Legal Updates

· M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. Union of India (1962), the court stated that Right to Privacy is not a fundamental right.

· Kharak Singh v. Union of India (1962) that Article 21 (right to life) was the repository of residuary personal rights and recognized the common law right to privacy

· the Apex Court in the case of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) stated that Right to Privacy is a fundamental Right.

· Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009), Supreme Court recognized that a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy is a dimension of Article 21 of the Constitution of India

· Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) z The Supreme Court in this case considered the constitutionality of various neuroscientific investigative techniques including narcoanalysis, BEAP (Brain Electrical Activation Profile) or ‘brain mapping’, and polygraph tests. z The court opined that a narcoanalysis test without the consent of the accused would amount to violation of the right against self–incrimination.

· In Jigar alias Jimmy Pravinchandra Adatiya v. State of Gujarat (2022) the Supreme Court has held that failure to produce accused before Court while considering application for extension of time to investigate amounts to violation of his fundamental rights.

· In Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, the Supreme Court has stated that an accused cannot be made to remain behind the bars for an indefinite period under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 just because the law requires a court’s satisfaction that the person is not guilty.

· In the case of A.N.Patel v. State of Gujarat (2003) the court stressed upon the fact that NDPS Act cases should be tried as early as possible as in such cases normally accused is not released on bail.

· Bombay High Court has ordered the release of a 30–year–old man convicted in 41 theft cases and sentenced to over 83 years in prison. The court further added that and since he is not in a position to pay the fine, for non–payment of the fine amount, he would require to undergo imprisonment of further 10 years 1 month and 26 days i.e. a total of 93 years 5 months. The court was hearing a criminal writ petition of Aslam Salim Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra.

· High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Kailash Sharma v. State of MP & Ors., has quashed rape case and held that an adolescent in the age group of 17 or 18 years would be capable of making “conscious decisions regarding his or her well–being”.

· the Bombay High Court in the matter of Ashik Ramjan Ansari v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., said that several countries have reduced the age of consent for adolescents to have a consensual sexual relationship and our Country and Parliament should also take note of the happenings around the world.

· In AK v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi (2022), the HC stated that the intention of POCSO Act, 2012 was to protect children below the age of 18 years from sexual exploitation and not to criminalize romantic relationships between consenting young adults.

· Delhi High Court has in the matter of Naresh Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. Said that it will go a long way in ensuring speedy and effective justice system and called for judicial reforms to deal with frivolous litigations.

· In Gurdip Kaur v. Ghamand Singh (1964), it was held by the court that the ancestral property was said to be a property inherited from a father, father’s father or great grandfather.

· In Laxmi v. Union of India (2013), the Supreme Court outlined that establishments selling acid would need a license to do so and have to be registered under the Poisons Act 1919 and issued certain guidelines

· The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi Government that a survey be conducted for all pending applications in regard of ration cards and decide if the persons will be entitled to receive the food security allowance in the matter of Shabnam v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors and other connected matter.