Category: Case Summaries

In this landmark judgement the conflicts and confusion which were caused due to previous two judgements in the case of  Prakash V Phulavati 2016 and another case of Danamma V Amar Singh 2018, the confusion and questions which arose due to these two cases were resolved in this landmark case of Vineeta Sharma V Rakesh Sharma.

“Everyone is in favour of free speech, hardly a day passes without it being extolled but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage” Sir Winston Churchill. Human beings are blessed with the gift of speech through which they can express and convey their thoughts to another.

“Noise is the most impertinent of all forms of interruption. it is not only an interruption, but also a disruption of thought” Arthur Schopenhauer. Freedom of speech is the protector of all liberties, speech is a ability which individuals posses to reflect and to speak freely to gather information from others through various mediums like publications and public dialogue without fearing of being restricted and repressed by the government.

The reservation system should be a system out of respect for all individuals and a reward should be granted to the deserving one’s. This case is popularly known as the Mandal Commission case. The idea of reservation in India is of reserving seats for the scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and the other backward classes in government jobs, educational facilities and other fields as they do not have the footing to get themselves into these fields on their own.

“Adultery occurs in the head long before it occurs in the bed” Chuck Swindoll. As modern India’s
first upper-class crime of passion, the K.M Nanavati case held the nation in thrall. One the most
high profile cases which India has witnessed, two people in marriage make it a good marriage but
a third in a marriage makes it a bad marriage as it only requires two to tango.