Search Results

Union of India, it was decided that the fundamental right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1 However, in National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India, a bench of Justices K.S. Puttuswamy v. Union of India.  Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled in 2018, that Section 377 was unconstitutional. Union Of India. D. Y.

debate seems to have been laid to rest with the positivist approach emerging as triumphant in the West, India Legality v. In multicultural India, this has, however, created a flawed system where inconsistencies with moral and The social and moral fabric of traditional India has viewed such relations as moral in multiple instances The Court relied on the established precedent of Indra Sarma v.

Union of India that opened up such a possibility.  Sawhney v. Union of India, but leaving the phrase “backward classes” open-ended under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) ensured Union of India ((2014) 5 SCC 438), expanded the scope of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Indian Constitution of India following the obligation placed in NALSA to ascertain whether the inclusion of transgenders

References Narayan, V. A., & Sindhu, J. (2020). A Case for Judicial Review of Legislative Process in India? How Electoral Bonds Distort India’s Democracy. -49344 ADR v/s Union of India & Ors., No. 880 of 2017. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/27935 /27935_2017_1_1501_50573_Judgement_15-Feb-2024.pdf India. (1950) The Constitution Of India.

Islamia University, New Delhi National Medical Commission/राष्ट्रीय चिकित्सा आयोग The Supreme Court of India Reasonable Accommodation India ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities of Union of India & Ors   described the importance of reasonable accommodation to attain the primary values The SC in State of T.N. v. National South Indian River Interlinking Agriculturist Assn.   Union of India  has highlighted the legal formalism caused by the classification criteria, where he pointed

Relying on Indra Sawhney v. Union of India ,  the 75% reservation falls foul of the maximum cap of reservation affixed by the Supreme Union of India  that any unreasonable restriction on trade can be challenged under Article 19(1)(g). Union of India  helped establish a symbiotic relationship between Articles 19 and 21 and the two cannot Union of India ,  the court opined that regionalism must be avoided by the legislators to protect the

Nakara v. Union of India (1983), Mafatlal Industries Ltd vs. Union of India (1996), Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company vs. that could even fund the entire Union budget of India; the purse of the top 10 richest had a staggering Cooper v. Union of India (Cooper) (1970).  The court echoed a similar view in the judgment of Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.

Union of India converged unanimously in ruling the scheme of Electoral Bonds as unconstitutional due The Court traces this to the earlier cases of State of UP v. Raj Narain and SP Gupta v. Union of India, which were given in the context of the exercise of executive privilege under Section of India v. Association of Democratic Reforms (hereinafter referred to as 'ADR' Case) and PUCL v Union of India (

anti-secessionist strikes, for instance, the Khalistan movements, which have caused significant tensions between India The Indian Scenario Fundamental duties were initially not a part of the Indian Constitution. Union of India, where the court directed the closure of Tanneries close to the river Ganges near Kanpur Union of India (Taj Trapezium Case) case, where the court banned the usage of coal and cake and directed Students Union vs.

Velusamy v. D. has ratified is the case of Vishaka v. Basu v. The leading case is: Gramophone co. of India Ltd vs. Birendra Bahadur Pandey. In the case of Vellore citizens welfare forum vs Union of India (1996), the Supreme Court upheld the

Union of India [ 1950 ] AIR 27(SC), the court discussed "due process of law". In Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India[1978] AIR 597 (SC), the court gave the golden triangle, incorporating Union of India [2011] 4 SCC 454 (SC) case, and Common Cause a registered society v. The status of euthanasia in India emerged from the Common Cause, a registered society v. Union of India [2018] AIR 1665 (SC), which had established the legality of passive euthanasia.

In Janhit Abhiyan v. clauses in the Indian Constitution with the ruling in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India . Eleven indicators were presented by Justice B. The development of reservation jurisprudence in India particularly in the context of EWS reservations In Union of India v.