1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next

1. Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd. ) VS Union of India - 26 Sep 18

MAIN POINTSPer majority ‘Benefits’ and ‘services’ as mentioned in Section 7 should be those which have the colour of some kind of subsidies etc., namely, welfare schemes of the Government whereby Government is doling out such benefits which are targeted at a particular deprived class. The expenditure thereof has to be drawn from the Consolidated Fund of India.CBSE, NEET, JEE, UGC etc. cannot make the requirement of Aadhaar mandatory.For the enrolment of children under the Aadhaar Act, it would be essential to have the consent of their parents/guardian.On attaining the age of majority, such children who are enrolled under Aadhaar with the consent of their parents, shall be given the right to exit from Aadhaar, if they so choose.Insofar as the school admissions of children are concerned, requirement of Aadhaar would not be compulsory as it is neither a service nor subsidy. Further, having regard to the fact that a child between the age of 6 to 14 years has the fundamental right to education under Article 21A of the Constitution, school admission cannot be treated as ‘benefit’ as well.Benefits to children between 6 to 14 years under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, likewise, shall not require mandatory Aadhaar enrolment.For availing the benefits of other welfare schemes which are covered by Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, though enrolment number can be insisted, it would be subject to the consent of the parents.No child shall be denied benefit of any of these schemes if, for some reasons, he/she is not able to produce the Aadhaar number and the benefit shall be given by verifying the identity on the basis of any other documents. Regulation 27(1) struck down, Regulation 26 needs suitable amendment, Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act read down. Section 33(2) struck down.That portion of Section 57 which enables body corporate and individual to seek authentication struck down, All matters pertaining to an individual do not qualify as being an inherent part of right to privacy. Aadhaar Act meets the tests of proportionality and balancingSection 2(d) struck down.Section 29 in fact imposes a restriction on sharing information and is, therefore, valid as it protects the interests of Aadhaar number holders. Other provisions of Aadhaar Act including Section 59 held to be valid, Aadhaar Act meets the concept of Limited Government, Good Governance and Constitutional Trust.Aadhaar Act is validly passed as a ‘Money Bill’.Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held valid.Per Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. (Dissenting) The phrase “shall be final” used under Article 110(3) aims at avoiding any controversy on the issue as to whether a Bill is a Money Bill, with respect to the Rajya Sabha and before the President. The language used in Article 110(3) does not exclude judicial review of the Speaker’s decision. This also applies to Article 199(3).The immunity from judicial review provided to parliamentary proceedings under Article 122 is limited to instances involving “irregularity of procedure”. Validity of proceedings in Parliament or a State Legislature can be subject to judicial review when there is a substantive illegality or a constitutional violation.Article 255 has no relation with the decision of the Speaker on whether a Bill is a Money Bill. Decisions in Mohd Saeed Siddiqui and Yogendra Kumar are overruled.The existence of and the role of the Rajya Sabha, as an institution of federal bicameralism in the Indian Parliament, constitutes a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. A Bill, which has provisions which fall within subclauses (a) to (g) of Article 110(1) and provisions which fall outside their scope, will not qualify to be a Money Bill. Section 7 fails to fulfil the requirement of a Money Bill. The provisions of the Aadhaar Act do not lie within the scope of sub-clauses (a) to (g) of Article 110(1). The Aadhaar Act declared unconstitutional for failing to meet the necessary requirements to have been certified as a Money Bill under Article 110(1).Doctrine of pith and substance is used to examine whether the legislature has the competence to enact a law with regard to any of the three Lists in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The doctrine cannot be invoked to declare whether a Bill satisfies the requirements set out in Article 110 of the Constitution to be certified a Money Bill. There is a legitimate state aim in maintaining a system of identification to ensure that the welfare benefits provided by the State reach the beneficiaries who are entitled, without diversion.Adequate norms must be laid down for each step from the collection to retention of biometric data. Sections 29(1) and (2) of the Act create a distinction between two classes of information (core biometric information and identity information), which are integral to individual identity and require equal protection. Section 29(4) suffers from over breadth.Sections 2(g), (j), (k) and (t) suffer from over breadth. There is no clarity on how an individual is supposed to update his/her biometric information, in case the biometric information mismatches with the data stored in CIDR. The Aadhaar project has failed to account for and remedy the flaws in its framework and design which has led to serious instances of exclusion of eligible beneficiaries. The Aadhaar project violates widely recognized data minimisation principle.The architecture of Aadhaar poses a risk of potential surveillance activities through the Aadhaar database. The protection of the data of 1.2 billion citizens is a question of national security and cannot be subjected to the mere terms and conditions of a normal contract.The Act does not place any institutional accountability upon UIDAI to protect the database of citizens’ personal information. The Aadhaar Act is also silent on the liability of UIDAI and its personnel in case of their non-compliance of the provisions of