Search Results

the case of Romesh Thapar v. Ltd. v. Union of India   where Justice Venkataramiah  aptly described the free press as “the heart of social In the case of  Shreya Singhal v. Union of India ,  Section 66A  of the IT Act , 2000 was struck down for violating Article 19(1)(a), which

Social justice in the Indian Constitution is instituted considering India’s unique social realities and In India, affirmative action mainly takes two forms, i.e. diversity initiatives and reservation schemes Abolition of Untouchability Untouchability was abolished in India by virtue of  Article 17 of the Indian This is especially true in a nation like India, where the constitutional courts are vested with wide The sunset clause is an invention of the US Supreme Court in the case of Students for Fair Admissions v.

Authored by Harsh, a law student at Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur Supreme Court of India Introduction Article 361  of the Indian Constitution provides that the President of the Union of India Latin maxim "The King Can Do No Wrong" being incorporated in Section 306(1)  of the Government of India Secretary of State for India  and in N. Nagendra Rao and Co. v. While DD Basu’s commentary on the Constitution of India does mention a list of offences that have been

India cannot be considered as a federal state completely as it has features of both unitary form of government In the Indian constitution, we can see the features of a union government as well as that of unitary that India is a federal country. central government control over the state government’s powers, emergency proclamations etc showcase that India union government and state government under different lists mentioned, like, Union List, State List,

Supreme Court of India Introduction  Even after the introduction of the word “secular” via the 42nd Amendment the Supreme Court to build a temple in its place, and a spate of petitions before various Courts in India In the case of Anita Kushwaha v. In the case of Miller v. Even in India, in the case of In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution , Justice S.K.

to the Constituent Assembly which spoke in the name of the people of India…This means that the legal sovereignty was vested in the Constituent Assembly whereas the people of India may be said to be only In recognition of this fact and to bring out that it was really speaking on behalf of the people of India , the Constituent Asembly began the Preamble with the words : "We, the people of India". is not to be found, anywhere in our Constitution, any transfer of legal sovereignty to the people of India

However, in the case of In re Mulgaokar, Hon'ble Justice V. R. In the case of Rajesh Kumar Singh v. judges (Supreme court and High Courts) from any criminal proceedings without consulting Chief Justice of India has held that contempt power of court is within the reasonable restriction given in Article 19(2) of India Resources SCC Online https://www.scconline.com/Members/Search.aspx Indian Kanoon https://indiankanoon.org

[v] This was agreed upon keeping in mind the diverse groups, the vast size of the Indian state, and Article 1(1) of the Constitution describes: “India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States.” Union of India, [xiv] the Supreme Court went totally against the earlier judgment and neglected the Bommai v. Union of India, [xv] a nine-judge bench enunciated that the Indian Constitution is federal.

Bommai v. Union of India, the Hon'ble Court declared that secularism is the basic structure of the Constitution The Constitution of India provides for a Secular State. In Aruna Roy v. Union of India, the Court has held that the word "secularism" used in the Preamble of the Constitution

Same-Sex Marriage: 2023 Supreme Court of India Ruling As early as 2023, the recent Supreme Court of India same sex some protection from harassment and discrimination, all sans formal registration of their union The Kerala High Court held only at the beginning of this year, in Adhila Nasrin v. United States Supreme Court legalised marriage between the same sex in 2015 in the case of Obergefell v. The Obergefell v. Hodges US paradigm of judicial activism differs from this approach.

Consequently, the only legitimate recourse available to the Union of India would have been to invoke Ismail Faruqui (Dr) v. Union of India , the Supreme Court examined the scope of its advisory jurisdiction while addressing the Union of India  (“2G Judgement”). Similarly, the Court dismissed the contention that the recitals in the Union of India’s withdrawn review

In India, Romesh Thappar v. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu and S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal. In Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, a constitution bench of this court held that Section 377 had a chilling effect on the Thus, the Supreme Court held it unconstitutional in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. Union of India, Anuradha Bhasin, executive editor of Kashmir Times, approached the court that due to