ROLE OF JUDICIARY

Question 1

The Oleum Gas Leak Case (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India)

Answer 1

Oleum Gas Leak Case (1986)
The Oleum Gas Leak Case (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India) involved a gas leak from an industrial plant, which caused
harm to the public. The Supreme Court of India established the principle of “absolute liability” for industries engaged
in hazardous activities, meaning they were to be held fully accountable for any harm caused by their activities,
regardless of fault. This was a significant ruling in environmental law, as it placed stringent duties on industries to
ensure that their operations did not pose a threat to human life and the environment.
The case also contributed to the development of strict liability in tort law and emphasized the need for industries to
adopt precautionary measures to prevent accidents that could have adverse effects on human health and the
environment.

Question 2

Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991)

Answer 2

The Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar case involved a petition seeking action against illegal mining activities in the
state of Bihar that were polluting the environment. The Supreme Court of India ruled that right to a healthy
environment is part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court held that the state
has the duty to protect and improve the environment and take action against pollution caused by industrial activities.
This case emphasized the significance of environmental protection in the context of fundamental rights and the state’s
responsibility to enforce laws for the preservation of the environment.

Question 3

Taj Trapezium Case (1996)

Answer 3

Taj Trapezium Case (1996)
The Taj Trapezium Case dealt with air pollution in the vicinity of the Taj Mahal, which was threatening the integrity
of this UNESCO World Heritage site. The Supreme Court intervened to ensure that the Taj Mahal’s preservation was
prioritized. The Court mandated industries within a 10-kilometer radius of the monument to adopt pollution-control
measures and even ordered the closure of industries causing significant pollution.
The Court emphasized that protecting cultural heritage is intrinsically linked to environmental protection, asserting
that the right to a clean environment is fundamental for preserving both human dignity and cultural landmarks.

Question 4

People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2003)

Answer 4

People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2003)
In this case, the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of starvation deaths and the right to food. The Court referred
to international obligations under the ICESCR, particularly Article 11, which ensures the right to an adequate
standard of living, including adequate food.

Question 5

Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993)

Answer 5

This case significantly expanded the interpretation of the right to education in India. The Supreme Court referred
to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which guarantees the
right to education.

Question 6

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

Answer 6

This case established the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The Court referred to international human rights conventions such as the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights (ICCPR) to reinforce its decision.

Question 7

National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996)

Answer 7

National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996)
* Issue: The protection of the Chakma and Hajong refugees from eviction and persecution in Arunachal
Pradesh.
* Ruling: The Supreme Court held that the right to life under Article 21 extends to all individuals,
including non-citizens (refugees), reinforcing the principle that human rights must be upheld.
* Contemporary Context: Refugee rights, particularly in light of the Rohingya crisis, have become a
major issue, with concerns about their right to life and protection from deportation.

Question 8

Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017) supported by National Comission of Women

Answer 8

Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017)
* Although not directly filed by the NCW, the commission supported the petition that dealt with the
exception in marital rape laws concerning minors. The case sought to criminalize sex with a minor wife
under 18 years.
The Supreme Court ruled that sexual intercourse with a minor wife (under 18) amounts to rape, marking a
significant change in child protection laws.

Question 9

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)

Answer 9

Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1984)
A PIL was filed by an NGO (Bandhua Mukti Morcha) to address the exploitation of bonded laborers in stone
quarries in Haryana.
Outcome: The Supreme Court ordered the release of bonded laborers and recognized the right to live with human
dignity as part of the right to life under Article 21. It also directed the state to take measures for the rehabilitation
of freed bonded laborers. This case highlighted the Court’s commitment to addressing labor exploitation and
other socio-economic human rights issues.

Question 10

Qatar v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Qatar v. United Arab Emirates

Answer 10

Qatar brought complaints against both countries before the ICJ under CERD, alleging violations of the convention during the diplomatic crisis in the Gulf region. Qatar
argued that the measures taken by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, including restrictions on travel, family reunification, and access to education and healthcare, amounted to racial discrimination against Qatari nationals. The ICJ, in its provisional measures orders, called on both Saudi Arabia and the UAE to ensure that Qatari families separated by
the measures were reunited and that Qatari students affected by the restrictions were allowed to complete their education. These cases highlight CERD’s role in addressing
state-sponsored racial discrimination and the ICJ’s function in interpreting and enforcing the convention’s provisions.

Question 11

ICJ Key cases

Answer 11

.
2. Nicaragua v. United States (1986): The Court found that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting Contra rebels in Nicaragua and by mining Nicaraguan harbors.

4. Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (2004): The Court concluded that the construction of the wall by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory violated international law

** 5. Reparations for Injuries (1949):** The ICJ affirmed the UN’s capacity to bring claims for injuries to its personnel.

Question 12

African court

Answer 12

1 judges, elected by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Union (AU).
● Judges serve six-year terms and can be re-elected. high moral character, impartial, and possess recognized competence in the field of human rights law.

●** The Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda (2006):**
○ This interstate case involved the Congo’s allegations that Uganda had committed human rights violations during its military intervention.
○ The court ruled in favor of the Congo, holding that Uganda had violated various provisions of the African Charter.

Question 13

Inter-American Convention on Human Rights

Answer 13

Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile recognized sexual orientation as a protected category, setting an important precedent

Gonzálezetal.(“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico (2009):
○ This judgment highlighted the issue of forced labor in Mexico, particularly in the agricultural sector.
○ It underscored the state’s duty to protect workers from such abuses and to take measures to prevent and respond to labor exploitation

Question 14

THE inter american hospital wala case

Answer 14

Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador (2013) is a landmark Inter-American Court of Human Rights case focused on health rights and judicial protection. In 2000, María Soledad Suárez Peralta, a 16-year-old in Ecuador, underwent surgery at a private clinic by an unlicensed surgeon, leading to severe health complications. Despite her complaints, Ecuador’s legal system failed to investigate or address the negligence adequately.
IT VIOLATED:
1. Right to Personal Integrity and Health
2. Right to Judicial Protection and Due Process
3. State Obligation to Ensure Human Rights (Article 1)

The Court found Ecuador in violation of Suárez Peralta’s rights to personal integrity and judicial protection, emphasizing that states must regulate and monitor healthcare services, even private ones, to protect individuals’ health. This case reinforced the state’s duty to ensure safe healthcare standards and provide effective legal remedies in cases of medical negligence.

Question 15

Euro Court of HR case broke lady wanna move to rich neighbourhood

Answer 15

Garib v. The Netherlands (2017) is a European Court of Human Rights case on freedom of movement. Ms. Rosalind Garib, a Dutch citizen, was denied residence in a Rotterdam area under a law restricting low-income individuals from moving to high-poverty neighborhoods. She argued this violated her rights. The Court ruled that the restriction was lawful, aimed at improving social conditions, and did not disproportionately limit her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

so here the question was freedom of movement which is given in European convention on human rights,
This right is not absolute and can be restricted if the limitations are lawful, serve a legitimate aim, and are necessary in a democratic society. The Netherlands argued that its legislation pursued a legitimate goal of improving social and economic conditions and that the restrictions were proportionate.

it held there was a legitimate goal and was not regarding decrimination as it allowed the woman to freely relocate to neighborhoods where she fits the objective criteria of income and job
he ECtHR upheld the idea that states have some leeway to impose restrictions if they serve the public interest and are implemented with specific conditions to prevent arbitrary application.

Question 16

euro case abt turkish man doing crazy domestic abuse

Answer 16

The Opuz v. Turkey (2009) case is a landmark European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decision that addressed state responsibility in cases of domestic violence. Nahide Opuz and her mother suffered repeated abuse from Ms. Opuz’s husband over several years, resulting in her mother’s murder. Despite numerous complaints, Turkish authorities failed to protect them effectively or prosecute the husband, even as the violence escalated.

s. The Court found Turkey responsible for failing to prevent gender-based violence and recognized that inadequate state response and violated her right to live and prohibition of torture

State Responsibility in Domestic Violence: The case set an essential precedent that states are responsible for protecting individuals from domestic violence and may be liable for human rights violations if they fail to act against foreseeable harm.
Recognition of Gender-Based Violence as Discrimination: This was one of the first times the ECtHR explicitly linked domestic violence to gender discrimination, emphasizing that systemic inaction toward violence against women is a violation of their right to equal protection.
Enhanced Standards for Protection: The case strengthened the duty of states to take positive steps, such as preventive and protective measures, in domestic violence cases, establishing a standard for human rights protections against gender-based violence in Europe and beyond.

Question 17

euro case abt russia using disproportionate force in chechen conflict

Answer 17

The Khamila Isayeva v. Russia (2007) case involved the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) examining Russia’s accountability for civilian harm in the Chechen conflict. Khamila Isayeva’s son was killed, and her other family members were injured when a Russian military convoy opened fire on their car as they attempted to flee a conflict zone in Chechnya in 2000. Isayeva argued that Russian forces used excessive, indiscriminate force and failed to protect civilian life.

