1

Declaration
I hereby declare that the project work on LEGAL CASES
submitted to Dass and Brown World School is an original
work done under the guidance of Ms. Jyoti and this
project work is submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirements of CBSE, Delhi for the award of senior
secondary certificate in humanities.

2
 CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that “Silica Mangal” a student of class XII
Humanities has successfully completed her legal studies
project as prescribed by “Ms.Jyoti ” During the academic
year 2022 -23 .As per the guidelines given by CBSE.

Teacher’s Signature
External’s Signature

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to convey my heartfelt gratitude to Ms. Jyoti
for her tremendous support and assistance in the
completion of my project and for providing me with this
wonderful opportunity to work on the project entitled
LEGAL CASES. The completion of the project would not
have been possible without her help and insights. I would
like to acknowledge the motivation and support my
family and friends provided while finalizing the project. I
would like to acknowledge that this project was
completed entirely by me and not by someone else.

4
INDEX
CHAPTER I
1. Introduction: Civil, Criminal and
constitutional case
CHAPTER II
1. Research Methodology
CHAPTER III
1. Case1: Civil Case
 Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar
2. Case 2: Criminal Case
 K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra
3. Case3: Constitutional Case
 Maneka Gandhi vs. UOI
CHAPTER IV
1. References

CHAPTER I
5
Introduction
Civil Case: Civil lawsuits involve disagreements between
individuals or groups, including enterprises, and are
frequently monetary in nature. A civil case typically
starts when one person or entity (the “plaintiff”) asserts
that they have suffered injury as a result of the activities
of another person or entity (the “defendant”) and
requests redress from the court by submitting a
"complaint" and initiating legal proceedings. The plaintiff
may ask the court to grant “damages” (financial
compensation for any harm incurred), or the plaintiff may
ask for a “injunction” to stop the defendant from acting
or to compel the defendant to act. Finally, the plaintiff
may ask the court to issue a "declaratory judgement" in
which the court determines the parties’ rights under a
statute or contract.
Criminal Case: Laws are broken in criminal instances.
These cases involve theft, rape, bodily harm, murder,
etc. These cases result in the guilty party receiving
punishment such as a fine, imprisonment, or even the
death penalty. The state or the people are on the losing
side in a criminal case. Most of the time, it is a crime
against society, and if you are guilty, you must repay
society for what you have done. It is a sort of court case
in which the defendant is tried for behaviour that the
state legislature, or the government, deems to be
unlawful. Criminal proceedings often start after the
suspect is detained and charged, typically at an
indictment hearing. The defendant is always presumed
innocent in criminal matters until proven guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt by a state prosecutor.The majority of
6
criminal cases are heard by a judge in front of a jury, and
they may result in punishments that are subject to the
criminal code. These penalties may involve both fines
and jail time.
Constitutional Case: Any judgement, decree, or final
order of a High Court in a civil, criminal, or other process
may be appealed if the involved High Court allows it and
Confirms that there is a significant legal issue involving
the interpretation of the constitution in this case. Any
party to the case may file an appeal with the Supreme
Court after receiving such a certificate on the grounds
that any such question was incorrectly decided.

CHAPTER II
Research Methodology
In order to interpret and comprehend diverse historical
Events, records, and processes, historical analysis was
Employed as the study approach for this work. The
analysis Was carried out using secondary resources, such
as Newspaper articles, and papers. The sources
pertaining to The ongoing recent judgements by court
are also taken into Consideration . The sources used to
gather the data are Reputable ones. The paper also
discusses the role played by Various cases to form and
evolve our constitution.

