Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A two-member bench consisting Justice Kuldip Singh and Justice R. M. Sahai gave the judgment of the case on 30 July 1992 (1992 AIR 1858). [2] For the first time in the post independent India, right to education of the Indian citizens and the State obligation to secure the right came under scrutiny at the premises of the apex court .
Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan, AC (15 March 1977 – 28 November 2008) was an Indian Army officer, who was serving in the 51 Special Action Group of the National Security Guard on deputation. He was killed in action during the 2008 Mumbai attacks [ 2 ] and was posthumously awarded the Ashoka Chakra , India's highest peacetime gallantry award, on ...
Case Ruling Notes State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan AIR 1951 SC 226 [2] [3] [4] Court ruled that caste-bass per Communal Award violate Article 15(1) of the constitution. Led to the introduction of the First Amendment of the constitution, which invalidated the judgment. M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore AIR 1963 SC 649 [5]
Consequently, in this case, the accused was sentenced under Section 376 (1), and was sentenced to milder punishment. Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar [26] or The Arnesh Kumar Guidelines. 2014 Arrests should be an exception, in cases where the punishment is less than seven years of imprisonment. [27]
Hemant Kamlakar Karkare, AC (pronunciation ⓘ) (12 December 1954 – 26 November 2008) was the chief of the Mumbai Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS). He was killed in action during the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) is a landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India, which declared transgender people the 'third gender', affirmed that the fundamental rights granted under the Constitution of India will be equally applicable to them, and gave them the right to self-identification of their gender as male, female or third gender.
The case is ongoing. Even before Indian legal challenges mounted, OpenAI chief Sam Altman planned an India visit for Feb. 5. An email shows two other senior executives, James Hairston and Srinivas ...
The case hinged on a section of the new Indian patent law dealing with whether incremental inventions would be patentable, namely Section 3(d). The initial version read as follows: "The mere discovery of any new property or new use of a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results ...