Are you looking for most important judgements 2019?
This is the most common search every year to know about the latest case laws.
Well, you have come to the right place as I am curating here some of those key judgements.
This is an ultimate guide to the list of most important Supreme Court case laws in 2019.
Whether you are a lawyer, a student or competitive exam aspirant, you will find this collection really useful.
This covers an elaborative list of case laws to be read to enhance your legal knowledge.
Let’s start the list of landmark judgements of Supreme Court for 2019 with some videos from my Youtube channel. Subscribe now if you haven’t done that already.
Table of Contents
- 1 15 most important Supreme Court Judgements in 2019
- 1.0.1 #1. Ritesh Sinha V. State of UP
- 1.0.2 #2. Federation of Obstetric and Gynecological Societies of India V. Union of India
- 1.0.3 #3. Nevada Properties Pvt. Ltd. V. State of Maharashtra & Others
- 1.0.4 #4. The State of Arunachal Pradesh V. Ram Chandra Rabidas @ Ratan Rabidas & Others
- 1.0.5 #5. Union of India V. Associaton of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India
- 1.0.6 #6. Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Others V. Manjit Kaur & Others
- 1.0.7 #7. Ayodhya – Babri Masjid Dispute
- 1.0.8 #8. Anokhilal V. State of MP
- 1.0.9 #9. P. Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep V. State of Kerala
- 1.0.10 #10. Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya & Others V. The State of Gujarat
- 1.0.11 #11. Yashwant Sinha & Others V. CBI & Others
- 1.0.12 #12. Central Public Information Officer, SCI vs Subhash Chandra Aggarwal
- 1.0.13 #13. Rajendra Diwan v Pradeep Kumar Ranibala
- 1.0.14 #14. P Chidambaram V. CBI
- 1.0.15 #15. The Branch Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Smt. Mousumi Bhattacharjee & Ors.
15 most important Supreme Court Judgements in 2019
#1. Ritesh Sinha V. State of UP
Keeping in view the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution.
Judicial Magistrate for the purpose of investigation of a crime can order a person (accused) to provide a sample of his voice.
#2. Federation of Obstetric and Gynecological Societies of India V. Union of India
- Contents of Form ‘F’ mandatory ( complete contents )
- Section 23 of the Act is reasonable.
- Non – maintenance of record is not a clerical error.
- Prohibition of Sex Selection Act, 1994.
- The Supreme Court upheld parts of the Act.
- It can punish gynaecologist or RMP ( Registered Medical Practitioner ) who violates the provisions of this Act.
What is Form F?
It is a form to be filled by pregnant women who undergo scan; includes basic information like name, age, address, etc.
You can view this video regarding important criminal law cases below:
#3. Nevada Properties Pvt. Ltd. V. State of Maharashtra & Others
It was held that ‘any property’ the phrase covered under Section 102 Criminal Procedure Code will not cover Immovable property.
- Police do not have the power to attach Immovable Property during an investigation under Section 102 Criminal Procedure Code.
- Section 102 Criminal Procedure Code not covers Immovable Property.
- It covers Movable property.
- In simple terms, the purpose of the section is to seize any property which is alleged or suspected to have been stolen as movable property can be stolen.
- Immovable property cannot be stolen and is not capable of physical custody nor can be produced in the Court.
#4. The State of Arunachal Pradesh V. Ram Chandra Rabidas @ Ratan Rabidas & Others
The directions issued by Gauhati High Court to the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland ( instructions to subordinate officers ) to prosecute the lawbreakers in Motor Vehicle accidents under the Motor Vehicle provisions and not the Indian Penal Code was set aside.
You can also view the most important Case Laws of Code of Civil Procedure ( CPC ):
Moving on to the list of landmark judgements Supreme Court of India 2019.
#5. Union of India V. Associaton of Unified Telecom Service Providers of India
- AGR Judgement ( Adjusted Gross Revenue )
- Definition of Gross Revenue litigated upon.
- Supreme Court allowed the Centre’s plea to recover adjusted Gross Revenue from Telecom Companies.
