Search Results

Doctrine of Reasonable Restriction Article 19 (2) refers to “reasonable restriction” over the exercise Supreme Court has held that freedom of speech and expression is subject to reasonable restriction under Article Union of India, [iv] it was held that freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19 ( Nevertheless, the Court has struck it down on being violative of Article 19 (1) (a). Gaurav Ashwin Jain, (2007) 4 SCC 737. [vii] Virendra v. State of Punjab, 1958 SCR 308.

The petitioners, while seeking police protection under Article 226 , cited threats from their families Additionally, the Court asserted that the rights to life and personal liberty under Article 21  of the The charges included Section 366A  of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act , pertaining to penetrative

This article argues that the rapid consolidation of personality-rights litigation before the Delhi High The article has four sections, as follows: The first section shows how the Delhi High Court became the Litigants are making more claims about personalities using Article 21 . State of Tamil Nadu In the  Rajagopal  case, the Supreme Court located privacy within Article 21 and Publicity Rights and the Limits of Article 21: ICC Development (International) Ltd. v.

The Indian Constitution's Article 21 guarantees of life and personal liberty are inextricably related Article 21 provides that "no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according This decision emphasises how the Indian Constitution's Article 21, which protects the right to life and Violation of Article 14: The ED has put forth a strong argument against granting interim bail based on the right to campaign, citing concerns about equality before the law as guaranteed by Article 14 of

Shivangi Pahuja, Legal Academician Link to Join: TECHNICAL SESSION: 4 | THEME: ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

his rights to express his opinions under the right to freedom of speech and expression as provided by Article went against its own liberal view of what can be constituted as contempt, in the case of Arundhati Roy[4] Shiv Shankar & Others, 1988 AIR 1208. [4]Arundhati Roy vs Unknown, AIR 2002. [5]Regina vs Police Commissioner

Supreme Court held that the Preamble is not a part of the Constitution and therefore not amendable under Article was never embraced in the Preamble by the initial framers, although the Directive Principles such as Article Article 368  stipulates that amendments to the Constitution have to be approved by a two-thirds majority

It is argued in this article that the NALSA judgment blurs the line of distinction between horizontal Union of India, but leaving the phrase “backward classes” open-ended under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) ensured Union of India ((2014) 5 SCC 438), expanded the scope of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Indian Constitution This expansive notion of Article 15(4) and 16(4) was further solidified in the Jat reservations judgment reservation for SC, ST and OBCs, where each of these groups has its own “separate” reservation under Article

Article 21 of the constitution projects the obligation on the state to preserve life. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation[4] , that the right to protection of life and personal liberty provide their workmen with proper facilities and health opportunities as pledged and provided in part 4 life under Article 21 which forms the basic fundamental rights of the citizens. April 29, 2021; https://www.bbc.com/news/56858980 [3] 1989 AIR 2039 [4] (1996) 2 SCC 682 [5] The Print

However, this creates a substantial exclusion of the individual’s identification, by removing Section 4( physical inspection of the body, it violates the privacy, dignity and autonomy frameworks secured under Article

requirements lie in the domain of Directive Principles of State Policy, like ‘Right to work’ under Article 41 and ‘Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests and wildlife’ under Article Article 37 spells out the bar to the justiciability of DPSP in the Constitution itself. The Court converted a non-justiciable issue into a justiciable one in the context of Articles 21 and 39-A is a mandate implicit in Articles 14 and 21.

guaranteed to every individual by the Constitution of India, and the same forms an integral part of Article Through the means of this article, the author aims to shed light on the recent Pegasus scandal, what 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Union of India (UOI) and Ors[4]. The State of U.P., 1963 AIR 1295. [4] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.), supra note 1.