CHAPTER III
Case 1: Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of
Bihar
7
Name of the parties to the case:
Hussainara Khatoon (Petitioner)
State of Bihar (Respondent)
Bench of judges:
Justice N. Bhagwati
JusticeP.N Desai
Nature of case:
Civil Case
Facts of the case:
The current case was related to the rights of under-trial
prisoners on the habeas corpus petitions and their
following release. A writ petition of the habeas corpus
was filed by Advocate Kapila Hingorani on behalf of the
undertrial prisoners of Bihar. It has revealed the
deplorable condition of a large number of people
including women, children who are detained and awaiting
for trial many years in the State of Bihar
Many of these prisoners have been charged with petty
offences and sentenced to several months in prison than
usual. The petition states that under trial prisoners who
have committed petty offences are suffering in jail for
more than 5-10 years, without trial. These people were
poor and could not even afford to furnish bail.
The petition was filed together by all the prisoners of the
Bihar jail. It was filed before the Supreme Court on behalf
of a woman offender, Hussainara Khatoon. She was
detained and held in ‘protective custody’ for four years,
even though the Indian government had issued direct

8
orders to release prisoners who are detained under the
Foreigners Act coming from Bangladesh, on bail.
Issues Involved in the case:
 If the right to speedy trial be regarded as a part of
Article 21.
 Can the provision of free legal aid be enforced by the
law.
Arguments by the Petitioners
The application was dismissed on the grounds that the
petitioners are under-trial prisoners and were not
subjected to any trial. Many of these prisoners have been
charged with petty offences and sentenced to several
months in prison than usual. Another cause of their grief
was their poverty, which made it impossible for them to
even obtain bail.
Arguments by the respondent:
In the counter-affidavit, the respondents submitted that
many under-trial prisoners in the case, who do not
appeal here, are detained at Patna Central Jail,
Muzaffarpur Central Jail, and Ranchi Central Jail, before
their release they have been repeatedly produced before
the Magistrates, and thus were remanded again and
again to judicial custody by the Magistrates. However,
the Court did not find the statement to be true because
the respondents could not determine the dates of the
detention.
In addition, in order to justify an increase in the number
of pending cases, the Respondents submitted that
generally, the investigation in the cases has to be
9
stopped as there is a hindrance in receipt of opinions
from experts. However, the Court dismissed this
argument on the grounds that the State can use different
methods for the same.
Decisions of the Case: The Court ordered to discharge
all the under-trial prisoners whose names were there in
the list submitted by Advocate Pushpa Kapila Hingorani.
The Court also noted that long-term detention would be
illegal and violated their fundamental rights under Article
21 as these prisoners are detained longer than what
could have been awarded to them if they were tried and
convicted.
Another order by this Hon’ble Court was to grant the
under-trial prisoners charged with bailable offenses, free
legal aid by the State, in the coming days of their trial
before the Magistrates. This was intended so that even
the poor under-trial prisoners could apply for bail and this
can even make sure that the aim of speedy trial is
achieved. The Supreme Court also ordered the State
Government and High Court to provide details which
included all the factors of the location of the courts of
magistrates and courts of sessions in the State of Bihar
and the total number of cases which are pending in each
court as of 31st December 1978. They are also required
to explain the reasons which are involved in the delay in
the disposal of the cases if the said case is pending for
more than six months.
Conclusion
The case of Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar exposes
the loophole in the justice system of the country.
Although the right to a speedy trial is a Fundamental
Right as mentioned in our Constitution, the case
10
emphasizes the gross violation of the same, where
undertrial prisoners had to suffer long terms of
imprisonment merely because the courts did not have
time to either acquit them or award them their proper
sentence. Some of the prisoners were not even guilty,
yet they were not released and kept behind bars,
violating basic human rights. In addition, the bail system
that exists in India has been unfair towards poor people
who are unable to afford the costs of legal action. A legal
system that cannot ensure justice to the poor of the
country cannot be said to be a fair and just system.
Since the case, about 40,000 undertrial prisoners were
released, which shows that if a person is committed to
the welfare of the country, he/she can do it and witness
comprehensive results. There is a need to have more
lawyers like Advocate Pushpa Kapila Hingorani so that
the needy and poor can have support when they raise
their voice and each citizen must be well-aware of his/her
rights provided to him/her under the law because the law
helps those who are attentive of their rights and not
those who sleep over it.

