K. Parasaran Age, Wife, Children, Family, Biography & More

Note: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, a former Supreme Court judge, gave this name to Parasaran as a recognition of his legal contributions while respecting his religious beliefs.

Maru Ram Vs Union of India (1981)
The Supreme Court determined in this case that the President and the Governor of a state lack the authority to unilaterally pardon a prisoner. Instead, the power to grant a pardon is confined to the recommendation of the Council of Ministers in their respective governments.

R. K. Garg Vs Union of India (1981)
This case was filed by R. K. Garg in the Supreme Court, challenging the implementation of the 1981 Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exceptions) Act. In his plea, he said that the Union government did injustice to the honest citizens by shielding those with black money, purchasing the bonds, from the IT Department’s inquiry regarding the source of the money from which they bought the bonds.

S. P. Gupta Vs Union of India (1981)
The apex court held in this case that the recommendations of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for the appointment of judges in the court cannot be considered obligatory.

S. P. Mittal Vs Union of India (1983)
This case dealt with the definition of “religious denomination” as outlined in the Indian Constitution concerning the concept of religious freedom.

Sheonandan Paswan Vs State of Bihar (1983)
This case examined the authority of a public prosecutor to step back from a case. The Supreme Court held that the public prosecutor has the constitutional right to withdraw from a court case involving an individual, provided that the court grants consent.

Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Vs State of Bihar (1983)
Hoechst Pharmaceuticals took legal action against the Bihar government regarding the enforcement of the Bihar Finance Act of 1981, which imposed taxes on pharmaceutical companies in the state. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Act, affirming its constitutional validity.

Union of India Vs Bombay Tyre International Ltd. (1984)
In this case, the apex court established the criteria for subtracting post-manufacturing costs when calculating the assessable value for tax deduction according to the Central Excise Act.

LIC Vs Escorts Ltd. (1986)
The Supreme Court examined the importance of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution in scenarios where a government-owned entity possesses shares in a corporation.

Indian Express Newspapers Vs Union of India (1985)
The Indian Express initiated legal action in the Supreme Court, seeking a ruling on the taxation of newspapers. The petitioner contended that taxing newspapers was in violation of Freedom of Expression. The Supreme Court ruled that while taxes couldn’t be imposed on the exercise of freedom of expression, they could be applied to various sectors, including the newspaper industry.

Sampath Kumar Vs Union of India (1987)
In this case, the petitioner raised concerns about the constitutionality of judgments delivered by Administrative Tribunals formed under Article 323A. The Court, however, held the constitutional validity of both, Article 323A, and various clauses in the Administrative Tribunals Act.

Kehar Singh Vs Union of India (1989)
In its decision, the Supreme Court stated that, under Article 72, the President of India has the authority to re-evaluate the evidence in a criminal case and arrive at a sentencing decision which is different from that of the court.

Indra Sawhney Vs Union of India (1992)
Indra Sawhney, the petitioner, contended that the 27% reservation allocated to the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) for government services should not extend to the “creamy layer;” those earning above Rs. 1 lakh annually. The petitioner also argued that the reservations for OBCs in promotions within government positions should not be implemented.

Unni Krishnan Vs State of A. P. (1993)
Unni Krishnan, the petitioner, raised concerns about the Andhra Pradesh government’s responsibilities in giving education. The apex court held that the Article 45 only guarantees the Right To Education to those below the age of 14. The court also said that the inclusion of the right to receive education for those over the age of 14 shall depend on the development of the respective state’s economy as well as its infrastructure.

R. C. Poudyal Vs Union of India (1994)
In the apex court, Poudyal, while citing the breach of the secular principles of the Indian constitution, contested the allocation of one seat for the Sanghal minority (Buddhist Lamaic Religious Monasteries) and the twelve seats reserved for individuals of Bhutia-Lepcha origin in the Sikkim Legislative Assembly. The court determined that the state legislature, in accordance with the power granted under Article 371F of the constitution, had the authority to reserve seats.

S. R. Bommai Vs Union of India (1994)
The petitioner, Bommai, filed this case concerning the imposition of the President’s Rule (under Article 356) leading to the abrupt dismissal of state governments. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Central government should not invoke President’s Rule for political motives but only in genuine emergencies. Additionally, the court laid down principles to limit the application of Article 356.

T. N. Seshan Vs Union of India (1995)
Seshan, who served as the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) at that time, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court to contest the Central government’s approval of Article 342(2), which resulted in the selection of two extra Election Commissioners (ECs). The court, however, ruled in favour of the Union government.

J. Jayalalitha Vs M. Chenna Reddy (1998)
Jayalalitha, the ex-Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, challenged the authority of the Governor of Tamil Nadu to initiate legal actions against a Chief Minister. The Supreme Court gave its decision in Jayalalitha’s favour, stating that a state’s Governor does not have the authority to sanction the initiation of a criminal case against a Chief Minister.

P. A. Inamdar Vs State of Maharashtra (2005)
It focused on the imposition of quotas in unaided professional institutions and the administration of admission exams for such colleges under Article 30 of the Indian constitution. The Supreme Court determined that the Maharashtra state government did not possess the jurisdiction to dictate admission and administrative policies for educational institutions established by minorities.

M. Nagaraj Vs Union of India (2006)
Nagaraj, the petitioner, challenged the Union government’s power to modify the constitution for expanding reservation in job promotions to SCs/STs in public services. The Supreme Court, in its verdict, emphasized that the government must adhere to the 50% reservation limit, exclude the Creamy Layer (similar to OBCs), and demonstrate the actual backwardness of the specified caste or tribe.

Ashoka Kumar Thakur Vs Union of India (2008)
Ashoka Kumar Thakur contested the 2006 Union government’s decision to allocate a 27 percent reservation for OBC students in government colleges, as per the Mandal Commission’s (1992) recommendations. The Supreme Court upheld the government’s decision but stated that individuals falling within the Creamy Layer, earning more than Rs. 2,50,000 annually, should not benefit from the reservation.

The Sabarimala Case
K. Parasaran defended the Nair Service Society in the Supreme Court as they aimed to restrict the access of menstruating women to the Sabarimala temple, citing the celibacy of Lord Ayyappan, the temple’s deity. In his argument, Parasaran referred to verses from the Sundarakanda of the Ramayana and spoke of “Naishtika Brahmacharya,” highlighting Lord Ayyappa’s celibate character. In his arguments, Parasaran said,

“If a person asks ‘can I smoke when I pray’, he will get a slap. But if he asks, “can I pray as I smoke, he will be appreciated. So, the right question will bring the right answer, a wrong question will bring a wrong answer.”

The five-member Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and including Justices Rohinton Nariman, A. M. Khanwilkar, D. Y. Chandrachud, and Indu Malhotra, rejected the opposing arguments and, in the end, allowed women to enter.

Ayodhya Land Dispute Case
The case initially began in the Allahabad High Court and later reached the Supreme Court. It was regarding the land allocation for the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh. K. Parasaran, acting as the legal representative for the Hindu parties, advocated for the infant deity Ram Lalla Viraajman. In 2019, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court rendered the decision. The court assigned the contested Ram Mandir site to the Hindu parties and directed the Government of India to establish a trust for overseeing the temple’s construction. The court also instructed the government to allocate land to the Waqf Board for the construction of a mosque.

Note: He is a follower of Lord Parthasarathy.

• Balaji Parasaran (lawyer)

• Satish Parasaran (senior advocate, Tamil Nadu Bar Council member)

Daughter(s)– 2
• Rangam Balaji (literary scholar, lyricist)

• Vasupradha