Search cases

State of Maharashtra vs Michael Ferreira and others — QNet case

Former world billiards champion Michael Ferreira and others were charged by the Mumbai Economic Offences Wing in connection with an alleged Rs 425-crore investor scam linked to QNet. Following his arrest, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to Ferreira on 28 March 2017. The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed a plea from the Maharashtra government on 13 July 2017, maintaining a stay on further FIRs against him regarding the matter.

State vs Mukesh Singh and others — December 16 gangrape and murder case

The Supreme Court upheld the death sentences of four convicts involved in the 2012 gangrape and murder of a woman in Delhi. The court categorized the incident as a 'rarest of rare' case.

State (Karnataka) vs. J. Jayalalithaa and others

A long-standing corruption and disproportionate assets case involving former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa and her associates, including V.K. Sasikala. The Supreme Court delivered a verdict in 2017 confirming convictions in the matter.

State of Punjab vs Jagjit Singh — Equal pay for contractual employees

In the case of State of Punjab vs Jagjit Singh, the Supreme Court ruled that the principle of equal pay for equal work applies to temporary, daily wage, and contractual employees in government services. This landmark judgment, which ensures these workers receive wages equivalent to permanent staff for performing the same duties, was delivered on 26 October 2016 as reported on 27 October 2016.

Teesta Setalvad vs Union of India — Hindutva definition judgment review petition

Social activist Teesta Setalvad filed a plea seeking a review of the Supreme Court's 1995 judgment, which defined Hindutva as a 'way of life'. The Supreme Court declined to entertain the plea to reconsider or revisit the two-decade-old verdict.

State of Kerala vs Govindachamy — Soumya rape and murder case

Govindachamy was accused and convicted for the 2011 rape and murder of 23-year-old Soumya. The Supreme Court of India commuted his previously awarded death sentence to 14 years of imprisonment.

Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar

The Supreme Court reaffirmed its 1962 ruling in this matter, clarifying that criticism of the government does not constitute sedition unless it incites violence.

Sankalp Charitable Trust vs Union of India — NEET Medical Entrance

This matter involved petitions seeking the implementation of a single common entrance test for MBBS, BDS and PG medical courses across India. The Supreme Court recalled its previous 2013 judgment and ordered that admissions be conducted through the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET).

National Legal Services Authority vs Union of India — Transgender rights case

Following the 2014 Supreme Court judgment recognizing transgender people as a third gender and directing the government to provide social welfare, activists have reported that implementation of these benefits remains slow and inadequate. State governments are beginning to introduce specific welfare measures like pensions and housing.

Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India — Criminal Defamation

A batch of petitions challenged the constitutional validity of the criminal defamation provisions in the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court upheld the validity, ruling that the right to reputation is a protected facet of the Right to Life under Article 21.

Common Cause vs Union of India

This matter involves a challenge to the government's practice of including photographs of political figures in public-funded advertisements. The Supreme Court initially restricted the use of photographs, then later modified its order to permit the inclusion of Union and Chief Ministers, Governors, and other state ministers.

Naz Foundation (India) Trust vs Suresh Kumar Koushal and Another

This case concerns the legality of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code regarding consensual same-sex relations. The Supreme Court decided to refer curative petitions seeking a re-examination of its 2013 verdict that had criminalized such activity to a five-judge bench.

State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation — Yadav Singh case

The Supreme Court dismissed a petition by the Uttar Pradesh government challenging the Allahabad High Court's order directing a CBI investigation into the financial activities of Noida former Chief Engineer Yadav Singh.

State of Maharashtra vs Salman Khan — 2002 Hit-and-Run Case

Bollywood actor Salman Khan was involved in a 2002 hit-and-run incident in Mumbai that resulted in casualties. Although the Bombay High Court acquitted the actor of his conviction on 10 December 2015, the Maharashtra state government challenged this decision in the Supreme Court as reported on 23 January 2016.

Union of India vs. V. Sriharan @ Murugan & Others

The Supreme Court considered the scope of remission powers regarding life convicts, particularly in cases involving life imprisonment instead of the death penalty.

In re: Challenge to the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act

The Supreme Court of India struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act as unconstitutional and void on 16 October 2015. The Court held that legislative involvement in judicial appointments threatened judicial independence, despite criticism from government figures regarding the decision as reported on 19 October 2015.

State vs. Vikas Yadav and Vishal Yadav — Nitish Katara murder case

Vikas and Vishal Yadav were convicted for the 2002 murder of Nitish Katara. The Supreme Court heard appeals regarding the death penalty for the convicts.

Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) vs. Cricket Association of Bihar and Others — IPL Spot-Fixing Case

This case pertains to the Lodha Committee's investigation into allegations of spot-fixing and betting in the Indian Premier League. The committee recommended suspension of the Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals franchises, which were challenged in court.

Ram Singh and others vs Union of India — Jat reservation case

The Supreme Court quashed the Central government's notification that included the Jat community in the Central List of Other Backward Classes (OBC), thereby denying them the benefit of job and educational reservations. The Court held that the government's decision was based on flawed conclusions about the social backwardness of the community.