Patent troubles of Pharma company Novartis (Novartis v Union of India & Others) -

2013==Novartis application which covered a beta crystalline form of imatinib, a

medicine the company brands as "Glivec", which is very effective against chronic
myeloid leukaemia (a common form of cancer) was denied patent protection by the
Intellectual Property Appellate Board. The Supreme Court in its ruling upheld the
boards decision which eventually led to the medicine being made available to the
general public at a much lower cost.

Illegalising convicted MPs and MLAs (Lily Thomas v Union Of India) == cleansing of
legislative bodies.
The Supreme Court of India, in this judgment, ruled that any member of Parliament
(MP), member of the legislative assembly (MLA) or member of a legislative council
(MLC) who was convicted of a crime and awarded a minimum of two-year imprisonment,
would lose membership of the House with immediate effect.

Recognising the Third gender (National Legal Services Authority v Union of India)
==Third gender acknowledged as citizens with rights and ordered the government to
treat them as minorities and extend reservations in jobs, education and other
amenities.

Sheela Barse vs State of Maharashtra (February 15, 1983):

This was a historic judgment that dealt with the issue of custodial violence
against women in prisons.
This resulted in an order facilitating separate police lockups for women convicts
in order to shield them from further trauma and brutality.

Indira Sawhney judgment ==On November 16, 1992, the Supreme Court responded to a
PIL filed by lawyer Indira Sawhney and introduced 27% reservation for backward
classes in posts and services under the Government of India.
Citing the age old Varna system, the court justified its reason for reservation.
The court also spelled out that such a system should not exceed a tenure of ten
years once a particular section is adequately represented in society.

MC Mehta vs Union of India (Pollution in the Ganga)

This judgement delivered on January 12, 1988, lashed out at civic authorities for
allowing untreated sewage from Kanpurs tanneries making its way into the Ganges.It
was the beginning of green litigation in India. In 1996, environmentalist M C
Mehtas PIL, (M C Mehta vs Union of India on December 30, 1996) resulted in
stringent orders against Mathura refineries for polluting the ambient air around
the Taj Mahal.
Yet another PIL by M C Mehta resulted in the CNG verdict (July 28, 1998) that
forced the vehicles in the capital to switch to a different fuel in order to keep a
check on vehicular pollution.

Criminal Defamation law not unconstitutional [Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of

India]. ==The Bench comprising of Justices Dipak Misra and PC.Pant held that the
right to Life under Article 21 includes right to reputation. The Bench has
dismissed the Petitions filed by Subramanian Swamy, Rahul Gandhi and Arvind
Kejriwal challenging the law relating to Criminal Defamation in India....

SC can transfer cases from Jammu & Kashmir Courts to courts outside it and vice
versa [Anita Kushwaha vs. Pushpa Sudan] The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
held that Supreme Court can, by invoking Article 32, 136 and 142 of the
Constitution is empowered to transfer a case from a Court in the State of Jammu and
Kashmir to a Court outside the State or vice versa. ...

Public Service Commission shall provide Information about answer sheets and Marks
under RTI [Kerala Public Service Commission vs State Information Commission]. The
Supreme Court observed that the request of the information seeker about the
information of his answer sheets and details of the interview marks can be and
should be provided to him by Public Service Commission under Right to Information
Act....

National anthem must in Theatres [Shyam Narayan Chouski vs. Union of India] The
Supreme Court made it mandatory for all cinema theatres to play the national anthem
before a movie begins during which the national flag is to be shown on the screen .

People with disabilities also have the Right to Live with Dignity [Jeeja Ghosh vs.
UoI] Supreme Court asked the SpiceJet Ltd to pay Rupees Ten Lakhs to Jeeja Ghosh,
an eminent activist involved in disability rights, for forcibly de-boarding her by
the flight crew, because of her disability. ...

Swaraj Abhiyan vs. Union of India: A rightful intervention in the drought issue of
India==This judgment came right after the controversy of conduction of IPL matches
vis--vis drought in Maharashtra and thus a bigger debate on social justice and the
role of a concerned government arose.
the Court gave the following directions to be to resolve the issue:
As mandated by section 44 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (Act) a National
Disaster Response Force with its own regular specialist cadre is required to be
constituted within 6 months from today with appropriate strength.
As per section 47 of the Act a National Disaster Mitigation Fund is required to be
established within 3 months from today.
Section 11 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 requires the formulation of a
National Plan relating to risk assessment, risk management and crisis management in
respect of a disaster at the very earliest and with immediate concern.
The Drought Management Manual is undoubtedly a meaningful and well-researched
document. However, in view of the submissions made before us by learned counsel for
the parties, we are of the opinion that since the Manual was published in 2009
several new developments have taken place and there is a need to revise the
contents of the Manual, keeping in mind the following factors, namely:
Weightage to be given to each of the four key indicators should be determined to
the extent possible.
The time limit for declaring a drought should be mandated in the manual.
The revised and updated Manual should liberally delineate the possible factors to
be taken into consideration for declaration of a drought and their respective
weightage.
The nomenclature should be standardized as also the methodology to be taken into
consideration for declaring a drought.
In the proposed revised and updated Manual as well as in the National Plan, the
Union of India must provide for the future in terms of prevention, preparedness and
mitigation.
The Government of India must insist on the use of modern technology to make an
early determination of a drought or a drought-like situation.
Thus, it is commendable on the part of judiciary to come to the rescue of the
people of this country when the government was showing an ostrich like attitude.
Surely, judicial activism paid off .The following, would serve the best conclusion
of this manuscript.

Om Prakash VsDil Bahar==In a severe deterrent to incidents of rape, the Supreme

Court held that a rape accused could be convicted on the sole evidence of the
victim, even if medical evidence did not prove rape.
Representation of the People (Amendment) Act2002==The judgement of a three-
member Bench ordered candidates contesting elections to declare their assets and
all criminal cases pending against them at the time of filing of nominations.
in Samatha VsState of AP1997==The Supreme Court said government
land, tribal land, and forest land in scheduled areas could not be leased to non-
tribals or private companies for mining or industrial operations. Such activity can
only be done by tribal people or by a government undertaking.

SC JUDGEMENTS ON RTI :-"Right to know" is considered a basic human right. Freedom

of information as a part of freedom of speech and expression owes its origin in
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. Constitution of
India adopted this principle under Article 19(1)(a) at the time of its inception.
Thus Right to Information is an inherent right under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution. Honorable Supreme Court of India has decided and confirmed the same
in various cases.
in Shri Dinesh Trivedi vs Union Of India -SC observed that
To ensure the continued participation of the people in the democratic process,
they must kept informed of the vital decisions taken by the Government and the
basis thereof. Democracy, therefore, expects openness and openness is a concomitant
of a free society".
in Union of India vs Association for Democratic Reforms This
is one of the latest supreme court judgements on right to information act that led
to passing of Freedom of Information Act. Honorable Supreme Court observed that the
voters right to know the antecedents of the candidates is based on the broader
interpretation of Article 19 (1) (a). The foundation of healthy democracy is to
have well informed citizens. Free and fair election is the basic structure of the
Constitution and for that, information about the candidates, e.g., whether the
candidate is literate, what is his asset and liability, whether he is charged with
any criminal offence, these must be known to every voter.
in Peoples Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India =This is
one of the most important supreme court judgements on right to information act.
Honorable Supreme Court held that Right to Information is a facet of the freedom
of speech and expression as contained in Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution
of India. Right to Information, thus, indisputably is a Fundamental Right. Here it
is also recognized that a reasonable restriction on the exercise of the right is
always permissible for the security of the state.