the Act or the regulations.Section 47 of the Act violates citizens’ right to seek remedies. No substantive provisions, such as those providing data minimization, have been laid down as guiding principles for the oversight mechanism provided under Section 33(2), which permits disclosure of identity information and authentication records in the interest of national security.Since Section 57 is manifestly arbitrary, it suffers from overbreadth and violates Article 14.Section 7 suffers from overbreadth since the broad definitions of the expressions ‘services and ‘benefits’ enable the government to regulate almost every facet of its engagement with citizens under the Aadhaar platform. Section 7 is therefore arbitrary and violative of Article 14 in relation to the inclusion of services and benefits as defined.The legitimate aim of the State can be fulfilled by adopting less intrusive measures as opposed to the mandatory enforcement of the Aadhaar scheme as the sole repository of identification. When Aadhaar is seeded into every database, it becomes a bridge across discreet data silos, which allows anyone with access to this information to re-construct a profile of an individual’s life. This is contrary to the right to privacy and poses severe threats due to potential surveillance.The State has failed to satisfy that the targeted delivery of subsidies which animate the right to life entails a necessary sacrifice of the right to individual autonomy, data protection and dignity when both these rights are protected by the Constitution.Section 59 seeks to retrospectively validate the actions of the Central Government done prior to the Aadhaar Act pursuant to Notifications dated 28 January 2009. and 12 September 2015. Section 59 does not validate actions of the state governments or of private entities. Moreover, the notification of 2009 did not authorise the collection of biometric data. Consequently, the validation of actions taken under the 2009 notification by Section 59 does not save the collection of biometric data prior to the enforcement of the Act. Section 59 fails to meet the test of a validating law.Since the Aadhaar Act itself is now held to be unconstitutional, the seeding of Aadhaar to PAN under Article 139AA does not stand independently.The 2017 amendments to the PMLA Rules fail to satisfy the test of proportionality. The decision to link Aadhaar numbers with mobile SIM cards is neither valid nor constitutional. The biometric information and Aadhaar details collected by Telecom Service Providers shall be deleted forthwith and no use of the said information or details shall be made by TSPs or any agency or person or their behalf.Defiance of judicial orders (both interim and final) be it by the government or by citizens negates the basis of the rule of law. The Aadhaar Act, the Rules and Regulations framed under it, and the framework prior to the enactment of the Act are unconstitutional.The existing data which has been collected shall not be destroyed for a period of one year. During this period, the data shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever. At the end of one year, if no fresh legislation has been enacted by the Union government in conformity with the principles enunciated in this judgment, the data shall be destroyed.Per Ashok Bhushan, J. (Concurring)Requirement under Aadhaar Act to give one's demographic and biometric information does not violate fundamental right of privacy.The provisions of Aadhaar Act requiring demographic and biometric information from a resident for Aadhaar Number pass threefold test as laid down in Puttaswamy (supra) case, hence cannot be said to be unconstitutional.Collection of data, its storage and use does not violate fundamental Right of Privacy.Aadhaar Act does not create an architecture for pervasive surveillance.Aadhaar Act and Regulations provides protection and safety of the data received from individuals.Section 7 of the Aadhaar is constitutional. The State while enlivening right to food, right to shelter etc. envisaged under Article 21 cannot encroach upon the right of privacy of beneficiaries nor former can be given precedence over the latter.Provisions of Section 29 is constitutional and does not deserves to be struck down.Section 33 cannot be said to be unconstitutional as it provides for the use of Aadhaar data base for police investigation nor it can be said to violate protection granted under Article 20(3).Section 47 cannot be held to be unconstitutional on the ground that it does not allow an individual who finds that there is a violation of Aadhaar Act to initiate any criminal process.Section 57, to the extent, which permits use of Aadhaar by the State or any body corporate or person, in pursuant to any contract to this effect is unconstitutional and void. Thus, the last phrase in main provision of Section 57, i.e. “or any contract to this effect” is struck down.Section 59 has validated all actions taken by the Central Government under the notifications dated 28.01.2009 and 12.09.2009 and all actions shall be deemed to have been taken under the Aadhaar Act.Parental consent for providing biometric information under Regulation 3 & demographic information under Regulation 4 has to be read for enrolment of children between 5 to 18 years to uphold the constitutionality of Regulations 3 & 4 of Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016.Rule 9 as amended by PMLA (Second Amendment) Rules, 2017 is not unconstitutional and does not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 & 300A of the Constitution and Sections 3, 7 & 51 of the Aadhaar Act. Further Rule 9 as amended is not ultra vires to PMLA Act, 2002.Circular dated 23.03.2017 being unconstitutional is set aside.Aadhaar Act has been rightly passed as Money Bill. The decision of Speaker certifying the Aadhaar Bill, 2016 as Money Bill is not immuned from Judicial Review.Section 139AA of Income Tax Act, 1961 does not breach fundamental Right of Privacy as per Privacy Judgment in Puttaswamy case.Aadhaar Act does not violate the interim orders passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 494 of 2012 and other Writ Petitions.

