Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
While, legal rights for the queer community in India have been expanding over the past decade, mostly as a result of the Supreme Court’s intervention, the latest ruling leaves Taiwan and Nepal ...
Court: Supreme Court of India: Full case name: Deepika Singh versus Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors. Decided: 16 August 2022: Citations: C.A. No 5308/2022: Court membership; Judges sitting: D. Y. Chandrachud, J.; and A. S. Bopanna, J. Case opinions; Atypical families are deserving of equal protection under law and benefits available under ...
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]
The Attorney General of India K.K. Venugopal had opposed the elevation of privacy as a fundamental right, representing the stance of the Union government of India in the Supreme Court. The previous Attorney General, Mukul Rohatgi , had opposed the right to privacy entirely, but Venugopal, while opposing the right, conceded that privacy could be ...
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.
Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice (2018) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that decriminalised all consensual sex among adults, including homosexual sex. [ 1 ] The court was asked to determine the constitutionality of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code , a colonial-era law which, among other things, criminalised ...
The 13-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court deliberated on the limitations, if any, of the powers of the elected representatives of the people and the nature of fundamental rights of an individual. In a verdict divided 7–6, the court held that while the Parliament has 'wide' powers, it did not have the power to destroy or emasculate ...
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!