#6. Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Others V. Manjit Kaur & Others
It was held by the Court that, Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963:
- Not only enables a person to set up a plea of adverse possession as a shield as a defendant
- but also allows a plaintiff to use it as a sword
- to protect the possession of immovable property
- or to recover it in case of dispossession.
Evidence Act; List of Case Laws:
#7. Ayodhya – Babri Masjid Dispute
This was one of the most anticipated landmark verdicts of the Supreme Court in 2019.
The Supreme Court held that entire dispute land measuring 2.77 acres in Ayodhya handed over for the construction of Ram Mandir and directed the Government to allocate 5 acres land for the construction of a mosque.
#8. Anokhilal V. State of MP
Guidelines to be followed in a matter of appointment of amicus curiae to defend the accused in serious criminal cases.
- In all cases where there is a possibility of a life sentence or death sentence, learned Advocates who have put in a minimum of 10 years practice at the Bar alone be considered to be appointed as Amicus Curiae or through legal services to represent an accused.
- In all matters dealt with by the High Court concerning confirmation of death sentence, Senior Advocates of the Court must first be considered to be appointed as Amicus Curiae.
- Whenever any learned counsel is appointed as Amicus Curiae, some reasonable time may be provided to enable the counsel to prepare the matter.
Check the Indian Penal Code case laws:
#9. P. Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep V. State of Kerala
- The Court observed that a Magistrate cannot withhold any “document” submitted by the IO along with the Police Report except when it is voluminous.
- Memory Card is a material object and will come under the purview of Section 207 Criminal Procedure Code.
*Note: In order to have a better hold of different subjects and list of Case laws, try to make a separate list of important landmark judgements and revise at regular intervals.
#10. Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya & Others V. The State of Gujarat
A magistrate can invoke the power under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code even at post cognizance stage read with Section 156(1), Section 2(h) and Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CRPC).
#11. Yashwant Sinha & Others V. CBI & Others
The official secrets act does not bar placing of the documents in Court for adjudication.
#12. Central Public Information Officer, SCI vs Subhash Chandra Aggarwal
Right to Information is applicable to the office of Chief Justice of India.
Case Laws related to Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code (Maintenance):
#13. Rajendra Diwan v Pradeep Kumar Ranibala
This was another important judgement delivered by the Supreme Court in 2019.
The Supreme Court in effect held that the power of the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, being an inviolable basic feature of the Constitution such power cannot be abrogated by statutory enactment or for that matter even by constitutional amendment. L Chandrakumar (supra) cannot be construed to enlarge the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and 227, to enable it to exercise appellate powers.
Section 13(2) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011, is unconstitutional.
#14. P Chidambaram V. CBI
P Chidambaram – INX Media scam – Bail Granted
Status/Stage: DISPOSED (Final Hearing) Leave Granted & Allowed-Ord dt:22-10-2019 (Disposal Date: 22-10-2019, Month: 10, Year: 2019)
JUDGES: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
#15. The Branch Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Smt. Mousumi Bhattacharjee & Ors.
Area of ‘Accident Insurance’ defined
“19 Recently, in Gloria Wells v Minnesota Life Insurance Company17, the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, dealt with a case where the question of law before the court was whether death caused by a bite of a mosquito carrying West Nile Encephalitis virus in Texas was covered under an accidental death insurance policy. The Court while remanding the case to the lower court on the disputed issue of facts, observed that the determinate, single act of a mosquito bite was not incidental to a body process and the mosquito, an external force produced an unforeseen result. However, this may be distinguished from the facts in the present case. Malaria is most commonly transmitted to humans through malaria virus infested mosquito bites, and when a virus is contracted through normal means brought about by everyday life it cannot be deemed to be an unexpected or unforeseen accident.”
There you go – a detailed list of the 15 most important judgements in 2019 delivered by Supreme Court of India.
Do drop a comment below if you think there’s another important case that should be on the list for 2019.
A few days ago I put together a list of top tips to prepare for Judiciary Examination – do check it out.