to administer every facet of the citizen-state engagement through mandatory biometric-enabled Aadhaar linking – Correctness of documents ... knowing the purpose of authentication – Regulation 26 not entitling the authority to store data about the purpose – Authentication record ... firewalling and anonymisation of decrypted biometric data – Breaches punishable – Biometric information deemed to be an “electronic record ... copy of an ‘officially valid document’ containing details of his identity and address, one recent photograph and such other documents ... copy of an “officially valid document” containing details of his identity and address, one recent photograph and such other documents ... copy of an ‘officially valid document' containing details of his identity and address, one recent photograph and such other documents

India - Supreme Court

2. Akbarbhai Kesarbhai Sipai VS Mohanbhai Ambabhai Patel Since Decd. thro his Heirs - 12 Jul 19

(1) Registered sale deed or any other registered document is not a public document but a private document. (2) There is a basic difference in admissibility and probative value of documents.(3) Mere production of a certified copy of a document registered may not be enough to prove execution of document.

Nor is it a public record kept in a State of any private documents. ... copy of a sale deed will not be sufficient—Mere filing of a document in a Court is not enough to make the document a part of record ... Mere filing of a document in a Court is not enough to make the document a part of the record. ... Such certified copy of any entries in that public record (Book 1) is a certified copy of ... kept in any State then such public records of the private documents would be public documents and, therefore, certified copies of ... issued by the Registering Officer, is neither a pubic document, nor a certified copy of a private document, but is a certified copy

India - Current Civil Cases

3. Narinder Nath Kapoor VS Prem Nath Khanna - 20 Jul 09

Registration--Mere registration of the sale deed cannot operate to pass the title to the vendee--Does not pass any interest to them in the property purported to have been passed to himPublic document--What constitute to be--Sale deed or its certified copy--Cannot be construed as a public document--Execution there of--To be proved by leading evidence.Admission--An admission is not a convulsive as to the truth of a matter stated therein--Can only be used as a piece of evidence -To be appreciated by the court and the weight to be attached to which must depend on the circumstances under which it is made.

(E) Registration Act,1908 S.57(5)--Evidence Act, 1872, S.63, 65 and 68- Public document ... The argument that the certified copy of the mortgage deed is a public document being a private record ... that it is a certified copy of the sale deed being public document and certified copy is also a public document. ... a certified copy of the original document.

