1. Common Cause (A Regd. Society) VS Union of India - 09 Mar 18

The right of a dying man to die with dignity when life is ebbing out, and in the case of a terminally ill patient or a person in PVS, where there is no hope of recovery, accelerating the process of death for reducing the period of suffering constitutes a right to live with dignity.There is an inherent difference between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia.The right to live with dignity has been recognized as a component of right to life and liberty.The right to live with dignity also includes the smoothening of the process of dying in case of a terminally ill patient or a person in PVS with no hope of recovery. In cases of terminally ill persons or PVS patients where there is no hope for revival, priority shall be given to the Advance Directive and the right of self-determination.In the absence of Advance Directive, the procedure provided for the said category hereinbefore shall be applicable.When passive euthanasia as a situational palliative measure becomes applicable, the best interest of the patient shall override the State interest.

her terminal condition – Not exclusively associated with end of life decisions – To express choice of a person regarding medical ... so competent person – Both within fold of Article 21. ... anybody – It is avoidance of unnecessary intrusion in the physical frame of a person. ... Under Section 25(2)(c), an advance decision will not be applicable if a person has done anything else clearly inconsistent with the ... as a criminal offence. ... to the person making the decision, unless the decision is at the material time - (a) valid, and (b) applicable to the treatment

India - Supreme Court

2. Balbir Singh Bedi VS State of Punjab - 11 Feb 13

Seniority-cum-merit - as basis of promotion.

on "seniority-cum-merit", a person lower in the seniority list, can be promoted, ignoring claim of senior person, who failed to ... (a) Service Law - Promotion - Seniority Cum merit - Means that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration ... senior, though less meritorious, shall have priority - The candidates service record should be considered in totality - In case of promotion ... He, then claimed to have become eligible for substantive promotion to the post of Battalion Commander as per the rules applicable ... It is evident from the material on record i.e. from the counter- affidavit filed by the State that appellant faced criminal prosecution ... This benchmark will determine the fitness of the officer and person graded ‘Very Good’ or ‘Outstanding’ will not supersede persons

India - Supreme Court

3. Selvi VS State of Karnataka - 05 May 10

VERY 1. No individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the scientific techniques, narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test whether in the context of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise. Doing so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty. 2. Scientific techniques such as narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test cannot be read into the statutory provisions which enable medical examination during investigation in criminal cases, i.e. the Explanation to Sections 53, 53-A and 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. Placing reliance on the results gathered from Scientific techniques such as narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test comes into conflict with the ‘right to fair trial’. 4. It is a settled principle that a statement obtained through coercion, threat or inducement is involuntary and hence inadmissible as evidence during trial , in circumstances where it is shown that a person was indeed compelled to make statements while in custody, relying on such testimony as well as its derivative use will offend Article 20(3). 5. Results obtained through involuntary administration of any of the scientific tests namely narcoanalysis technique, polygraph examination and the BEAP test come within the scope of ‘testimonial compulsion’, thereby attracting the protective shield of Article 20(3). 6. Compulsory administration of any of the scientific tests namely narcoanalysis technique, polygraph examination and BEAP test constitutes ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’ in the context of Article 21.

faces exposure to criminal charges or penalties-Hence held that subjecting a person to the impugned techniques in an involuntary ... proceedings- In administrative and quasi-criminal proceedings, the protection of Article 20(3) becomes available only after a person ... faces exposure to criminal charges or penalties. ... applicable when a person gives his/her informed consent to undergo any of the impugned tests. ... only cases where the person is already exposed to a criminal charge but also instances which will imminently expose him to criminal ... be readily applicable in the case of Lie-Detector tests.

India - Crimes

4. Selvi VS State of Karnataka - 05 May 10

VERY 1. No individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the scientific techniques, narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test whether in the context of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise. Doing so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty. 2. Scientific techniques such as narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test cannot be read into the statutory provisions which enable medical examination during investigation in criminal cases, i.e. the Explanation to Sections 53, 53-A and 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. Placing reliance on the results gathered from scientific techniques such as narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test comes into conflict with the ‘right to fair trial’. 4. It is a settled principle that a statement obtained through coercion, threat or inducement is involuntary and hence inadmissible as evidence during trial , in circumstances where it is shown that a person was indeed compelled to make statements while in custody, relying on such testimony as well as its derivative use will offend Article 20(3). 5. Results obtained through involuntary administration of any of the scientific tests namely narcoanalysis technique, polygraph examination and the BEAP test come within the scope of ‘testimonial compulsion’, thereby attracting the protective shield of Article 20(3). 6. Compulsory administration of any of the scientific tests namely narcoanalysis technique, polygraph examination and BEAP test constitutes ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’ in the context of Article 21.

faces exposure to criminal charges or penalties-Hence held that subjecting a person to the impugned techniques in an involuntary ... proceedings- In administrative and quasi-criminal proceedings, the protection of Article 20(3) becomes available only after a person ... faces exposure to criminal charges or penalties. ... in their promotion. ... However, Article 20(3) is not applicable when a person gives his/her informed consent to undergo any of the impugned tests. ... Article 20(3) is not applicable to a proceeding of a civil nature.

