Search Results

There was no question about their loyalty towards India. of India. In Central Bank of India v. same view was later propounded by the different High Courts , and the Apex Court in Izhar Ahmad Khan v Union of India ,  wherein it held that Rule 3 was not ultra vires of fundamental rights and that obtaining

The Society for Constitutional Law Discussion is organizing a workshop on “Indian Constitution in 2022 occasion of Republic Day i.e., 26th January, 2022 About the Workshop/ Concept Note The Supreme Court of India shall discuss the wider interpretation of the Constitution by the Apex Court and the relevance of the Indian Topic “Indian Constitution in 2022: Judicial Perspectives” General Details Date: January 26, 2022 Time

The Preamble envisages India as a Sovereign, Socialist, Democratic, and Republic nation. Union of India[13] where the Supreme Court held that the words voluntary give up membership and resignation Vishwanathan v. Rajendra Singh Rana v. Zachilhu and Others, AIR 1993 SC 412. [13] Ravi S Naik v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1558 [14] G.

right to personal liberty given to an arrested person, flowing out of Article 21 of the Constitution of India right to personal liberty given to an arrested person, flowing out of Article 21 of the Constitution of India Union of India, have ruled that the ability to be released on bond is a basic right. "In the matter of Athar Pervez v. For instance, the Supreme Court of India granted temporary release to Arvind Kejriwal during the Lok

However, this has ignited the debate over dual citizenship within the territory of India because the Thereby, in Pradeep Jain ,   the   single domicile of the citizens i.e., the domicile of India was upheld In Prashant Vidyarthi v. specifically refers to “office under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State or Union Suggestions and Conclusions The judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in IMT Industrial Association v.

[iii] In the case of Romesh Thakur v. [ii] Sakal Papers v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305: (1962) 3 SCR 842. [iii] Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) P. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 515 at 527: (1985) Scc641. [iv]Romesh Thakur v. the State of Madras, 1950 AIR 124, 1950 SCR 594.

Introduction Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India gives every citizen the right to freedom of The law of Sedition in India is affirmed under Chapter VI, “Offences against the State”, beneath Section contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India led to slapping the charge of Sedition on Ramya on the basis that she should go to Pakistan and leave India as her statement was anti-national and, in a way, insulting to the people of India.

[xi].Moreover, India being a welfare state, expounds an obligation upon the government to constantly Union of India & Ors. [iv]Article 21, Constitution of India, 1950. [v]Article 19(1)(d), Constitution of India, 1950. [viii]Supra v. [ix]Article 19(1)(e), Constitution of India, 1950. [x]Supra v. [xi]K. Chandru Vs. Union of India &Ors., W.P.(C) 11616/2015. [xiv]ICESCR, Art. 11(1). [xv]UDHR, Art. 25(1).

In 2016, the Supreme Court, in its landmark judgment in   Nabam Rebia v. In a subsequent judgment in Keisham Meghachandra Singh v.  (para 5.22) and even the Election Commission of India   itself have also echoed this sentiment. Opposition leaders have often voiced their distrust in the Election Commission of India (ECI), arguing Vithalbhai Patel, India's first Indian Speaker in 1925, attempted to set a precedent of being impartial

v. Time and again, the Supreme Court of India has confirmed the same. Supreme Court of India has applied this doctrine to various domains ranging from statutory laws to public In 1957, the Government of India set up the 2nd Pay Commission Committee, whose recommendations were The Supreme Court has confirmed the same in the case of Indian Aluminum Co Ltd v.

recordings have been held to be admissible as electronic evidence falling under the meaning of the Indian Also, in IMA v. Union of India, the Court went into the ambit of article 15(2) insofar it prohibits private discrimination In the case of Consumer Education and Research Centre (CERC) v. Union of India where the Court was riddled with the right to health of employees, it held that such a

Union of India (UOI) and Ors.[1], the Supreme Court of India held that the Right to Privacy is guaranteed Sharma & Ors. v. Satish Chandra, DM, Delhi & Ors.[2]and Kharak Singh v. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors[4]. regulations in India. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., AIR 2017 SC 4161. [2] M.P.