Case 2: K.M. Nanavati v/s State of

Maharashtra (1961)
Name of the parties to the case:
K. M. Nanavati (petitioner)
State of Maharashtra (Respondent)
Bench of judges:
11
K. Subbarao
S.K. Das
Raghubar Dayal
Nature of case:
Criminal case
Facts of the case:
In this case accused K.M. Nanavati was second in
command of Indian Naval ship. He married Sylvia in 1949
in the registry office at Portsmouth, England they have 3
children by the marriage a boy aged nine and half years,
a girl of 5 and half years and another boy aged 3 year.
Since the time of marriage, the couple was living at
different places because of the nature of the job of
Nanavati. Afterall, they finally shifted to Bombay.
Where they met Prem Ahuja and his sister through the
Agniks the common friend of Ahuja’s and Nanavati. As a
Naval officer Nanavati was frequently going away from
Bombay in his ship leaving his wife and children behind.
In his absence of friendship developed between Sylvia
and Ahuja which later on took the form of illicit
relationship. On 18 April 1959 Nanavati returned from his
ship. After returning he on several occasions tried to
affectionate with his wife but she was behaving strangely
to him.
On 27th April,1959 Sylvia tell Nanavati about her
relationship with Ahuja. Due to this Nanavati angered
and decided to settle that Matter with Ahuja. After this he
drove his car to his ship and from there, he took a semi-

12
Automatic revolver and six cartridges and put them in
the brown envelope on the false pretax.

Then he went to Ahuja’s Office, not finding him there

Nanavati went to his house and he entered into the
bedroom of Ahuja and shut it from inside. Nanavati asked
Ahuja that he would marry sylvia and care after his
children. Ahuja replied “Am I marry to every woman I
sleep with?” Then a fight occurs between Ahuja and
Nanavati, in this Nanavati shot Ahuja. After this he
surrendered himself to nearby police station. Case was
filed against K.M. Nanavati.
Issues:
Whether the accused shot Ahuja in grave and sudden
provocation or whether it was a premediated murder?
Whether SLP can be entertained without fulfilling the
order under Article 142? 3. Whether the pardoning power
of governor and SLP move together?
Petitioner’s Argument
The argument made from petitioner’s side is that when
Nanavati heard about his wife’s relationship with Ahuja,
he wanted to commit suicide, but sylvia claimed she
could clam him down. As sylvia did not mentioned that
whether Ahuja would marry her or not and he plans to
find out. So, he wanted to take medicine for his sick dog,
and he left his wife and two of his children and one
neighbor’s child to cinema as well as promised to pick up
them when show would end.

13
After this he went to his ship and told the ship authorities
that he wanted to pull revolvers and six bullets from the
stores of spacecrafts when driving alone to Ahmed Nagar
at night. After receiving revolver and six cartridges, he
put them in brown envelope. He drove his car to Ahuja’s
office but could not find him there. He drove his car to
Ahuja’s residence where the door opened by the Ahuja’s
servant and Nanavati walked into Ahuja’s bedroom.
Where he carried the envelop with a revolver and he saw
that Ahuja calling him dirty pig in the bedroom, he asked
him that He would marry sylvia and take care of his
children. Ahuja replied that “Am I marry to every woman
I sleep with?” The accused angered and threatened to kill
the deceased by putting envelope and a revolver in a
nearby cabinet. The deceased suddenly took the action,
and snatched the envelope, the accused said to take out
therevolver and come back. There was a fight between
the two, and in that fight, two shots accidentally fell and
killed Ahuja. After that shooting, the defendant returned
to his car and went to the nearby police station to
surrender. Therefore, the accusations against the dead
were made with serious and sudden provocations, so
even if you committed a crime it was not a murder, but a
culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Respondent’s Argument
The first argument made by respondent’s lawyer is that
Ahuja came out of the shower with a towel. When his
body found in his bedroom then his towel was still intact.
It does not come loose or fall from deceased body, and is
extremely rare when a fight occurs. Also, after sylvia’s
confession, the accused calmed them down and gather
14
his family, brought them to cinema, left them to cinema
and then went to his store to take the revolver. This
shows that he has enough time to calm down, the
provocation is not serious or sudden, and that Nanavati
planned the murder.
Also, according to Ahuja’s servant, Anjani, who was at
Ahuja’s home at the time of incident and he was a
natural witness, a total of four shots were made in
succession, and the and entire incident took less than a
minute, excluding attacks. Nanavati came out of Ahuja’s
room and did not explain to his sister Mamie that his
sister was in another room in the flat. The deputy
director also testified that Nanavati did not feel confused
by acknowledging that Nanavati had shot Ahuja and even
correcting the spelling of his name in the police records.
Judgment
Jury Trial
As the case first went to session court and where the jury
trial was going on this case. In jury trial Nanavati was
held not guilty with the verdict of 8:1under section 304 of
Indian Penal Code,1860. But the Session Judge was not
satisfied with the decision of jury trail and considered
that decision as perverse and unreasonable and referred
this case to Division Bench of Bombay High Court under
Section 307 of the Code of Criminal procedure.
Verdict Of High Court
The High Court dismissed the verdict of the jury trial on
the basis of following arguments made by the prosecutor