India - Supreme Court

5. Devidas Ramachandra Tuljapurkar VS State of Maharashtra - 14 May 15

‘Poetic licence’ can have individual features, deviate from norm, may form collective characteristics or it may have a linguistic freedom wider than a syntax sentence compass. Freedom of artistic creation cannot be claimed where the work in question constitutes a debasement and debunking of a particular individual’s public standing. Liberty of expression must be moderated by the limits of ‘public order’, ‘decency’ and ‘morality’. It would be obscene if suggestive of depravation or lasciviousness – An artistic work would be obscene if it has the tendency to corrupt the morals of those in whose hands the article may fall. Supreme Court consistently applying contemporary community standards test as the main criterion. The test would vary with time because perception, views, ideas and ideals can never remain static.Preamble of the Constitution has its own sanctity. It encompasses the vision of the Constitution makers and ideals and aspirations of the country and embodies the key to the understanding of the Constitution.Decency or indecency of a particular picture, sequence or scene cannot depend upon the nature of the subject matter. It depends upon the manner of handling of the subject-matter.Factum of obscenity has to be judged from the point of view of an average person.It is not the function of Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; but other way round.Evolving the ‘contemporary community standards test’ for determining obscenity is neither creating an offence u/s 292 IPC or adding an ingredient to the offence already there. There is nothing wrong in using image of Mahatma Gandhi or his voice to communicate his feelings or his anguish or his agony about any situation. However putting in the voice or image of Mahatma Gandhi such language which may be obscene will not be permissible in the name of artistic freedom or critical thinking or generating the idea of creativity.The words by themselves if used in ordinary people’s conversation might have passed the contemporary community standards test and not considered obscene. By use of the name of Mahatma Gandhi the test becomes applicable with more vigour, in a greater degree and in an accentuated manner.When the Publisher immediately after his publication tendered unconditional apology in the next issue of the ‘Bulletin’ and the episode being more than two decades old, deserves quashing of charges u/s 292 IPC against him and the printer.

the applicable test. ... considered obscene – By use of the name of Mahatma Gandhi the test becomes applicable with more vigour, in a greater degree and ... allow an artist, a poet or writer to substantially deform the image of a person by wholly imaginary elements, without it being evident ... obscene, but that is not the applicable test. ... He faced a criminal charge under Section 292 IPC along with the printer, publisher and the selling agent. ... Martens, “Encore la dignité humaine: Réflexions d'un juge sur la promotion par les juges d'une norme suspecte”, in Les droits de

India - Supreme Court

6. 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.

provided under the Act to the enrolments done earlier – Article 20(1), Constitution of India – Application of criminal ... Article 37 State duty bound to apply while making laws – Article 38, 39, 41, 43, 47 oblige State to secure a social order for the promotion ... deprive a person from availing benefits if aythenticatkion fails – The person can establish his/her identity by any other means ... West Ramnad Electric Distribution Co.Ltd. is not applicable. ... This is applicable to natural persons as well as persons who together constitute legal persons (e.g. ... The “least intrusive test” is not applicable in the present case.

India - Supreme Court

7. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary VS Union of India - 27 Jul 22

(1) Offence of money laundering is an independent offence regarding process or activity connected with proceeds of crime which had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled offence – It has nothing to do with criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence.(2) Provisional attachment order – Authorised officer cannot resort to action of provisional attachment of proceeds of crime mechanically – Only upon satisfaction that person possesses proceeds of crime is charged with commission of scheduled offence and that there is likelihood of concealment, can the officer proceed to issue provisional attachment order.(3) Process of searches and seizure is not only for inquiry into process of money laundering but also prevention – Search of a female person can be done only by a female.(4) ED Manual is internal document and in nature of administrative orders – Common public may not be entitled to access such confidential administrative instructions.(5) Offence of money-laundering cannot be registered by jurisdictional police who is governed by regime under Chapter XII of Cr.P.C.(6) Classification or grouping of offences for treating the same as relevant for constituting offence of money laundering is a matter of legislative policy – It is not open to Court to have a second guess at such a policy.

