Net Deals Web Search

Search results

  1. Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
  2. I.C. Golaknath and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anrs.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.C._Golaknath_and_Ors._v...

    Justices K.N. Wanchoo, Vishistha Bhargava and G.K Mitter (writing together); R.S. Bachawat; V. Ramaswami. Golaknath v. State Of Punjab (1967 AIR 1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762), or simply the Golaknath case, was a 1967 Indian Supreme Court case, in which the Court ruled that Parliament could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution.

  3. Section 377 - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377

    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 ...

  4. Right to Privacy verdict - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Privacy_verdict

    Legal experts have suggested that with this judgment, the judges have invalidated the reasoning behind the 2013 Judgement, thus laying the groundwork for Section 377 to be read down and the restoration of the 2009 High Court Judgement, thereby decriminalizing homosexual sex.

  5. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navtej_Singh_Johar_v...

    [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]

  6. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shreya_Singhal_v._Union_of...

    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 ...

  7. Arnesh Kumar Guidelines - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnesh_Kumar_Guidelines

    Arnesh Kumar Guidelines or Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (2014) is a landmark judgement of the Indian Supreme Court, [ 1][ 2] stating arrests should be an exception, in cases where the punishment is less than seven years of imprisonment. [ 3] The guidelines asked the police to determine whether an arrest was necessary under the provisions of ...

  8. Adultery law in India - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery_law_in_India

    Adultery was a criminal offence under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code until it was quashed by the Supreme Court of India on 27 September 2018 as unconstitutional. [ 1 ] The law dated from 1860. Under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which was the section dealing with adultery, a man who had consensual sexual intercourse with the wife ...

  9. Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohori_Bibee_v_Dharmodas_Ghose

    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]