India - Punjab

4. Ram Niwas VS Kalu Ram - 10 Jan 12

Even if documents sought to be produced as additional evidence were jamabandis, court can always allow these to be produced on record in terms of Order 41, Rule 27(1)(b) CPC as these documents cannot be created or manufactured for the first time after the decision of the suit.

Application for production of additional evidence at appellate stage—Allowed—Petition there against—If the Court finds that the documents ... in additional evidence—Instantly, documents sought to be produced by petitioner by way of additional evidence was none else but ... may be received and the kinds of documents are such the authenticity of which cannot be disputed, same may be allowed to be produced ... certified copy of the plaint titled as Jai Ram v. ... Ram Niwas, Civil Suit No. 12 of 2001, decided on 27.4.2002, certified copy of Civil Suit No. 679 of 2000 filed on 15.12.2000 by. ... the decision of the suit, in order to fill up the lacuna, the said documents cannot be allowed to be produced on record.

India - Current Civil Cases

5. Kalpana Mehta VS Union of India - 09 May 18

Parliamentary democracy in India is qualitatively distinct from the UK. Parliamentary Standing Committee report can be taken aid of for the purpose of interpretation of a statutory provision as also for existence of a historical fact.Judicial notice can be taken of the Parliamentary Standing Committee report under Section 57(4) of the Evidence Act and it is admissible under Section 74 of the said Act.In a litigation filed either under Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee can be taken on record. However, the report cannot be impinged or challenged in a court of law.The Parliamentary Standing Committee report being in the public domain can invite fair comments and criticism from the citizens as in such a situation, the citizens do not really comment upon any member of the Parliament to invite the hazard of violation of parliamentary privilege.Reliance can be placed upon the report of a Parliamentary Standing Committee in proceedings under Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution;Once the report of a Parliamentary Committee has been published, reference to it in the course of judicial proceedings will not constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege;Validity of the report of a Parliamentary Committee cannot be called into question in the court. No Member of Parliament or person can be made liable for what is stated in the course of the proceedings before a Parliamentary Committee or for a vote tendered or given.A finding of fact by the court must be premised on the evidence adduced in the judicial proceeding.No Member of Parliament can be held liable for anything said by him in Parliament or in any committee. The reports submitted by Members of Parliament is also fully covered by protection.The course of proceedings of Parliament and the Legislature are facts of which judicial notice shall be taken by the Court.There is no requirement of any permission of Speaker of Lok Sabha for producing public documents as evidence in Court.That mere fact that document is admissible in evidence does not lead to draw any presumption that the contents of the documents are also true and correct.No party can be allowed to 'question' or 'impeach' report of Parliamentary Committee. The Constitution does not envisage supremacy of any of the three organs of the State. But, functioning of all the three organs is controlled by the Constitution. Wherever, interaction and deliberations among the three organs have been envisaged, a delicate balance and mutual respect are contemplated. All the three organs have to strive to achieve the constitutional goal set out for 'We the People'. Mutual harmony and respect have to be maintained by all the three organs to serve the Constitution under which we all live.Fair comments on report of the Parliamentary Committee are fully protected under the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). Admissibility of a Parliamentary Committee Report in evidence does not mean that facts stated in the Report stand proved.

forming the acts, or records of the acts of all Legislature is a public document – No permission required for producing these documents ... as evidence in Courts – However, admission of a document does not lead to draw any presumption that the contents of the documents ... being in the public domain – Admissible u/s 74 – Judicial notice can be taken of it u/s 57(4) – It can be taken on record – Open ... It has also to be specifically stated in each case whether only a certified copy of the document should be sent or an officer of ... There can be no scintilla of doubt that the said document can be taken on record. ... According to Section 74 documents forming the acts, or records of the acts of Legislature of any part of India is a public document

India - Supreme Court

6. Venkateshappa VS Venkateshappa - 01 Dec 11

Findings recorded by Courts below, being question of fact and having been recorded on proper appreciation of evidence on record cannot be interfered with in second appeal.