, it would not be necessary to follow strict principle of standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, as applicable in criminal trial ... about criminality of offence under Section 3 of 2002 Act – When this provision is made applicable to proceeding before Authority ... State of Punjab dealing with TADA Act, calling PMLA less heinous than terrorism, overruled – Twin bail conditions is also applicable ... In Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K. ... not be necessary to follow the strict principle of standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, as applicable in criminal trials. ... 50, cannot be applicable to an accused person given the constitutional protections of Articles 20(3) and 21, whereby he has the

India - Supreme Court

8. ABHIRAM SINGH VS C. D. COMMACHEN (DEAD) BY LRS. - 02 Jan 17

By enacting section 123(3) the Parliament intended to provide a check on "undesirable development" of appeals to religion, race, caste, community or language of any candidate.The Court by majority of four to three held that section 123(3) refers to religion of the candidate or his rival and not the voter. Per majorityElection petitions alleging corrupt practices have a quasi-criminal character. Require strict construction."To vote" implies in favour of a particular candidate or not to vote for a rival candidate.Word ‘his’ associates with a person previously mentioned. Used in conjunction with religion, race, caste, community or language is in reference to the religion, race, caste, community or language of the candidate or that of a rival candidate making appeal for votes. Not referring to the religion, race, caste, community or language of the voter. ‘His' religion must hence refer to religion of the candidate or his rival.The statute does not prohibit discussion, debate or dialogue during the course of an election campaign on issues pertaining to religion or on issues of caste, community, race or language. It only prohibits appeal to the voter on that ground. Parliamentary debates and even a speech by the Minister moving a Bill can be utilized as an aid to interpretation. A political agitation for the conservation of the language of a section of citizens is not a corrupt practice. Section 123(3A) does not refer to the religion, race, caste, community or language of a candidate or of a rival candidate in contrast to section 123(3). One cannot be read into the other.Interpretation of section 123(3) that it refers to religion etc of the candidate has endured through the times and many elections. No case made out to have a relook.

veers close to that which guides a criminal trial – a (Para 95, 96) ... & ... Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 123(3) and 123(3A) – Section 123(3A) refers to promotion ... to vote for a rival candidate – Word ‘his’ – Associates with a person previously mentioned – Used in conjunction with religion, ... The standard of proof in an election trial veers close to that which guides a criminal trial ... If Parliament, however long ago, passed an Act applicable to dogs, it could not properly ... criminal nature must be construed strictly.

India - Supreme Court

9. Balbir Singh Bedi VS State of Punjab - 11 Feb 13

Service Law--Promotion Seniority cum merit--Even if a promotion is to be made on the basis of "seniority-cum-merit", a person who ... a promotion is to be made on the basis of "seniority-cum-merit", a person who is lower in the seniority list, can in fact be promoted ... , ignoring the claim of the senior person, who failed to achieve the benchmark i.e. minimum requisite merit. ... Commander as per the rules applicable. ... Similarly, the executive instructions dated 6.9.2001 so far as applicable in the instant case, read ... Moreover, at the relevant point of time, appellant was facing criminal prosecution under

India - Punjab

10. P. D. Agrawal VS State Bank of India - 28 Apr 06

1. In cases of violation of principles of natural justice, the principle of law is that some real prejudice must have been caused to the complainant. The Court has shifted from its earlier concept that even a small violation shall result in the order being rendered a nullity. The principles of natural justice cannot be put in a straight jacket formula. It must be seen in circumstantial flexibility.2. For the purpose of holding that misconduct was condoned by the employer the Court must come to a definite finding as regard the conduct of the employer. Delay in holding disciplinary proceeding only because the criminal proceeding was pending is no ground to hold that there has been a conscious act on the part of the employer to condone the misconduct.3. The question as regard the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment, it is well known, is limited. While exercising the said jurisdiction, the Court only in very exceptional case, interferes therewith.

In this case concept of contract of personal service as is understood in common parlance is not applicable. ... that such a misconduct was not required to be taken into consideration as by reason of the service Rule, promotion was to be granted ... But, only because the criminal proceeding was pending, the same itself may not be a ground to hold that there had been a conscious ... It is, therefore, not a case where the Appellant was exonerated by a criminal court after a full fledged trial by giving benefit ... preponderance of the probability as contrasted with the standard of proof in a criminal trial, i.e., proof beyond all reasonable ... In this case concept of contract of personal service as is understood in common parlance is not applicable.

India - Supreme Court