New FLASH SALE Dhamaka - Flat 60% Off on All Courses

    Question

    In ………… popularly known as the Gandhi Judgement

    Supreme Court held that in the name of artistic freedom or critical thinking or generating the idea of creativity, a poet or a writer cannot put into the voice or image of a “historically respected personality” like Mahatma Gandhi, such language, may be obscene.
    A Devidas v. State of Maharashtra 2015 (6) SCC1 Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    B PUCL V. Union of India Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    C ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2015 (10) SCC Correct Answer Incorrect Answer
    D Common Cause v. Union of India, 2015 (7) SCC1 Correct Answer Incorrect Answer

    Solution

    The Devidas v. State of Maharashtra case is related to the use of offensive language against historical figures in literary works. The case involved a writer who had used vulgar and obscene language against Mahatma Gandhi in his book. The author argued that his work was a work of fiction and that he had the right to artistic freedom. However, the Supreme Court of India, in its landmark judgment, held that the use of vulgar and obscene language against historical figures, especially those who are universally respected, cannot be justified in the name of artistic freedom. The Court held that such works may be considered offensive and may hurt the sentiments of a large section of the society. The judgment is popularly known as the "Gandhi Judgement" and has significant implications for the use of offensive language against historical figures in literary works. PUCL v. Union of India is a landmark case related to the right to privacy in India. The case was filed by the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and other civil rights organizations challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar card scheme, which was introduced by the government of India in 2009 to provide a unique identification number to every Indian resident. In its judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme, but struck down several provisions that violated the right to privacy of citizens. The Court held that the collection of personal information under the Aadhaar scheme should be voluntary, and that citizens could not be denied services or benefits for lack of an Aadhaar card. Common Cause v. Union of India, 2015 (7) SCC1 is a landmark judgment related to the issue of passive euthanasia or the withdrawal of life support of terminally ill patients. The Supreme Court recognized the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right under the right to life enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The court laid down guidelines for the withdrawal of life support for patients who are in a permanent vegetative state or suffering from an incurable illness, allowing them to die peacefully and with dignity. This judgment paved the way for the legalization of passive euthanasia in India.

    Practice Next