Skip to main content
Citation Index • Supreme Court

Cases Citing Section 257

Statute: Constitution of India (Constitution)

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248

1978 1 SCC 248Supreme Court of India

71% Match

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 →
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225

1973 4 SCC 225Supreme Court of India

71% Match

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 →
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273

2014 8 SCC 273Supreme Court of India

71% Match

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 →
Bharat Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 130Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

71% Match

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 222-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence under Section 33(1) / 66 of the Indian Forest (Bihar Amendment 1989) Ac...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Kaushal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 231Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

70% Match

by which the petitioner has been dismissed from the service and further to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the final Patna High Court CWJC No.2681 of 2019 dt.12-02-2024 2/3 order of punishment has been passed by the order ...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP (2013) 2 SCC 1

2013 2 SCC 1Supreme Court of India

70% Match

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 →
Ramji Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 293Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

counsel appearing on behalf of appellants and learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.10.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.249 of 2024(3) dt.12-09-2024 2/2 Motihari, East Champaran in con...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

2017 10 SCC 1Supreme Court of India

69% Match

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 →
Bharat Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 277Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11542 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-264 Year-2022 Thana- FOREST (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL) District- Jamui ====================================================== 1.Bharat Yadav Son of Ganesh Yadav R/o vill - Baijala, P.S. - Jhajha,...

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
Deepak Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

undefined INSC 890Patnahcucisdb94 High Court (10 8)

69% Match

mining of sand. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the petitioner is neither the owner nor the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4209 of 2024(2) dt.17-02-2024 2/3 driver of the tractor and trailor....

Read Full Judgment Analysis →
← Previous PagePage 1Next Page →