Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 reference 1 [39] Reply by the Chief Justice of India to the questions raised by President of India K. R. Narayanan regarding the Collegium system. M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath [40] 1996
During talks with the Indian government, Google issued a statement saying "Google has been talking and will continue to talk to the Indian government about any security concerns it may have regarding Google Earth." [4] Google agreed to blur images on request of the Indian government. [1]
Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan was a 1997 Indian Supreme Court case where various women's groups led by Naina Kapur and her organisation, Sakshi filed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the state of Rajasthan and the central Government of India to enforce the fundamental rights of working women under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The PGI has begun disbursing relief funds to daily wage workers in India’s entertainment industry, who have been the hardest hit group in an industry devastated by COVID-19 since March 2020.
The Maharaj Libel Case tried in HM Queen Victoria's Supreme Court of Bombay was hailed at the time as “the most extraordinary of any case tried in any of Her Majesty’s Courts in India” [30] (The Indian Reformer, June 6, 1862, quoted in Mulji 1865, pp. App. 163). It was covered daily by medias in India and even in Europe as one of the ...
The Indian National Congress observed the day of disqualification as a "black day for Indian democracy" [28] which was re-iterated by other opposition parties. [29] [30]The conviction and disqualification prompted opposition leaders to take a unified stand; 14 major opposition parties jointly moved to the Supreme Court of India and filed a petition seeking judicial intervention against the ...
Supreme Court of India: Full case name: M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath and Ors. Decided: 13 December 1996: Citation (1997) 1 SCC 388: Court membership; Judges sitting: Kuldip Singh, S. Saghnr Ahma: Case opinions; 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
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 grounds of violating the freedom of ...