Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Section 295(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was enacted in 1927 [4] by the British Parliament. A book, Rangila Rasul, was published in 1927. The book concerned the marriages and sex life of Muhammad. On the basis of a complaint, the publisher was arrested but later acquitted in April 1929 because there was no law against insult to religion.
A law punishing the utterances deliberately tending to hurt the religious feelings of any class has been held to be valid as it is a reasonable restriction aimed to maintaining the public order. [19] It is also necessary that there must be a reasonable nexus between the restriction imposed and the achievement of public order.
The draft of the Indian Penal Code was prepared by the First Law Commission, chaired by Thomas Babington Macaulay in 1834 and was submitted to Governor-General of India Council in 1835. Based on a simplified codification of the law of England at the time, elements were also derived from the Napoleonic Code and Edward Livingston 's Louisiana ...
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) (IAST: Bhāratīya Nyāya Saṃhitā; lit. ' Indian Justice Code ') is the official criminal code in India.It came into effect on 1 July 2024 after being passed by the parliament in December 2023 to replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
India prohibits hate speech by several sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and by other laws which put limitations on the freedom of expression. Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives the government the right to declare certain publications “forfeited” if the “publication ... appears to the State ...
The Corps of Forty also played a major role by establishing some Turkish law in India. [9] In the 17th century, when the Mughal Empire became the world's largest economy, its sixth ruler, Aurangzeb, compiled the Fatawa-e-Alamgiri with several Arab and Iraqi Islamic scholars, which served as the main governing body in most parts of South Asia ...
[12] [11] Another barrier to the implementation of the law is the lack of meaningful immediate relief for survivors of domestic violence, such as "practical remedies in terms of medical aid, short-stay homes, creche facilities, psychological support, shelter homes or economic or material assistance", according to Shalu Nigam. [10]
Union of India. [11] Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 246 [12] Upheld the "carry forward rule" of the railway board in a selection of posts above 50% reservation, allowing for "some excess". This was overruled in Indra Sawhney & Others v.