Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The G.O had provided caste-based reservation in government jobs and college seats. The Supreme Court's verdict held that providing such reservations violated Article 29 (2) of the Indian Constitution. [2] Here, the court held that Directive Principles of State Policy must conform to and run as subsidiary to the Chapter of Fundamental Rights.
Arun Kumar & Anr. versus Inspector General of Registration & Ors. (2019) is a decision of the Madras High Court which recognised trans woman as a "bride" within the meaning of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and prohibited genital-normalizing surgery (referred to as sex reassignment surgery in the case) for intersex infants and children except on life-threatening situations.
The petitioners' counsel S. Manuraj appealed to the court to establish guidelines for cases of a similar nature. In an unprecedented step, in response to this request, Justice N Anand Venkatesh made the decision to undergo psycho-education before delivering a judgment on same-sex relationships.
I. R. Coelho (deceased) by LRS. v. State of Tamil Nadu 2007 (2) SCC 1: 2007 AIR(SC) 861: Supreme court advised Tamil Nadu to follow 50% reservation limit Tamil Nadu Reservations were put under the 9th Schedule of the constitution, which had already been upheld by the court. [citation needed] Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Others. v.
Established in 2004, the Madurai bench of the Madras High Court handles cases in the fourteen southern districts of Tamil Nadu, as the court is located in the far-northern capital. The bench is located in Madurai , and has the Kanyakumari , Tirunelveli , Thoothukudi , Tenkasi , Madurai , Dindigul , Ramanathapuram , Virudhunagar , Theni ...
He was accused of aiding the defendants. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal and ruled that appointment of Bhavani was against rules. It also instructed the High Court to get written statements from the newly appointed prosecutor of the case by Karnataka government. [20] The Karnataka government appointed B. V. Acharya. [21]
The King was the final court of appeal. [2] A Pandya king mentions that he should be put into the boiling water for having appointed an unscrupulous person as judge in his court of justice. From this statement of the king it is possible to infer that the kings used to appoint Judges. [ 3 ]
TANSI land acquisition case (or TANSI case) was a sensational case against J. Jayalalithaa in Tamil Nadu, during 1991-96. Jaya Publication and Sasi Enterprises, the companies in which J. Jayalalithaa and her aide V. K. Sasikala had holdings, purchased lands of Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation (TANSI), a state government agency, in 1992.