Author: admin

ISSUE:

Whether Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code imposes an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution?

Whether the book Lady Chatterley’s Lover is obscene when judged in its entirety?

Whether possession or sale of an obscene book under Section 292 require intent to corrupt the public?

RULE:

Obscenity and Freedom of Speech: Obscenity is not protected by the right to freedom of speech if it harms public decency and morality.

Sellers canbe held responsible for distributing obscene material even if they did not know about its content, focusing on protecting society over individual intent.

ISSUE:

Whether mens rea (a guilty mind) is required for liability under Clause 22 of the Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941?

Whether strict liability applies under Clause 27A, requiring suppliers to endorse vehicle registration details on coupons?

Whether the employer can be held responsible for the illegal acts of employees under the Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941?

RULE:

A guilty mind (mens rea) is generally required for criminal liability unless explicitly excluded by law.

Strict liability applies to cases where statutes impose obligations regardless of intent or knowledge.

Employers may not be vicariously liable for employees' acts unless the law imposes absolute responsibility.

ISSUE:

Whether a servant can be held liable under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, for selling adulterated food on behalf of an employer without proof of mens rea?

Whether the minimum prescribed punishment for a second offence can be reduced based on special and adequate reasons?

Whether a servant is exempt from liability under the Act due to lack of personal benefit or knowledge of adulteration?

RULE:

Section 7 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act prohibits any person (employer or servant) from selling adulterated food.

Section 16(1) of the Act prescribes penalties for violations of Section 7, regardless of knowledge or intent.

The Act's prohibition applies to all individuals involved in the sale of adulterated food to protect public health.

ISSUE:

Whether the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, applies to lands owned by the Union of India or the State Government?

Whether a tenant of government-owned land can claim proprietary rights under Section 11 of the Act?

Whether the absence of explicit exemption in the Act implies that it binds the Union and State?

RULE:

The Act’s aim is to abolish large estates and vest rights in tenants.

Laws are presumed to apply to both citizens and the State unless explicitly exempted.

Section 11 allows tenants to acquire proprietary rights by paying compensation.

Sections 15 and 27 outline other provisions for ownership transfer.

Equal application of the law aligns with constitutional values of non-discrimination