Skip to content

Tag: JusticeKrishnaIyer

Nandini Satpathy Vs P. L. Dani and another-07/04/1978

The very act of directing a woman to come to the police station in violation of Section 160(1), Cr.P.C. may make for tension and negate voluntariness. It is likely that some of the questions are self-criminatory. More importantly, the admitted circumstances are such that the trying Magistrate may have to hold an elaborate enquiry about other investigations, potential and actual, to decide about the self-accusatory character of the answers. And, finally, the process of proving proneness for self-incrimination will itself strike a blow on the very protection under Article 20(3).

Civil courts can take notice of subsequent events and mould relief in exceptional cases

Rameshwar and others Versus Jot Ram and others-The right of a party is determinded by the facts as they exist on the date the action is institued. Granting the presence of such facts, then he is entitled to its enforcement. Later developments cannot defeat his right because, as explained earlier, had the court found his facts to be true the day he sued he would have got his decree. The Court’s procedural delays cannot deprive his of legal justice or rights crystallised in the initial cause of action.

Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu vs The Motor and General Traders-18/03/1975

It is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding. Equally clear is the principle that procedure is the hand-maid and not the mistress of the judicial process. If a fact, arising after the lis has come to court and has a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the manner of moulding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind to events which stultify or render inept the decretal remedy.