30/12/2020
𝗗𝗔𝗧𝗘 - 𝟯𝟬/𝟭𝟮/𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟬
𝗗𝗮𝘆 - 𝗪𝗲𝗱𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗱𝗮𝘆
𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗘𝗦 𝗟𝗔𝗪𝗦
𝟭. 𝗔𝗞 𝗚𝗼𝗽𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗻 𝗩. 𝗨𝗢𝗜
𝗙𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗦
AK Gopalan was a Communist leader who was kept in the Madras Jail in 1950 under the Preventive Detention Law. By writ of Habeas Corpus in accordance with Article 32 of 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, he tested his detainment while contending that Sections 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 of the Act abuses Articles 13, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution and along these lines, the said Act is ultra vires of the essential thing arrangements as revered under the Constitution of India. The solicitor further represented the issue of the Indian Constitution’s ‘method characterized by resolution’ condition.
𝗛𝗘𝗟𝗗
Then again, while dismissing the applicant’s contentions, the Hon’ble 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 of India fought that Article 22 of the Indian Constitution is an independent Code and that he was kept by the system set up by law. The court additionally held that if an individual’s freedom is removed by the State as per the system set up by law for example in the event that the detainment was according to the technique of law, at that point it can’t be said that it disregards the arrangements contained in Article 14, 19 and 21 of 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮 . In this specific case, the Supreme Court took a restricted perspective on Article 21 of the Constitution of India. While applying the regulation of severability, the zenith court pronounced segment 14 as void as it discovers it to be unconstitutional and violative of the key rights. Court stated the rule of system set up by law and proclaimed the use of fair treatment condition and worldwide common liberties contracts unimportant in Indian premises. Further, the court proclaimed segments 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 13 as intra-infection the constitutions, thus legitimate. At long last, the Court found that the detainment was legitimate and thus writ was discarded in like manner.
𝟮. *UNITED STATES V. EICHMAN*
*FACTS*
In 1989, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act which made it a crime to destroy an American flag or any likeness of an American flag which may be "commonly displayed." The law did, however, allow proper disposal of a worn or soiled flag. Several prosecutions resulted from the Act. Eichman set a flag ablaze on the steps of the U.S. Capitol while protesting the government's domestic and foreign policy. Another prosecution (United States v. Haggerty) resulted from a flag-burning in Seattle protesting the passage of the Flag Protection Act.Both cases (Eichman's and Haggerty's) were argued together.
*ISSUE*
Did the Act violate freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment?
*JUDGMENT*
In a 5-to-4 decision, coming on the heels of a similar holding in Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Court struck down the law because "its asserted interest is related to the suppression of free expression and concerned with the content of such expression." Allowing the flag to be burned in a disposal ceremony but prohibiting protestors from setting it ablaze at a political protest made that clear, argued Justice Brennan in one of his final opinions.
𝟯. *AZAD V. BERGMAN*
*FACTS*
David Bergman, a British journalist, published three separate articles in his personal blog on issues surrounding the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971, particularly about the country’s International Crimes Tribunal, a domestic judicial mechanism with the mandate to punish individuals responsible for atrocities committed during the war.
In two articles, Bergman questioned the exact number of people who died during the war, and criticized the Tribunal for its failure to make an independent inquiry about the matter. In another article, he questioned the validity of adjudicating a case in absentia by the Tribunal.
Following the publication of articles, a contempt proceeding was brought against Bergman under Section 11(4) of the International Crimes Tribunal Act. The Applicant alleged that Bergman intended to demean, disparage and lower the Tribunal’s authority and that his article on the issue of death figures was aimed to hurt the emotion and aspiration of the public.
*JUDGEMENT*
The court ruled that a public criticism of an issue that is under judicial consideration amounts to contempt of the court. It found that even though the issue of death figures did not directly relate to the merits of pending cases, Bergman’s articles created confusion in the mind of the public and undermined the Tribunal’s authority in making its own observation concerning the matter.
With regard to the other article, the Court held that Bergman’s criticism was a deliberate attempt to “lower down and demean the tribunal’s authority and ability that finally tends to shake the public confidence upon the judicial machinery of the Tribunal and its governing Statute.”
It ruled that the freedom of speech does not protect a criticism, even a post judgement criticism, that “create debate and mystification in the mind of the public as to fairness, dignity, image, judicial process and independence of the Tribunal.”
𝟰. 𝗕𝗿𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝘃. 𝗞𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗹𝗹 ( 𝟲𝟬 𝗠𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝟮𝟵𝟮 𝟭𝟴𝟱𝟬)
𝗙𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗦
I'm this case defendant was waiting by a railroad crossing on his wagon which was loaded with grain and drwan by two horses.
Later on engine in the railroad frightened the horses and defendant horses become rampant the horses struck a stone in the rest with the street lamp own by pantiff and defendant take all due care but plantiff sued the defendant.
𝗜𝗦𝗦𝗨𝗘
𝗜𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗳 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗔𝗰𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗳𝘀 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱?
𝗛𝗘𝗟𝗗
Court held that the No plantiff cannot sued the defendant abandoned the Rule of Ryland V. Fletcher where defendant had no negligence on his part until unless he is not negligent and not caused the damage.
𝟱. *IBP, INC. V. ALVAREZ*
*FACTS*
In two separate cases, employees sued Barber Foods and IBP in federal district court. The employees alleged the companies violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying them for time spent walking to the worksite after putting on required equipment. The district court and later the First Circuit ruled against the Barber employees. A separate district court ruled IBP must compensate its employees for the disputed time. The Ninth Circuit agreed. The U.S. Supreme Court consolidated the cases.
*ISSUE*
Did the Fair Labor Standards Act require employers to pay employees for time spent walking to and from stations that distributed required safety equipment?
*JUDGMENT*
Yes. Justice John Paul Stevens, for a unanimous Court, wrote that putting on required safety equipment qualified as a "principal activity" under the FLSA. The workday began when employees started that activity and therefore included the subsequent time spent walking to the worksite. The time spent waiting to put on safety equipment before that, however, was not included in the workday because it was a "preliminary" activity under the Portal-to-Portal Act