15
Sylvia’s confession, or any specific incident in Ahuja’s
bedroom, or both did not amount to grave and sudden
provocation.
The onus of proving that it was an accident and not
premediated murder was on Nanavati.
The jury was not instructed that Nanavati’s defence had
to be proved, to the extent that there is no reasonable
doubt in the mind of a reasonable person. And the
accused was held liable under sec.302 of Indian Penal
Code,1860. An Appeal was made by the accused under
the supreme court of India and here is the verdict of
Supreme Court.
Verdict Of Supreme Court
Supreme court said that bearing the principles in mind,
we have to look into the facts of this case i.e.
As per the defence case, the accused was thinking of
future of his wife and children, it implies that he had
regained his senses.
The time lapse between the confession and murder was
sufficient to regain his self control.
The mere fact that before the shooting the accused
abused the deceased and abuse provoked an equally
abusive reply could not conceivably be a provocation for
murder.
The Supreme Court in second issue dismissed the SLP
stating that he cannot claim it unless he surrenders
under Article 142.
Supreme Court also held that the application made to the
governor for pardon and the SLP cannot proceed
16
parallelly. If SLP is filed, then power of governor in such
case shall be ceased.
Supreme court held that the facts of the case don’t
attract the provisions of Exception 1.to sec. 300 of the
Indian Penal Court. And the accused is guilty for the
murder under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentence of life imprisonment on accused passed by High
Court is correct and also, held that there are no grounds
for interference. And the Appeal was dismissed by
Supreme Court.
Conclusion
This judgment created nationwide attention owning to
the fact that the crime of adultery had resulted into
murder not amounting to culpable homicide. The was
also a high rank officer of the Navy and owning to this
fact and pitiful coverage by media, such crime was
socially accepted. The burden of proof upon the
prosecution was released by establishing the facts to
utmost clarity. Also, referring the case to higher judiciary
and jury being erroneous on point of law was something
that pointed out amount of corruption in judiciary which
resulted in abolition of jury system in succeeding
Criminal Procedure Amendment in 1973.

Case 3: Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of

India
Name of the parties to the case:
Maneka Gandhi (petitioner)
Union of India (respondent)

