Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Court: Supreme Court of India: Full case name: Deepika Singh versus Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors. Decided: 16 August 2022: Citations: C.A. No 5308/2022: Court membership; Judges sitting: D. Y. Chandrachud, J.; and A. S. Bopanna, J. Case opinions; Atypical families are deserving of equal protection under law and benefits available under ...
Government of NCT of Delhi versus Union of India & Another [C. A. No. 2357 of 2017] is a civil appeal heard before the Supreme Court of India by a five-judge constitution bench of the court. The case was filed as an appeal to an August 2016 verdict of the Delhi High Court that ruled that the lieutenant governor of Delhi exercised "complete ...
Initially, the Constitution of India provided for a Supreme Court with a chief justice and 7 judges. In the early years, a full bench of the Supreme Court sat together to hear the cases presented before them. As the work of the Court increased and cases began to accumulate, Parliament increased the number of judges (including the chief justice ...
The court also ruled that the status quo should be maintained for three months. [10] [11] All the three parties appealed against the division of disputed land to the Supreme Court. [12] [13] The Supreme Court held final hearing on the case from 6 August 2019 [14] to 16 October 2019. [15]
Three Judges Cases: 1981 S.P. Gupta v. Union of India [37] Established the Collegium system of the Indian Judicial System. 1993 Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India [38] Struck down the 99th Amendment of the Constitution of India and the proposal of the National Judicial Appointments Commission. 1998 In re Special ...
[9] [10] On 8 January 2018, the case (Navtej Singh Johar and others v. Union of India) was listed to be heard by the Chief Justice's bench, which passed an order stating that the case would be heard by a constitution bench. [11] [12] [13] The matter was heard from 17 January 2018 by a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court. [14]
However, some states denied the existence of the creamy layer, and a report commissioned by the supreme court was not implemented. The case was pressed again in 1999 and the supreme court reaffirmed the creamy layer exclusion and extended it to SCs and STs. [8] General Manager Southern Railway v. Rangachari AIR 1962 SC 36, State of Punjab v ...
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 ...