Vishwanath Associates – Legal Judgments in 60 Seconds
⚖️ Vishwanath Associates

Legal Judgments
in 60 Seconds

Landmark court decisions — simplified. Read the core of any judgment in under a minute.

Read any judgment in under 60 seconds — Free

Filter by Category

Constitutional Law 60 sec read

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

AIR 1973 SC 1461  ·  Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot amend the Constitution in a way that destroys its "basic structure." While Parliament has wide amending power under Article 368, it cannot alter fundamental features like democracy, secularism, or judicial review.

Key Holding

Basic Structure Doctrine — Parliament's amending power is limited; core constitutional features are unamendable.

Criminal Law 60 sec read

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

AIR 1978 SC 597  ·  Supreme Court of India

The Court expanded Article 21 (Right to Life) beyond mere physical existence. Any law depriving personal liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable — not merely follow procedure. This case linked Articles 14, 19, and 21 together.

Key Holding

Article 21 guarantees due process — procedure must be just, fair & reasonable, not arbitrary.

Contract Law 60 sec read

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

[1893] 1 QB 256  ·  Court of Appeal

A company advertised £100 reward to anyone who used their product and got flu. Mrs. Carlill claimed the reward. Court held it was a valid unilateral contract — a public advertisement can be a binding offer, accepted by performance.

Key Holding

Advertisements can be binding offers. Acceptance by performance creates a valid contract.

Family Law 60 sec read

Shayara Bano v. Union of India

AIR 2017 SC 4609  ·  Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court (3:2 majority) struck down the practice of instant Triple Talaq (talaq-e-biddat) as unconstitutional. It held the practice to be manifestly arbitrary under Article 14 and violative of Muslim women's fundamental rights.

Key Holding

Instant Triple Talaq is unconstitutional — violates Article 14 (equality) and is manifestly arbitrary.

Property Law 60 sec read

Suraj Lamp & Industries v. State of Haryana

(2012) 1 SCC 656  ·  Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court clarified that Power of Attorney (PoA) transactions and agreement-to-sell documents do not transfer title of immovable property. Only a registered sale deed can legally transfer property ownership under the Transfer of Property Act.

Key Holding

PoA / agreement-to-sell cannot transfer immovable property title. Registered sale deed is mandatory.

Constitutional Law 60 sec read

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India

AIR 1994 SC 1918  ·  Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court held that President's Rule under Article 356 is subject to judicial review. Imposition must be based on objective material, not political motivation. Federalism is a basic feature of the Constitution.

Key Holding

Article 356 is justiciable. Federalism is a basic structure — President's Rule cannot be misused politically.

Vishwanath Associates

Legal Judgments in 60 Seconds  ·  Free for all law students  ·  © 2026

Summaries are for educational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice.

Scroll to Top