Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Pendency of court cases in India is the delay in the disposal of cases (lawsuits), to provide justice to an aggrieved person or organisation, by judicial courts at all levels. In legal contexts, pendency is the state of a case that is pending i.e. has been opened but not concluded.
In India, landmark court decisions come most frequently from the Supreme Court of India, which is the highest judicial body in India. High courts of India may also make such decisions, particularly if the Supreme Court chooses not to review the case or if it adopts the holding of the lower court.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is a procedural law related to the administration of civil proceedings in India.. The Code is divided into two parts: the first part contains 158 sections and the second part contains the First Schedule, which has 51 Orders and Rules.
The judicial system is structured in three levels with subsidiary parts. The Supreme Court is the top court and serves as the final court of appeal for all civil and criminal cases in India. High Courts are the top judicial bodies in individual states, controlled and managed by state Chief Justices.
Thus cases built up during this interim period are judged when the circuit court is in session. According to a study conducted by Bangalore-based N.G.O, Daksh, on 21 high courts in collaboration with the Ministry of Law and Justice in March 2015, it was found that average pendency of a case in high courts in India is 3 years. [3]
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 ...
S. S. R. Bommai v. Union of India; Sarla Mudgal, & others. v. Union of India; Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum