Habeas Corpus (personal liberty) — not barred by Res Judicata.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

6️⃣ Example:

A sues B for ownership of property and the court decides in favor of A.

B cannot again file a suit against A for the same property on the same grounds.

➡️ The second suit is barred by Res Judicata under Section 11 CPC.

https://youtube.com/c/LAWEXPLORER

7️⃣ Doctrine of Constructive Res Judicata (Explanation IV):

If a party could have raised a matter in the earlier proceeding but failed to do so, it is deemed to have been decided.

Example: A sues B for rent of one year but omits rent of the next year that was due; he cannot later sue separately for it.