Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Atypical families are deserving of equal protection under law and benefits available under social welfare legislation. Decision by. D. Y. Chandrachud and A. S. Bopanna. Deepika Singh versus Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors. (2022) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that widens the definition of 'family' under Indian law.
ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla was a landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India pertaining to the suspension of Articles 21 and 226 of the Indian Constitution in the event of a National Emergency. This controversial judgment of P.N. Bhagwati, decreed during the emergency from 25 June 1975 to 21 March 1977, held that a person's right to ...
Union of India held that reservations cannot be applied in promotions. 1992 Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India judgment laid down the limits of the state's powers: it upheld the ceiling of 50 per cent quotas, emphasized the concept of "social backwardness", and prescribed 11 indicators to ascertain backwardness.
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51) was a 1985 case in the Supreme Court of India.It came before the Court as a written petition by pavement and slum dwellers in Bombay (Now Mumbai), seeking to be allowed to stay on the pavements against their order of eviction during the monsoon months by the Bombay Municipal Corporation.
Justice P. N. Bhagwati delivered a judgment for a plurality of the Court, writing for himself and Justices Untwalia and Fazal Ali. [3]: 273 Chief Justice Beg, [3]: 390 Justice Chandrachud, [3]: 322 and Justice Krishna Iyer wrote separate judgments concurring with the plurality. [3]: 328 Justice Kailasam wrote a dissenting opinion.
The public trust doctrine, as discussed by the Court in this judgment was a part of the law of the land. Decision by. Kuldip Singh. M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath was a landmark case in Indian environmental law. In the case, the Supreme Court of India held that the public trust doctrine applied in India. [ 1]
The Attorney General of India K K Venugopal had opposed the elevation of privacy as a fundamental right, representing the stance of the Union government of India in the Supreme Court. The previous Attorney General, Mukul Rohatgi , had opposed the right to privacy entirely, but Venugopal, while opposing the right, conceded that privacy could be ...
URL. indiankanoon .org. Launched. 2008; 16 years ago. ( 2008) Current status. Online. Indian Kanoon is an Indian law search engine. [ 1][ 2] It was launched on 4 January 2008. The search engine has been meshed with the highest courts and tribunals of India to provide up-to-date judgements. [ 3][ 4]