within the framework of the Indian Constitution. This distinction holds good even in the Indian context between fundamental rights and DPSP. Meanwhile, the Courts of India, Supreme Court, and High Courts have been interpreting Fundamental Rights Union of India. The Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon v.

Tribal women in India grapple with a historical injustice as tribal customary laws frequently strip them This exclusion has been officially communicated under Article 342 of the Constitution of India. ST women lack equal entitlement, evident in the All-India Report on Agricultural Census 2010-2011 , with In Kartick Oraon v. universal rights, and cultural sensitivities is crucial for improving the status of tribal women in India

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

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.

Authored by Neha Kumari, pursuing LLM at Chanakya National Law University, Patna Introduction India's India emphasises three primary areas that will improve this structure: the allocation of authorities India's quasi-federal structure, comprising 29 states and 7 union territories, establishes three features India has always operated as a federation, with power distributed among various state governments and union governments.

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

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.

[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.

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

Our efforts have been recognised internationally, with Feedspot ranking us 21st globally and 2nd in India Themes Fundamental Rights, Privacy and Personal Rights Changing Contours of Fundamental Rights in India Privacy, Surveillance and the Indian Constitution Electoral Transparency v. The language for the submission of a manuscript will be only English (UK/India and not USA). (Use of India Code for statutes and original judgments from the website of the Hon’ble Court is suggested

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).