17
Bench of judges:
M.H. Beg (CJI)
Y.V. Chandrachud
V.R. Krishna Iyer
P.N. Bhagwati
N.L. Untwalia
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali
P.S Kailasam
Nature of case:
Constitutional Case
Facts of the case:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was issued on 1 st June 1976 as
per the Passport Act of 1967. On 2 nd July 1977, the
Regional Passport Office (New Delhi) ordered her to
surrender her passport. The petitioner was also not given
any reason for this arbitrary and unilateral decision of the
External Affairs Ministry, citing public interest litigation.
The petitioner approached the Supreme Court by
invoking its writ jurisdiction and contending that the
State’s act of impounding her passport was a direct
assault on her Right of Personal Liberty as guaranteed by
Article 21. It is pertinent to mention that the Supreme
Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Ramarathnam held
that right to travel abroad is well within the ambit of
Article 21, although the extent to which the Passport Act
diluted this particular right was unclear.
The authorities, however, answered that the reasons are
not to be specified in the “interest of the general public”.
18
In response, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Art
32 for violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under
Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution alleging that
Section 10(3)(C )of the Act was ultra vires the
constitution.
Issues Before The Court
1.Whether the Fundamental Rights are absolute or
conditional and what is the extent of the territory of
such Fundamental Rights provided to the citizens by
the Constitution of India?
2.Whether ‘Right to Travel Abroad’ is protected under
the umbrella of Article 21.
3.What is the Connection between the rights
guaranteed under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution of India?
4.Determining the scope of “ Procedure established by
Law”
5.Whether the provision laid down in Section 10(3)© of
the Passport Act 1967 is violative of Fundamental
Rights and if it is whether such legislation is a
concrete Law?
6.Whether the Impugned order of Regional Passport
Officer is in contravention of principles of natural
justice?
Arguments Of The Petitioners:
Through the administrative order that seized the
passport on 4th July 1977, the State has infringed upon
the Petitioner’s fundamental rights of freedom of speech
& expression, right to life & personal liberty, right to
travel abroad and the right to freedom of movement.

19
The provisions given in Articles 14, 19 & 21 should be
read together and aren’t mutually exclusive. Only a
cumulative reading and subsequent interpretation will
lead to the observance of principles of natural justice and
the true spirit of constitutionalism.
India might not have adopted the American concept of
the “due process of law”, nevertheless, the procedure
established by law should be fair and just, reasonable,
and not be arbitrary.
Section 10(3)© of the Passport Act violates Article 21
insofar as it violates the right to life & personal liberty
guaranteed by this Article.
Audi Altrem Partem i.e. the opportunity of being heard is
invariably acknowledged as a vital component of the
principles of natural justice. Even if these principles of
natural justice are not expressly mentioned in any of the
provisions of the Constitution, the idea behind the spirit
of Fundamental Rights embodies the very crux of these
principles.
Argumentss Of The Respondents:
The respondent stated before the court that the passport
was confiscated since the petitioner had to appear before
a government committee for a hearing. The respondent
asserted that the word ‘law’ under Article 21 can’t be
understood as reflected in the fundamental rules of
natural justice, emphasising the principle laid down in the
A K Gopalan case. Article 21 contains the phrase
“procedure established by law” & such procedure does
not have to pass the test of reasonability and need not
necessarily be in consonance with the Articles 14 & 19.
20
The framers of our Constitution had long debates on the
American “due process of law” versus the British
“procedure established by law”. The marked absence of
the due process of law from the provisions of the Indian
Constitution clearly indicates the constitution-makers’
intentions.
Judgement Of The Court
The court said that section 10(3)(C) of passport act, 1967
is void because it violates Article 14 of Indian constitution
because it confers vague and undefined power to the
passport authority. It is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution since it doesn’t provide for an opportunity
for the aggrieved party to be heard. It was also held
violative of Article 21 since it does not affirm to the word
“procedure” as mentioned in the clause, and the present
procedure performed was the worst possible one. The
Court, however, refrained from passing any formal
answer on the matter, and ruled that the passport would
remain with the authorities till they deem fit. This
immensely important judgement was delivered on 25 th
January 1978 and it altered the landscape of the Indian
Constitution. This judgement widened Article 21’s scope
immensely and it realized the goal of making India a
welfare state, as assured in the Preamble. The
unanimous judgement was given by a 7-judge bench.
Before the enactment of the Passport Act 1967, there
was no law regulating the passport whenever any person
wanted to leave his native place and settle abroad. Also,
the executives were entirely discretionary while issuing
the passports in an unguided and unchallenged manner.

