Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Y. V. Chandrachud (Chief Justice) Concur/dissent. P. N. Bhagwati. Minerva Mills Ltd. and Ors. v. Union Of India and Ors. (case number: Writ Petition (Civil) 356 of 1977; case citation: AIR 1980 SC 1789) [ 1] is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India [ 2] that applied and evolved the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution of India.
Following the enactment of the One Hundred and Third Amendment Act of 2019, several writ petitions were filed, seeking to declare the amendment unconstitutional and in violation of the basic structure concept. By adding Articles 15(6) and 16(6) to the Indian Constitution, the state acquired the authority to impose specific restrictions 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.
Indra Sawhney v. 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.
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 ...
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 ...
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 ...
[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]