Search Results

Union of India [iii] , the SC upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right that grants individuals The Supreme Court, in its recent Joseph Shine ruling, concluded that the state cannot exercise authority Sareetha V. T. Venkata Subbaiah, (1983) AIR AP 356 (India). [iii] K.S. Puttaswamy V. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India). [iv] Gobind V. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1975) AIR 1378 (India). [v] Huhhram V.

bearer bonds that can be purchased by any company or individual from the branches of the State Bank of India transparency, the political parties have to disclose their bank accounts to the Election Commission of India AITC (All India Trinamool Congress) is second and then Congress. Union of India The Supreme Court on 15th February 2024 passed a judgment that the electoral bonds are The Supreme Court on 11th March dismissed the application of the State Bank of India for the extension

To guard the Constitution of India. Landmark Judgments Kesavananda Bharati V. Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India (1978) In the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1986) In this case, the Supreme Court of India introduced the ‘principle of absolute Union of India (1992) It is one of the most important decisions of the Supreme Court of India on the Union of India (2011) The judgment focused on euthanasia and the right to die.

Bommai v. Union of India , Secularism was established as a basic feature of the COI. Ana Parveen and others v. Union of India also point out the discriminatory nature of CAA. Union of India , the Supreme Court expanded Article 14 to mean that legislation and state activities Union of India , that a statute can fall foul, if it is manifestly arbitrary in nature. It was held in State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v.

Article 1 of the Constitution says “Union of States” which means that India is a union and states are Under India's Supremacy Clauses, federal law takes precedence over state law regarding both Union List In the case of Devika Biswas vs Union of India, the Supreme Court in a PIL held that Population control Narayan Dev v. State of Orissa. India follows a quasi-federal system where power is divided between the Union (central) government and

History of the Homosexuals in India Historians have long argued that pre-colonial Indian society did Citizens believe in the union of marriage but unfortunately, there are many people in our country who The case of Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India decriminalised homosexuality and abrogated section 377 of the Indian penal code which Supreme Court unanimously struck down the law that prohibited interracial marriages in Loving v.

Steel Authority of India .   However, the scope of this provision was challenged in India Cement Ltd v. This centripetal bias is a hallmark of India’s federalism, where the Union’s stronger position leads Steel Authority of India, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the independence of Indian States within their Union of India , where the Supreme Court emphasised that investors require a stable and predictable

The supreme law of the country is the Constitution of India. engaged in deliberations in the case titled RIT Foundation vs The Union of India, [2022 SCC Online Del Supreme Court: In September 2022, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in the case titled X v. , which are the following: Independent Thought vs Union of India: In this case, the Supreme Court held RIT Foundation vs Union Of India (2019): Delhi High Court directed the government to consider amending

It was held by Radhakrishnan J. in NALSA v Union of India as “No restriction can be placed on one’s personal Puttaswamy v Union of India, where Chandrachud J. stated that the liberty of an individual to decide Aruna Roy & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. that “Even if there are differences of opinion in certain areas, people have to dictating the dress code in educational institutions, which could lead to a serious religious divide in India

Union of India, have indicted such legislations, underlining the state's obligation to ensure social In the matter of Harsh Mander v. Union of India , the Delhi High Court decriminalised begging and reiterated the responsibility of the In Vishal Pathak v. Union of India  (2020), the petitioner sought the decriminalisation of begging and the removal of the

Authored by Aashi Goyal, a 3rd-year law student at National Law School of India University, Bangalore Part, unless the context otherwise requires, “the State’’ includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.” that have the authority to enforce, restrict and protect the fundamental rights of the citizens of India

Union of India   in 2017 restated the recognition of the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Puttaswamy v. Union of India . Union of India , which revolved around Aadhaar,  a government initiative providing a unique identification Union of India & Ors . The lawsuit seeks to uphold Indian residents' data and “right to privacy.”  Puttaswamy v. Union of India case.”