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

(Hons.) in the year 2026 from Chanakya National Law University, Patna Constitution of India Introduction Bommai v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that federalism is part of the Constitution's basic structure. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the powers conferred on the appointed constitutional heads India’s Constitution is based on trust in its leadership.

The Advertising Standards Council of India's Consumer Complaints Council had recommended the restriction The Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) held that any restriction on speech must be necessary and proportionate, be issued Constitutionalism: India’s Democratic Dilemma?' The Population Foundation of India proposed this in 2017.

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.

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

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

[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.

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

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.

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

fourth-year law students at National Law University, Odisha Representational Image The Personality rights in India , thus marking a small but important step in the development of personality rights jurisprudence in India The entertainment business in India is based in Mumbai. Puttaswamy v. Union of India The Puttaswamy case further escalated this ambiguity. Personality rights in India were not invented as tools of control.