Extract important features from judgments;
I. Introduction
In legal practice and administrative law, extracting important features from judgments is a critical skill. It involves identifying the core legal principles, facts, issues, reasoning, and final rulings in a judicial decision. This process is essential for:
Understanding precedents
Applying the correct legal principles
Supporting legal arguments or administrative decisions
II. Key Components to Extract from Judgments
| Component | Explanation |
|---|---|
| 1. Case Title | Names of the parties involved |
| 2. Court and Date | Which court gave the judgment and when |
| 3. Bench | Names of judges (important in constitutional cases) |
| 4. Facts | Brief summary of the facts leading to the case |
| 5. Issues Framed | The legal or factual questions the court had to decide |
| 6. Arguments | Key contentions by both sides |
| 7. Legal Principles Applied | Statutes, precedents, and doctrines used in reasoning |
| 8. Reasoning (Ratio Decidendi) | The logic behind the court’s decision |
| 9. Final Decision | The ruling (allowed, dismissed, upheld, quashed, etc.) |
| 10. Obiter Dicta | Observations not essential to the decision but influential |
III. How to Extract Features – Case Study Approach
Let’s now look at 5 landmark Indian judgments, each followed by extraction of their important features.
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
Citation: AIR 1978 SC 597
✅ Extracted Features:
Facts: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government without giving her a chance to be heard.
Issues:
Whether "procedure established by law" in Article 21 must be fair and just.
Whether Article 14 (equality) and Article 19 (freedom) are interconnected with Article 21.
Legal Principles:
Introduced the doctrine of “due process of law” in Indian jurisprudence.
Emphasized the need for natural justice in administrative action.
Reasoning: The state must follow just, fair, and reasonable procedures, not arbitrary ones.
Final Decision: Action of impounding the passport without hearing violated Articles 14 and 21.
2. A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India
Citation: AIR 1970 SC 150
✅ Extracted Features:
Facts: A member of the selection board was also a candidate for the job. The petitioner claimed bias.
Issues: Whether administrative decisions must adhere to natural justice.
Legal Principles:
Merged the distinction between administrative and quasi-judicial functions.
Applied “nemo judex in causa sua” (no one should be a judge in their own cause).
Reasoning: Decision-makers must be free from bias to maintain fairness.
Final Decision: Selection was invalidated due to violation of natural justice.
3. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
Citation: AIR 1997 SC 1125
✅ Extracted Features:
Facts: Challenge to provisions of the Constitution (42nd Amendment) that made tribunal decisions final and excluded High Court jurisdiction.
Issues:
Can tribunals replace High Courts in exercising judicial review?
Legal Principles:
Judicial review is part of the basic structure.
High Courts' writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be taken away.
Reasoning: While tribunals are necessary for specialized adjudication, ultimate authority remains with the constitutional courts.
Final Decision: Struck down clauses excluding High Court jurisdiction; upheld tribunal system with High Court oversight.
4. Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel
Citation: AIR 1985 SC 1416
✅ Extracted Features:
Facts: Civil servants were dismissed without inquiry citing “security of the state”.
Issues:
Can principles of natural justice be excluded in certain situations?
Legal Principles:
Article 311(2)(b) allows dispensing with inquiry in exceptional cases.
Natural justice is flexible, not rigid.
Reasoning: Natural justice may be excluded in real and serious threats to national interest.
Final Decision: Dismissal upheld, but such exclusion must be justified and not arbitrary.
5. Navjyoti Co-op. Group Housing Society v. Union of India
Citation: (1992) 4 SCC 477
✅ Extracted Features:
Facts: Change in land allotment policy affected housing society’s ranking without notice.
Issues:
Whether the society had a legitimate expectation based on past policy.
Legal Principles:
Introduced and applied doctrine of legitimate expectation.
Administrative policies must be applied consistently.
Reasoning: The sudden change without notice or hearing was unfair and violated expectations.
Final Decision: Policy change was invalid as it violated fairness and consistency.
IV. Benefits of Extracting Key Features from Judgments
| Benefit | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Efficient Legal Research | Saves time by identifying the essence of the case quickly |
| Precedent Analysis | Helps in understanding how a case can be used in argument |
| Legal Drafting | Useful for writing memos, legal opinions, or judicial briefs |
| Exam Preparation | Helps law students summarize case law for faster revision |
| Professional Use | Lawyers and judges refer to core principles for deciding cases |
V. Conclusion
Extracting important features from judgments is not just about summarizing, but about identifying what makes a case legally significant. Whether you're a law student, lawyer, or administrator, understanding how courts apply principles to facts is key to applying the correct doctrine in future cases.
RELATED Blog
0 comments