List of Good Judgements by Indian Courts

With due respect to all the Bharatiya (Indian) Courts and Judicial system, following are some of the court cases, decisions, notes, and judgment that I agree and appreciate. These for everyone's knowledge and to help us all become informed of the precedence set by Courts in Bharat (India).

1. SC disallows Muslim student to sport beard

   Rejecting the plea of a Muslim student that he should be permitted to sport beard in his convent school, the Supreme Court on Monday observed secularism cannot be overstretched and that “Talibanisation” of the country cannot be permitted.
   
   “We don’t want to have Taliban in the country. Tomorrow a girl student may come and say that she wants to wear a burqa, can we allow it?” Justice Markandeya Katju, speaking for a Bench headed by Justice Raveendran, observed.
   
   Asserting that he was a secularist to the core, Justice Katju, however, said religious beliefs cannot be overstretched. “I am secularist. We should strike a balance between rights and personal beliefs. We cannot overstretch secularism,” the judge known for his incisive remarks said.
   
   Justice Katju passed the observation while dismissing the petition of the student. Mohammad Salim of Nirmala Convent Higher Secondary School, a Government-recognised minority institution in Madhya Pradesh, has sought quashing of the school regulation requiring students to be clean-shaven.
   
   Challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court verdict that had earlier dismissed his plea, Salim submitted that every citizen was entitled to follow his religious principles and that no one should restrain him from doing so in a secular country like India.
   
   Salim’s counsel Justice (Retd) BA Khan argued before the bench that sporting beard was an indispensable part of Islam.
   
   But Justice Katju was apparently not impressed with the argument and quipped, “But you (Khan) don’t sport a beard?” the judge asked the counsel.
   
   The apex court then said that a minority institution has its own set of rules and rights provided by Article 30 of the Constitution and the same cannot be breached by any person.
   
   “If there are rules you have to be. You can’t say that I will not wear a uniform I will wear only a burqa,” the bench observed.
   
   The court further said if the student was not interested in following the rules then he has the option of joining some other institution.
   
   “You can join some other institution if you do not want to observe the rules. But you can’t ask the school to change the rules for you,” Justice Katju observed.



2. Renting DVDs bought in US illegal: Delhi High Court


3. Income of accident victim's kin, relief amount not linked: Delhi High Court on December 30, 2008

   Income of an accident victim's family members should not have any bearing on the amount of compensation that they are entitled to after the incident, the Delhi High Court has held.
   
   "Salary earned by (victim's) wife was due to the work put in by her and could not be adjusted or treated as compensation for the loss of earning of her husband. Salary earned by her could not be equated with the compensation she was entitled to on account of death of her husband," Justice V B Gupta said.
   
   "The Tribunal erred in recording a finding that the salary earned by her would compensate for the loss of salary which was being earned by the deceased. Whatever salary she got after employment was in lieu of services rendered by her. The same does not mean that there was no loss of dependency," the court said, awarding her a compensation of Rs 20 lakh.
   
   The court passed the order on a petition filed by National Assurance Co. Ltd. pleading that the deceased was not entitled to any claim as driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident and the wife of deceased got a job on compassionate ground.



4. Pray, but within boundaries: Delhi High Court by Harish V. Nair, Hindustan Times on April 21, 2010

   The Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed police to ensure that devotees at a mosque inside a Kalkaji housing society complex confine themselves within its premises while offering prayers.
   
   The court was hearing a contempt petition filed by RWA of Aravali Apartments against Police Commissioner Y.S. Dadwal. RWA said police did not comply with a January 2009 order to prevent devotees from encroaching on to the pavements, roads, bylanes and parks near the apartments.
   
   Residents complained that this happened more during Fridays and festivals.
   
   Residents had claimed before the court that “the mosque was an unauthorized construction and an encroachment on public land” and sought its removal. But Delhi Wakf Board argued that the masjid — being in existence for over 100 years — was protected by the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.
   
   Refraining from a decision on the legality of the construction, the High Court in January 2009 gave the parties the liberty to approach a civil court in this regard. The judges dealing with the delicate issue of right to movement vs religious freedom had to do a balancing act.
   
   Holding that “the namazis have a right to offer their namaz within the boundary of the mosque subject to the determination of the ultimate question in civil proceedings”, they however made it clear that the rights “cannot imply a right to...occupy the area beyond the precincts of the mosque”.