Search Results

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.” 

Law School Lord Mountbatten swearing in Jawaharlal Nehru as the first Prime Minister of independent India of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps, India will awake to life and freedom . It was argued  by Rohit De that between 1947 and 1950, India was a British Dominion. Firstly, Preventive Detention existed in India under the rule of the British since 1818. alone, many of them re-promulgated in violation of constitutional spirit, as condemned in D C Wadhwa v

The case of Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India (Bilkis Bano Case’) The Rape incident took place on March 3, 2002, after Bilkis and her denied the right to vote, which is the most basic right and most important one given to citizens of India The Supreme Court of India has laid down various factors for granting remission in Laxman Naskar v. Further, in 2006, SC in Epuru Sudhakar v.

The Supreme Court’s (SC) judgement   in “ Association for Democratic Reforms v Union of India (2024)” Under the Electoral Bond Scheme, such bonds can be purchased by any Indian citizen or a registered Indian party which garnered more than 1% vote in previous polls can cash it out at the specified State Bank of India an immediate cessation of the issuance of bonds under EBS and instructed the Election Commission of India , which analysed the data of political funding between FY 2004-05 and FY 2010-11, the top receiver Indian

Authored by Kunal Parihar, a 3rd-year law student at National Law School of India University, Bangalore Introduction In a unanimous decision in Association For Democratic Reforms vs Union Of India, 2024  on Corporate Donors v. Donors: Unraveling the Constitutional Implications When delivering the judgment, the Chief Justice of India Considering the considerable control of the state over the State Bank of India, it is not difficult for

Authored by Raj Krishna and Alivya Sahay, students of Chanakya National Law University, Patna. Introduction On 25th March, 2020, the Supreme Court of United Kingdom in a landmark ruling held that “the act of handing over of the evidence by the British Home Secretary to the American authorities was unlawful because it was not in sync with the law laid down in the Data Protection Act 2018.” This judicial review was brought in before the court by Maha El Gizouli who is the mother of Shafee El Sheikh, a suspected member of the British terrorist group popularly known as ‘The Beatles.’ In June 2015, the United States of America made a mutual legal assistance request to the British authorities in relation to an investigation pertaining to the activities of the Beatles. In accordance with long-established practice, the then Home Secretary Sajid Javid requested an assurance from the American authorities that the information provided will not be used in a direct or indirect manner in a prosecution which could lead to the imposition of the death penalty. The American authorities refused to provide a full death penalty assurance. Nevertheless, in June 2018, the then Home Secretary agreed to provide the information to the US without requiring any assurance.  As a result the appellant challenged the decision of the Home Secretary’s by the way of judicial review. Mrs. Elgizouli argued before the Court that the conduct of Home Secretary violated the provisions of Data Protection Act 2018 and was in contrary to the common law. In February 2019 the High Court in this case observed that the act of Home Secretary was lawful and thereby delivered the decision in favor of the authorities. Against this decision of the High Court the applicant filed an appeal before the British Supreme Court. The issues which were framed before the Apex Court at the time of hearing were as follows: Is it unlawful under the common law to facilitate the imposition of the death penalty against an individual in a foreign state through the provision of information? Is the decision to provide information was lawful under the provisions of Data Protection Act 2018? Judgment of the Court The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the appellant. The majority of the Justices dismissed the challenge brought under the common law; however the Court unanimously held that “the decision of the Home Secretary was not in sync with the provisions of the Data Protection Act.” On the first issue, the majority of the Justices held that “the common law has not evolved to recognize a principle prohibiting the provision of MLA that will facilitate the death penalty.” Lord Carnwath in his judgment observed that “the key legal developments in relation to the death penalty have never attracted the attention of the common law.  Most of the reforms in regard to the death penalty have come from Parliament and the European Court of Human Rights and not the domestic courts.” However Lord Kerr in his judgment observed that the common law had evolved to recognize a principle whereby “it is unlawful to facilitate by provision of material to be used in the trial of a person in a foreign country where there is a risk that, as a result of those proceedings, that person would be at risk of execution.” Whereas on second issue the Court unanimously held that “the decision of the Home Secretary was unlawful under the provisions of the Data Protection Act, 2018.” Sections 73-76 of the Data Protection Act lay down the criteria for the transfer of personal data to third countries. The data controller cannot transfer data unless the three conditions in s. 73(1) (a) are met. The Conditions laid down under Section 73(1) are as follows:- The transfer is necessary for any of the law enforcement purposes. The transfer is (a) based on an adequacy decision of the European Commission; (b) if not based on an adequacy decision, is based on there being appropriate safeguards; or (c) if not based on an adequacy decision or appropriate safeguards, is based on special circumstances.” The judges upon this issue observed that this transfer was not based upon an adequacy decision or appropriate safeguards. Nor does the transfer meet the special circumstances requirement as listed in Section 76(1) of the statute. Since the conditions did not fulfill the legal requirement, the decision of the Home Secretary was rendered unlawful. Way Forward This judgment is a landmark judgment both for future cooperation over this prosecution and for other similar cases dealing with death penalty assurances. From the legal point of view the observation of Lord Kerr’s opinion upon the existence of a customary international law norm that the death penalty is per se a violation of the prohibition on torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment deserves an appreciation. Whereas from a diplomatic point of view the judgment depicts the serious pressure exerted from the current US administration over UK’s assurances policy. However it is pertinent to note that the real significance of Elgizouli judgment is not in its analysis of the common law but in pointing the way towards defending the human rights of data subjects. Furthermore if such an analysis is accepted in fuller argument, then it may facilitate greater rights protections beyond the territorial limitations of the European Convention on Human Rights. Apart from that this judgment has confirmed that the Mutual Legal Assistance decisions by the British authorities will now be subject to a court review; notwithstanding that MLA is an exercise of a prerogative power.  As a result this is a monumental decision which deserves an appreciation. This article was first published on CONSTITUTIONALISM 3.0.