21
 In Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D Ramarathnam the SC
stated that:
Personal liberty in its ambit, also includes the right of
locomotion and travel abroad. Hence, no person can be
deprived of such rights, except through procedures
established by law. Since the State had not made any
law regarding the regulation or prohibiting the rights of a
person in such a case, the confiscation of the petitioner’s
passport is in violation of Article 21 and its grounds being
unchallenged and arbitrary, it is also violative of Article
14.
Further, clause (C) of section 10(3) of the Passports Act,
1967 provides that when the state finds it necessary to
seize the passport or do any such action in the interests
of sovereignty and integrity of the nation, its security, its
friendly relations with foreign countries, or for the
interests of the general public, the authority is required
to record in writing the reason of such act and on-
demand furnish a copy of that record to the holder of the
passport.
The Central Government never did disclose any reasons
for impounding the petitioner's passport rather she was
told that the act was done in the interests of the general
public whereas it was found out that her presence was
felt required by the respondents for the proceedings
before a commission of inquiry. The reason was given
explicit that it was not really necessarily done in the
public interests and no ordinary person would understand
the reasons for not disclosing this information or the
grounds of her passport confiscation.

22
 The fundamental rights conferred in Part III of the
Constitution are not distinctive nor mutually exclusive.”
Any law depriving a person of his personal liberty has to
stand a test of one or more of the fundamental rights
conferred under Article 19. When referring to Article 14,
ex-hypothesi must be tested. The concept of
reasonableness must be projected in the procedure. The
phrase used in Article 21 is “procedure established by
law” instead of due process of law which is said to have
procedures that are free from arbitrariness and
irrationality. There is a clear infringement of the basic
ingredient of principles of natural justice i.e., audi
alteram partem and hence, it cannot be condemned as
unfair and unjust even when a statute is silent on it.
It is true that fundamental rights are sought in case of
violation of any rights of an individual and when the
State had violated it. But that does not mean, Right to
Freedom of Speech and Expression is exercisable only in
India and not outside. Merely because the state’s action
is restricted to its territory, it does not mean that
Fundamental Rights are also restricted in a similar
manner. It is possible that certain rights related to
human values are protected by fundamental rights even
if it is not explicitly written in our Constitution. For
example, Freedom of the press is covered under Article
19(1)(a) even though it is not specifically mentioned
there.
The right to go abroad is not a part of the Right to Free
Speech and Expression as both have different natures
and characters.

23
A.K Gopalan was overruled stating that there is a unique
relationship between the provisions of Article 14, 19 & 21
and every law must pass the tests of the said provisions.
Earlier in Gopalan, the majority held that these provisions
in itself are mutually exclusive. Therefore, to correct its
earlier mistake the court held that these provisions are
not mutually exclusive and are dependent on each other.
Conclusion
The case is considered a landmark case in that it gave a
new and highly varied interpretation to the meaning of
‘life and personal liberty’ under Article 21 of the
Constitution. Also, it expanded the horizons of freedom of
speech and expression to the effect that the right is no
longer restricted by the territorial boundaries of the
country.
In fact, it extends to almost the entire world. Thus the
case saw a high degree of judicial activism, and ushered
in a new era of expanding horizons of fundamental rights
in general, and Article 21 in particular. This case is called
as Golden Triangle Case where article 14, 19 and 21
were challenged together and it was appreciated by the
apex court.
This decision restored the people’s faith in the judicial
system and a guarantee that their fundamental rights will
be protected. The court departed from its earlier position
in the AK Gopalan case which held that right to life and
personal liberty can be restricted by the procedure
established by law even if it is not fair and reasonable. In
this case, this regressive view was discarded by the court

24
and held that that procedure established by law meant
procedure that eventually was reasonable fair and just.
This decision rendered void the plain and simple meaning
of procedure established by law and introduced for the
first time the concept of due process of law into the
Indian constitution. The court also accepted that Right to
Travel Abroad as a very important component of Right to
Liberty, if this right is not granted, liberty is distorted. By
this judgement, the court increased the scope of Article
21 of the Constitution and made it the duty to interpret
Article 21 in a manner which serves the people’s interest
at most.

CHAPTER IV
References
www.legalinsider.com
www.legalbites.com
www.legalservices.com

25