to prove contents of—Permissible—Once certified copy of entry in book maintained in public office is produced by way of secondary ... (i) Evidence Act, 1872—Sections 65(c), 74, 77, 114—Civil Procedure Code,1908— Section 100—Public document—Secondary evidence produced ... maintainable—Grant of land made to vendor already cancelled—Same land re-granted to another long before execution of sale deed as evidenced by certified ... The certified copy is issued by the Tehsildar, who was competent to issue such certified ... D1 is a fabricated document. ... It is also his submission that Ex D1, the so called certified copy of the dharkasth register

India - Current Civil Cases

7. P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep VS State of Kerala - 29 Nov 19

(1) All documents including “electronic record” produced for inspection of Court alongwith police report and which prosecution proposes to use against accused must be furnished to accused as per mandate of Section 207 of 1973 Code.(2) Furnishing of documents to accused under Section 207 of 1973 Code is a facet of right of accused to a fair trial enshrined in Article 21 of Constitution.(3) When statute is unambiguous, Court must adopt plain and natural meaning irrespective of consequences.

of Court – Contents of memory card/pen drive being electronic record must be regarded as a document – If prosecution is relying ... to accused – All documents including “electronic record” produced for inspection of Court alongwith police report and which prosecution ... clearly takes within its fold documentary evidence to mean and include all documents including electronic records produced for inspection ... to be proved by production of the original document [As to the admissibility of examined or certified copies of public documents ... It is crystal clear that all documents including “electronic record” produced for the inspection ... It must be borne in mind that there is a distinction between a document used as a record

India - Supreme Court

8. State Of Gujarat VS Mahendrakumar Parshottambhai Desai (Dead) by L. Rs. - 10 Apr 06

1. Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked by a party to fill up the lacunae in a case.2. When the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as by the High Court are based on the evidence on record, are reasonable and suffer from no illegality, they do not deserve to be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

He admitted this fact after referring to the original Fesal Patrak of which the appellants had produced certified copy, Ext. 458. ... concurred with the finding of the trial court and held that it had rightly relied upon the Fesal Patrak and was justified in not placing ... The State found itself in a dilemma when confronted with two sets of documents conflicting with each other. ... The documents sought to be brought on record are not documents which were discovered latter or came into existence after the filing ... He admitted this fact after referring to the original Fesal Patrak of which the appellants had produced certified copy, Ext. 458. ... The documents are part of the Government records and they could have been produced in the suit.

India - Supreme Court

9. Md. Sarfaraz @ Bonu VS Union of India - 09 Aug 19

(1) Voluntary statements of appellants recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act can be used as corroborative evidence to bolster prosecution case.(2) Decision of Supreme Court cannot be assailed on the ground that certain aspects were not considered or relevant provisions were not brought to notice of Court. (3) Technological progress in recording evidence via electronic/video linkage is a boon and ought to effectively utilized to improve quality of dispensation of justice.

Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal ... [including electronic records] produced for the inspection of the court; The learned counsel for the accused shall assist the trial court, to ensure, that the above procedure is adopted, by placing

India - Crimes

10. ALEX P. V. VS STATE OF KERALA - 13 Jul 21

Point of law :Date of Birth – Proof of - entry regarding date of birth contained in the school register and the secondary school examination has no probative value if no person on whose information the date of birth of the candidate was entered in the school records was examined. The entry contained in the admission form or the school register must be shown to be made based on the information given by the parents or a person having special knowledge about the date of birth of the person concerned. The date of birth of the candidate as contained in the document must be proved by admissible evidence ie: by the evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe the truth of the facts in issue

imposed under S.42 of that Act Finding of the court :In absence of any such evidence, document ... information to be entered in School Register – Court reiterate, mother was examined, but this crucial fact was not elicited – Court find document ... If the document produced by the prosecution is not a public document or a certified copy ... We have gone through the certified copy of the judgment in another case of sexual molestation ... It results in alienation from society, placing the victim and her family in a pall of shame

India - Kerala

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next