Unnikrishnan v. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Court rightly established secularism as part of the basic structure of the In contrast, in Aruna Roy v. Union of India  (2002), the Court reaffirmed that Indian secularism is not atheistic and allows for a

These articles focus on the following aspects: In McFall v. The judgment of Shabnam Hashmi vs Union of India provided adoption as a  Fundamental Right. Key Case Laws on The Aspect of Surrogacy In India Baby Manjhi Yamada vs Union of India In this instance Ikufumi Yamada and his wife, travelled to India for surrogacy purposes. Puttaswamy vs Union of India The court determined that requiring individuals to obtain and present a

Union of India, 2024. In doing so, the court overruled the controversial P.V. Further, it discusses the scope, ambit and purport of parliamentary privileges in India, as has been In India, Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution deal with the powers, privileges and immunities of Attorney General of India). Overruling P.V. In the case of Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel v.

In the case of India, the State derives such power from both the constitutional authority as well as India, along with being a signatory to the ICCPR, has also gone one step ahead and conducted four reviews has not gone unnoticed by the able judicial mechanism of the country as the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Even in India, separate age categories can have concrete primary eligibility parameters to qualify for is a beacon that shall further lay the foundation for a concrete and transparent remission policy in India

Penal Code, a colonial-era law on sedition, and its application in contemporary India. In the case of Rajat Sharma v. Union of India, the former Chief Minister, expressing his views on the Ladakh situation, suggested that the ambit of reasonable restrictions, it must be in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India Union of India, two girls were arrested for commenting on a Facebook post under section 66A of the Act

Upon independence, India adopted a federal system with the Central Government holding relatively more Bommai v. Union of India , the Supreme Court observed that federalism, like secularism, is part of the basic structure Union of India  that the appointment and removal of governors cannot be arbitrary or politically motivated ’s unity and move India further towards the path of development.