Case Law

United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) Facts of the Case: The defendants argued that the use of this device was a Fourth Amendment violation. The device in question was described as a beeper that could only be tracked from a short distance. During a single trip, officers followed a car containing the beeper, relying on beeper signal to determine the car's final destination. The Court unanimously held that since the use of such a device did not violate a legitimate expectation of privacy there was no search and seizure and thus the use was allowed without a warrant. It reasoned that a person traveling in public has no expectation of privacy in one's movements. Since there was no search and seizure there was not a Fourth Amendment violation. Reason for Approaching the Court of Law: Minnesota law enforcement agents suspected that one of the defendants was purchasing chloroform for the manufacture of methamphetamine, an illegal drug, and arranged with the manufacturer to have...

  P RATHINAM V UNION OF INDIA [1994 AIR 1844] BACKGROUND OF THE CASE: P. Rathinam and Nagbhushan Patnaik had filed petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court took into consideration various judicial and legal thinking on the subject matter, some of which are briefly discussed in the article.     FACTS OF THE CASE: was the first case that the Supreme Court of India decided in respect of Section 309, IPC. The provision criminalized an attempt to commit suicide. Suicide is generally defined as ‘the action of killing oneself intentionally’. This is the only section in the Indian Penal Code where punishment could be meted for an unsuccessful act only and never for a successful one. In other words, suicide is not a crime, its attempt is. REASON FOR APPROACHING THE COURT F LAW: If a person makes the decision to terminate his life and the same results in death, the person is relieved from agony, pain, and su...

  GIAN KAUR V STATE OF PUNJAB [1996 AIR 946]   Facts of the case : Section 306 punishes anyone who abets the commission of suicide, while Section 309 punishes anyone who attempts to commit suicide. It was argued that, as held in P. Rathinam v. Union of India, the Article 21 right to life includes the right to die. So, a person abetting suicide is merely assisting in the enforcement of Article 21. A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court overruled P. Rathinam.  Gian Kaur and her husband Harbans Singh were convicted by a Trial Court under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to six years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- for abetting the suicide by Ms. Kulwant Kaur. Decision of the court: It held that P. Rathinam was wrong on the analogy that other fundamental rights include the “right not to” since the right not to speak (going by the illustration P. Rathinam used) is an omission, while a taking a life is an act.

  Campbell v. Paddington Corporation [1911-1 KB 869] Background: In that case the plaintiff was in possession of a house in London from the windows of which there was an uninterrupted view of part of a certain main thoroughfare along which it was announced that a public procession was to pass.  Reason to approach the Court of Law: The plaintiff rented out certain seats on the first and second floors of the house in order to see the procession. The defendants, a Metropolitan Borough in pursuance of a resolution of their Council to that effect caused a stand to be erected as regards a certain highway in which the plaintiff’s house was situated to enable the members of the Council and their friends to view the procession. On account of this obstruction, the prospective lessees refused to come to observe the procession from the plaintiff’s house. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of damages. Decision Held: It was held in that case that the Metropolitan Borough was not enti...

Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1986 AIR 180)  Facts of the case: This case came before the Court as a writ petition in 1985, by pavement and slum dwellers in Bombay (Now Mumbai), seeking to be allowed to stay on the pavements against their order of eviction during the monsoon months by the Bombay Municipal Corporation. Reason for approaching the court of law: The case helped the propertied classes, lawyers often cite the case to justify eviction of tenants and slum dwellers. But it also helps the slum dwellers, the Government can't evict them summarily. The case also spawned a lot of interest in fighting for housing as a fundamental right but if you were a pavement dweller, it is just not enough. The pavement dwellers were evicted without resettlement. Since 1985, the principles in this case have been affirmed in many subsequent decisions, frequently leading to large-scale evictions without resettlement. Decision of the court: The Chief Justice of India, Justice Y.V...

 White v White ([2000] UKHL 54)   Facts: An English family law decision by the House of Lords, and also a landmark case related to redistribution of finances as well as property after divorce.  Reason for approaching the court of law: This case involved a couple with assets exceeding £4.5m which was deemed more than either needs for their reasonable requirements. Decision of the court: It was held by the house of lords that the absence of financial need did not mean departing from a more generous settlement for an applicant in big money cases. This, therefore, enables the courts to make settlements reflecting the wealth of the parties, and not just their needs and requirements.

 BIHAR EASTERN GANGETIC FISHERMEN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD v. SIPAHI SINGH (1977) 4 SCC 145  FACTS OF THE CASE:  The fishery rights in the Gangapath Islampur Jalkar which was with the Fishermen Cooperative Society from 1974 to 1975 for Rs. 150000 was made in favour of the respondent Sipahi Singh for the period 1975 to 1976 as a result of the public auction at which he offered the highest bid of Rs. 165000.  However, the respondent requested for a remission in the amount at which the settlement had been made in his favour, on the ground that he had suffered a heavy loss during the year 1975-76, due to the unlawful activities of the appellants and if this was not possible, then in the alternative give him a continuance of fishery rights for the years 1976-1977 and 1977-1978 so that he could recoup his losses. The Government agreed to extend the time for his fishery rights in consideration of a deposit of Rs 165000. However, the government changed its mind later and sett...