Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This was challenged by the Golak Nath family in the courts and the case was referred to the Supreme Court in 1965. The family filed a petition under Article 32 challenging the 1953 Punjab Act on the ground that it denied them their constitutional rights to acquire and hold property and practice any profession (Articles 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g ...
The court ruled that LGBTQ people in India are entitled to all constitutional rights, including the liberties protected by the Constitution of India. [1] It held that "the choice of whom to partner, the ability to find fulfilment in sexual intimacies and the right not to be subjected to discriminatory behaviour are intrinsic to the ...
State of Karnataka, a 1992 Supreme Court of India case, occurred when the Government of Karnataka issued a notification that permitted the private medical colleges in the State of Karnataka to charge exorbitant tuition fees from the students admitted other than the "Government seat quota". Miss Mohini Jain, a medical aspirant student filed a ...
Puttaswamy v. Union of India; Court: Supreme Court of India: Full case name: Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. Decided: August 24, 2017 () Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No 494 of 2012; (2017) 10 SCC 1; AIR 2017 SC 4161: Case history; Related actions: decriminalization of homosexuality; decriminalization of ...
The decision had a significant influence on Indian constitutional law and has been described as the moment when the Supreme Court of India rejected "three decades of formalist interpretation, and inaugurated a new path where Courts would expand the rights of individuals against the State, instead of limiting or contracting them."
The Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to enforce the Fundamental Rights even against private bodies, and in case of any violation, award compensation as well to the affected individual. Exercise of jurisdiction by the Supreme Court can also be suo motu or on the basis of a public interest litigation .
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India; Sarla Mudgal, & others. v. Union of India; Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum; Shreya Singhal v. Union of India; Sonipat-Kharkhoda IMT land case; Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh; State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan; Supriyo v. Union of India; Suresh ...
However, some states denied the existence of the creamy layer, and a report commissioned by the supreme court was implemented. The case was pressed again in 1999 and, in 2006, the supreme court reaffirmed the creamy layer exclusion and extended it to SCs and STs. [1] This judgement also overruled General Manager Southern Railway v.