Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
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.
Landmark court decisions in India substantially change the interpretation of existing law. Such a landmark decision may settle the law in more than one way. In present-day common law legal systems it may do so by: [1] [2] Establishing a significant new legal principle or concept;
Supreme Courts Reports is the official publication of the reportable decisions of the Supreme Court of India. It is being published monthly since the inception of the Supreme Court of India in 1950. It is published under the authority of the Supreme Court of India by the Controller of Publications, Government of India, Delhi. [1] [2]
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.
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.
After Facebook acquired WhatsApp in 2014, WhatsApp's new data sharing policy was challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had to decide if the right to privacy could be enforced against private entities. [4] A three-judge bench first heard the legal challenge to the AADHAR law.
Supriyo a.k.a Supriya Chakraborty & Abhay Dang v. Union of India thr. Its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice & other connected cases (2023) are a collection of landmark cases of the Supreme Court of India, which were filed to consider whether to extend right to marry and establish a family to sexual and gender minority individuals in India. [4]