Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [ 1 ] is a judgement by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in 2015, on the issue of online speech and intermediary liability in India.
Shreya Singhal is an Indian lawyer. Her fight against Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 in 2015 brought her to national prominence in India. [1]
Supreme Court of India, in its judgement dated 10 July 2013 while disposing the Lily Thomas v. Union of India case (along with Lok Prahari v. Union of India), [1] ruled that any Member of Parliament (MP), Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or Member of the Legislative Council (MLC) who is convicted of a crime and given a minimum of two years' imprisonment, loses membership of the House ...
General Manager Southern Railway v. Rangachari AIR 1962 SC 36, State of Punjab v. Hiralal 1970(3) SCC 567: A divided court held that reservations could be made in promotions as well as appointments. This was overruled in the 1992 case Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India. [12] Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India
The Center for Communication Governance noted that this case is significant for India's Supreme Court, as it will establish the boundaries of free speech online. [6] CNN reported that prior to the verdict, Mouthshut.com had raised its concerns to the Indian Supreme Court, claiming that it aimed to safeguard the rights of Indian citizens and ...
Singh also said that because the Article 239AA of the Constitution of India came under the section for union territories, Delhi was a union territory. [ 61 ] While hearing the case, the supreme court said Delhi's lieutenant governor had more powers than state governors , who were supposed to generally follow the aid and advice of the state ...
In this case, the petitioners quoted, and reproduced the various cases including NLSA v. UOI (2014), Puttaswamy v. UOI (2017) and Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI (2018). But it has been summarised in few sentences. If you have any specific concerns, any thoughts on how certain sections can be further summarized.
By adding Articles 15(6) and 16(6) to the Indian Constitution, the state acquired the authority to impose specific restrictions on reservations for economically weaker sections, with a maximum of 10%. The Superem court compiled all the writ under the case Janhit Abhiyan Vs Union of India.