The **Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)** case is a landmark judgment that established the **āBasic Structure Doctrineā** in Indian constitutional law. The Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it **cannot alter or destroy the Constitutionās basic structure or framework**, including fundamental rights, secularism, and federalism. This doctrine safeguards constitutional supremacy by limiting Parliamentās amending power, ensuring the preservation of core constitutional values and protecting democracy against arbitrary changes. It remains a cornerstone of Indian constitutional jurisprudence.
Posted on Jun 01, 2025
The **Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)** case is a landmark judgment that established the **āBasic Structure Doctrineā** in Indian constitutional law. The Supreme Court ruled that while Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution under Article 368, it **cannot alter or destroy the Constitutionās basic structure or framework**, including fundamental rights, secularism, and federalism. This doctrine safeguards constitutional supremacy by limiting Parliamentās amending power, ensuring the preservation of core constitutional values and protecting democracy against arbitrary changes. It remains a cornerstone of Indian constitutional jurisprudence.
Posted on Jun 01, 2025
The death penalty in India is constitutionally valid but is considered an exception to the general rule of life imprisonment. The Supreme Court, in *Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab* (1980), upheld its validity under Article 21 (right to life) but restricted its application to the ārarest of rareā cases to ensure it is not imposed arbitrarily. Subsequent judgments like *Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab* (1983) further clarified guidelines for its application. The Court balances the right to life with the need for justice and deterrence, maintaining the death penalty as constitutional but subject to strict judicial scrutiny.
Posted on Jun 01, 2025
Remedies for breach of contract in India include damages (compensatory, nominal, or liquidated), rescission, restitution, injunction, and specific performance. The principle of **specific performance**, governed by the Specific Relief Act, 1963, compels the defaulting party to fulfill their contractual obligations when monetary compensation is inadequate, especially in contracts involving unique goods or immovable property. Courts grant it at their discretion, subject to fairness and feasibility.
Posted on Jun 01, 2025
Adverse possession in India allows a person to claim ownership of property if they have possessed it openly, continuously, and hostilely to the true ownerās interests for 12 years (under the Limitation Act, 1963). It extinguishes the original owner's title after the limitation period, effectively transferring ownership to the possessor, raising concerns over constitutional rights to property under Article 300A.
Posted on Jun 01, 2025
Under Indian law (Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882), a valid gift requires voluntary transfer of property by the donor to the donee without consideration, acceptance by the donee during the donorās lifetime, and must be in writing and registered if immovable. A gift can be revoked only by mutual agreement or on grounds of fraud, coercion, or undue influence.
Posted on Jun 01, 2025
Yes, parties in a cheque bounce case can settle the dispute outside the court, as the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is compoundable. The court may close the case based on the settlement.
Posted on May 29, 2025
Yes, the court can close proceedings in a cheque bounce case without the complainantās consent if the offence is compounded under Section 147 of the NI Act, or if the complaint is found to be false, frivolous, or not maintainable in law.
Posted on May 29, 2025
Habeas corpus is a legal writ that means "to produce the body." It is used to protect individual freedom by ordering a person who is detaining someone to bring them before the court to justify the detention.
Posted on May 29, 2025
Double jeopardy means a person cannot be tried or punished twice for the same offence after a valid acquittal or conviction. It is a legal protection under Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution.