Cases Citing Section 80
Statute: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
undefined INSC 280 • Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)
available. It is apt and proper to refer the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Parvati Devi @ Parvati Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2024 (1) BLJ 178 held as follows: Patna High Court CWJC No.426 of 2022 dt.26-11-2024 6/8 “5. This Court would also refer ...
Read Full Judgment Analysis →2014 8 SCC 273 • Supreme Court of India
FACTS: Anticipatory bail application in a Section 498A IPC cruelty case. Held: Arrest should not be the default action in offences carrying punishment of less than 7 years. Ratio: Police must comply with Section 41A CrPC (now Section 35 BNSS) notice guidelines before executing arrest....
Read Full Judgment Analysis →1978 1 SCC 248 • Supreme Court of India
FACTS: Petitioner's passport was impounded without giving reasons. Held: Article 21 procedure must be 'just, fair, and reasonable', not arbitrary or oppressive. Ratio: Expanded Article 21 scope, introducing substantive due process principles into Indian jurisprudence....
Read Full Judgment Analysis →undefined INSC 822 • Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1113 of 2020 ====================================================== Sangita Mandal Wife of Lakshman Mandal Resident of Nirsa Nagar, P.S. and District- Hatiya (Jharkhand) at present residing in the house of Gopal Kumar, 3LF/4/27...
Read Full Judgment Analysis →1973 4 SCC 225 • Supreme Court of India
FACTS: Challenged Kerala Land Reforms Act. 13-judge bench reviewed parliament's power to amend the Constitution. Held: Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, but cannot alter or destroy the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution. Ratio: Basic Structure doctri...
Read Full Judgment Analysis →undefined INSC 245 • Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)
appointment letter and in his place, the respondent no. 8 was selected as Aganwadi Sevika. 4. On the other hand, the respondent no. 8 obtained only 58.60 % marks, much less than the petitioner, who obtained 76% marks, nonetheless her case was placed for consideration and, as such,...
Read Full Judgment Analysis →undefined INSC 868 • Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)
authorities shall take action against the petitioner in accordance with law. 6.A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the State in which he has stated that any degree of Tribhuwan University, Nepal has been declared ‘not valid’ for appointment of regular/Niyojit teachers. All niyojan units were ...
Read Full Judgment Analysis →undefined INSC 247 • Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1412 of 2020 ====================================================== Archana Kumari Wife of Sri Pawan Kumar Singh, Resident of Village- Jagdishpur, P.O. and P.S.- Jagdishpur, District- West Champaran at Bettiah. ... ... Petiti...
Read Full Judgment Analysis →2013 2 SCC 1 • Supreme Court of India
FACTS: Petition seeking action for police failure to register an FIR for kidnapping. Held: Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC (now Section 173 BNSS) if the information discloses a cognizable offence. Ratio: No preliminary inquiry is permitted if cognizable offence is disclosed; ...
Read Full Judgment Analysis →2017 10 SCC 1 • Supreme Court of India
FACTS: Challenged Aadhaar biometrics scheme as violating privacy. Held: Right to Privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Ratio: Privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty, subject to proportionality tests for state restrictions....
Read Full Judgment Analysis →