Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was a section of the Indian Penal Code introduced in 1861 during the British rule of India. Modeled on the Buggery Act 1533, it made sexual activities "against the order of nature" illegal. On 6 September 2018, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the application of Section 377 to consensual homosexual sex ...
Supreme Court of India, in its judgement dated 10 July 2013 while disposing the Lily Thomas v. Union of India case (along with Lok Prahari v. Union of India), [1] ruled that any Member of Parliament (MP), Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or Member of the Legislative Council (MLC) who is convicted of a crime and given a minimum of two years' imprisonment, loses membership of the House ...
Adv. K. T. Thomas. Annamma. Lily Isabel Thomas (5 March 1928 – 10 December 2019) [4] was an Indian lawyer who initiated improvement and change to existing laws by filing petitions in India's apex court, the Supreme Court of India and regional courts. [5] [6] Her petitions resulted in changes to laws to prevent convicted politicians getting ...
The Indian Judicial Collegium system, where existing judges appoint judges to the nation's constitutional courts, has its genesis in, and continued basis resting on, three of its own judgments made by Supreme Court judges, which are collectively known as the Three Judges Cases. The collegium system has often been alleged to have caste bias due ...
[1] [2] However, other portions of Section 377 relating to sex with minors, non-consensual sexual acts, and bestiality remain in force. [4] While reading the judgment, the then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra pronounced that the court found "criminalising carnal intercourse" to be "irrational, arbitrary and manifestly unconstitutional". [2]
Decision by. Sir Ford North. Keywords. Contract law, minority, mortgage. Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose, [1903] UKPC 12, is a major Indian contract law case decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The case held that a contract entered into by a minor is totally void. [ 1]
R.F. Nariman. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [1] is a judgement by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in 2015, on the issue of online speech and intermediary liability in India. The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, relating to restrictions on online speech, as unconstitutional on ...
Constitution of India, Article 356. S. R. Bommai v. Union of India ( [1994] 2 SCR 644 : AIR 1994 SC 1918 : (1994)3 SCC1) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India, [ 2] where the Court discussed at length provisions of Article 356 of the Constitution of India and related issues. This case had huge impact on Centre-State Relations.