| Case Name | Section | Rules(s) | Case Brief |
|---|---|---|---|
| State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale | 3 4 7 | Untouchability in any form is illegal and punishable. | This case involved denial of access to a well for people of a lower caste. The accused stopped them from using the well. The Supreme Court strongly condemned this act. It said untouchability is a serious offence. The Court held that such acts violate basic human dignity (self-respect). It also said that old customs cannot be used as an excuse. The judgment stressed strict enforcement of the law. It is one of the most important cases on civil rights in India. |
| Devarajiah v. B. Padmanna | 4 6 | Denial of access to public places and services is punishable. | In this case, a person was denied access to a barber shop due to caste. The Court held that such denial is illegal. It said all public services must be open to everyone. The Act clearly prohibits such discrimination. The Court emphasized equality in daily life. This case shows how the law protects basic rights in society. |
| State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Krishna Balothia | 7 | Laws against caste discrimination must be strictly applied. | This case dealt with offences related to caste discrimination. The Court upheld strict provisions to prevent such acts. It said these laws are needed to protect weaker sections. The judgment highlighted social justice (fair treatment in society). It showed that strong legal steps are needed to remove discrimination. |
| People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India | 7A | Government must actively prevent social discrimination. | This case focused on rights of workers and weaker groups. The Court held that the government has a duty to stop discrimination. It must take positive steps (active measures). The judgment linked civil rights with human dignity. It expanded the role of the state in protecting rights. |
| State of Gujarat v. Ambika Mills | 10 | Persons helping in offence are also liable. | This case discussed liability of persons involved in offences. The Court said that those who support or help discrimination are also guilty. It clarified the meaning of abetment (helping in crime). The case helped in applying the law widely. |
| N. Nagendra Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh | 14 | Officials acting in good faith are protected. | This case dealt with protection given to government officials. The Court said that if officials act honestly, they are protected. But misuse of power is not allowed. The judgment balanced accountability and protection. It is important for understanding Section 14. |
Case Name
State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale
Section
3
4
7
4
7
Rules(s)
Untouchability in any form is illegal and punishable.
Case Brief
This case involved denial of access to a well for people of a lower caste. The accused stopped them from using the well. The Supreme Court strongly condemned this act. It said untouchability is a serious offence. The Court held that such acts violate basic human dignity (self-respect). It also said that old customs cannot be used as an excuse. The judgment stressed strict enforcement of the law. It is one of the most important cases on civil rights in India.
Case Name
Devarajiah v. B. Padmanna
Section
4
6
6
Rules(s)
Denial of access to public places and services is punishable.
Case Brief
In this case, a person was denied access to a barber shop due to caste. The Court held that such denial is illegal. It said all public services must be open to everyone. The Act clearly prohibits such discrimination. The Court emphasized equality in daily life. This case shows how the law protects basic rights in society.
Case Name
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Krishna Balothia
Section
7
Rules(s)
Laws against caste discrimination must be strictly applied.
Case Brief
This case dealt with offences related to caste discrimination. The Court upheld strict provisions to prevent such acts. It said these laws are needed to protect weaker sections. The judgment highlighted social justice (fair treatment in society). It showed that strong legal steps are needed to remove discrimination.
Case Name
People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India
Section
7A
Rules(s)
Government must actively prevent social discrimination.
Case Brief
This case focused on rights of workers and weaker groups. The Court held that the government has a duty to stop discrimination. It must take positive steps (active measures). The judgment linked civil rights with human dignity. It expanded the role of the state in protecting rights.
Case Name
State of Gujarat v. Ambika Mills
Section
10
Rules(s)
Persons helping in offence are also liable.
Case Brief
This case discussed liability of persons involved in offences. The Court said that those who support or help discrimination are also guilty. It clarified the meaning of abetment (helping in crime). The case helped in applying the law widely.
Case Name
N. Nagendra Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Section
14
Rules(s)
Officials acting in good faith are protected.
Case Brief
This case dealt with protection given to government officials. The Court said that if officials act honestly, they are protected. But misuse of power is not allowed. The judgment balanced accountability and protection. It is important for understanding Section 14.