Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Constitution (Seventy-first Amendment) Act, 1992, was introduced in Lok Sabha on 20 August 1992, as the Constitution (Seventy-eighth Amendment) Bill, 1992 (Bill No. 142 of 1992). It was introduced by Shankarrao Chavan , then Minister of Home Affairs, and sought to include Konkani, Meitei and Nepali languages in the Eighth Schedule of the ...
Amend schedule 7. [54] 2 February 1983 Amendment to negate judicial pronouncements on scope and applicability on Sales Tax. Zail Singh: 47th: Amend schedule 9. [55] 26 August 1984 Place land reform acts and amendments to these act under Schedule 9 of the constitution. 48th: Amend article 356. [56] 1 April 1985
Sindhi had been recognised by Sahitya Akademi in the year 1956, [3] long before it was recognised by the Twenty-first Amendment of the Constitution of India in 1967. [4] [5] [6] Maithili had been recognised by Sahitya Akademi in the year 1966, [7] [8] long before it was recognised by the Ninety-second Amendment of the Constitution of India in ...
They raised €7 million, which was considered to be the most funds raised in 2006 from the French Web 2.0. [citation needed] In 2007, Dailymotion created ASIC, together with other companies in the sector. [9] Dailymotion supports a high-definition video resolution of 720p since February 2008, making it one of the earliest known HD video platforms.
Shouting Fire: Stories from the Edge of Free Speech is a 2009 documentary film about freedom of speech and the First Amendment in the United States, directed by Liz Garbus. [1] The documentary prominently features First Amendment attorney, Martin Garbus , who talks about the past and present state of free speech in the United States, and the ...
The Act was passed in accordance with the provisions of Article 368 of the Constitution, and has been ratified by more than half of the State Legislatures, as required under Clause (2) of the said article. On 12 August 2016, Assam became the first state to ratify the bill, when the Assam Legislative Assembly unanimously approved it. [10]
The Supreme Court primarily addressed the matter of whether government regulation of broadcasting content comports with the free speech rights of broadcast operators under the First Amendment. [7] The high court ruled 5–4 in favor of the FCC, holding that the Carlin routine was "indecent but not obscene". Therefore, the Commission could not ...
Cases that consider the First Amendment implications of payments mandated by the state going to use in part for speech by third parties Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) Communications Workers of America v. Beck (1978) Chicago Local Teachers Union v. Hudson (1986) Keller v. State Bar of California (1990) Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass'n ...