The ECtHR ruled that Russia violated Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, finding that the military operation was poorly planned and executed without adequate safeguards for civilians. This judgment reinforced the need for accountability and precautionary measures to protect civilians in conflict zones, even in counter-terrorism operations.

Question 18

euro case abt girl getting trafficked and killed

Answer 18

The Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia (2010) case before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) involved the death of a Russian woman, Elena Rantseva, who was trafficked to Cyprus for sexual exploitation. Elena died under suspicious circumstances in 2001 after reportedly trying to escape her traffickers. Her death was initially ruled as a suicide, but her mother argued that the authorities failed to adequately investigate the circumstances of her death and the trafficking network that exploited her.

The ECtHR found that both Cyprus and Russia violated Article 4 (prohibition of slavery and forced labor) and Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court held that:
1. Cyprus failed to investigate Elena’s death properly and did not take sufficient action to protect her from trafficking.
2. Russia failed to take appropriate steps to prevent Elena’s trafficking, despite her being a Russian national.

This case highlighted the importance of both preventing human trafficking and ensuring that victims are protected and that their deaths are thoroughly investigated. The ruling underscored states’ obligations to prevent trafficking and provide effective remedies for victims.

Question 19

bihari jail PIL

Answer 19

Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979): The
Supreme Court used PIL to address the issue of undertrials
languishing in jail due to the non-availability of legal assistance

Question 20

CASE on minority and mob lynch

Answer 20

In Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India, the Supreme Court addressed the rise in lynchings and mob violence in
India, particularly targeting religious minorities, Dalits, and marginalized communities. The case arose amid rising
incidents of mob violence, often triggered by rumors spread on social media platforms.
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court condemned mob lynchings and laid down detailed guidelines for the
central and state governments to curb such violence. The Court emphasized that law and order are the state’s
responsibility and urged Parliament to create a specific law against lynching. It also recommended measures like the
appointment of nodal officers in each district, fast-tracking of trials, and victim compensation schemes.

Question 21

case abt tribal land being leased to private mining company

Answer 21

Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, the Supreme Court ruled on the rights of tribal communities over land
ownership and exploitation of natural resources. The case arose when Samatha, a non-profit organization, challenged
the state government’s decision to lease tribal land to private mining companies in Andhra Pradesh, arguing that it violated constitutional protections for tribal lands.

HELD: t tribal lands could not be leased to private companies for mining or other non-tribal purposes. It
declared that under the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, tribal lands are to be protected to ensure that they benefit the local tribal communities rather than exploit them for commercial gain. The judgment mandated that any lease or land use must be for the benefit of the tribal population, and prevents commercial exploitation of land

Question 22

mining case where gram sabha should decide if they wanna give up land for mining or not

Answer 22

The Vedanta Case- The tribe protested, claiming that mining would not
only devastate the local ecosystem but also violate their religious and cultural rights.
The Supreme Court, in its 2013 verdict, upheld the tribal community’s right to decide on the mining project under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. The Court directed the Gram Sabhas (village councils) of the affected areas to decide whether the mining project could proceed. The Gram Sabhas overwhelmingly voted against it, effectively halting the project.
This case was significant in recognizing the rights of indigenous people to preserve their land and culture.

Question 23

custodial violence case law

Answer 23

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
The landmark Supreme Court judgment in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) laid down guidelines
for arrest and detention procedures to prevent custodial violence. This case arose after D.K. Basu, an activist, wrote a letter to the Supreme Court highlighting instances of custodial deaths and torture. The Court treated the letter as a writ petition,
The guidelines mandated that police officers carry identification, record all detentions in a diary, inform a detainee’s family, and conduct medical examinations of detainees at regular intervals.

In Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court examined the limits of police authority in interrogation. The Court found that the accused had been subjected to extreme torture to extract a confession, resulting in serious
injuries. The Court condemned custodial violence, stating that torture for confession was unacceptable and
emphasized the need for humane treatment of individuals in custody.

Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa
The Court held that the right to life under
Article 21 includes the right to safety and dignity, even while in custody. It ordered the state to pay compensation, underscoring that the government is liable for human rights violations by its officials, and highlighting that monetary compensation is a remedy for violations of fundamental rights.

Question 24

Reproductive Rights

Answer 24

**X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department (2022) **
- woman seeking an abortion must not face undue
restrictions, particularly when the fetus is diagnosed with abnormalities that may compromise the child’s survival outside the womb. The Court affirmed the rights of women under the MTP Act