Search Results

The right to privacy has been recognized and expanded by the Supreme Court of India in several landmark Puttaswamy v. Union of India , Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India , or Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India . Puttaswamy v. Union of India and Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India , have expanded its scope and recognition.

Union of India (“ NALSA judgement ”). portion of the community currently engages in, like begging and sex work, has been criminalized in India In India, Vertical reservation is particularly for the reservation for the underprivileged people belonging In Indira Sawhney v Union of India , (“ Indira Sawhney ”), Supreme Court provided a 50% cap on reservations organisation dedicated to the rights of transgender persons and sexual minorities, in the case of Sangama v.

Union of India  held that “the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 is not limited to Domestic Violence Against Men: An Insight into the Figures and Statistics In India, where the Legislature While in Vishaka & Ors v. Shine v. Union of India , adultery  was decriminalised citing violation of Article 14  as one of the grounds. 

Constitution recognises the right to freedom of speech as a fundamental right, extending it to all citizens of India Article 19(2) provides the parameters for the same, which include, “sovereignty and integrity of India In the landmark case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India , the Supreme Court answered this question of reasonable restrictions in the context of Union of India .

Rathinam v Union of India in the year 1994. In this case, the petitioners, P. Rathinam v. Union of India, the right to life under Article 21 also encompasses the right to die. Union of India (2011)  was passed. Ms. Union of India (2018) . Union of India , recognised the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right under Article 21.

Hotel Association of India held that personal autonomy and self-expression are protected under Article Union of India , gender identity was recognized as one of the most fundamental aspects of life and every It was said that the continued discrimination against the transgender community in India is contrary Union of India , the Hon’ble Court held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Art. 14

Bommai v. Union of India , which formally held Secularism to be a part of the Basic Structure. An Aberration The Indra Sawhney v. Union of India  case had its roots in a highly contentious context. During Prime Minister V.P. Bommai v. Union of India  is frequently cited as a precedent to assert that secularism is an integral element of

Union of India , it was decided that the fundamental right to freedom of expression under Article 19( 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.

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) 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

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

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.

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