Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Union of India [38] Struck down the 99th Amendment of the Constitution of India and the proposal of the National Judicial Appointments Commission. 1998 In re Special reference 1 [39] Reply by the Chief Justice of India to the questions raised by President of India K. R. Narayanan regarding the Collegium system. M. C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath [40] 1996
Union of India & Others 1990 SCR(3) 713; 1990 SCC Supl. 350: Reaffirmed Bihar State Harijan Kalyan Parishad v. Union of India in that reservation policy cannot be denied by method of selection, and was applicable to the highest level of promotion. [6] [unreliable source?] This judgment was implemented only in Syndicate Bank to April 1993.
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.
The Kesavananda judgment also defined the extent to which Parliament could restrict property rights, in pursuit of land reform and the redistribution of large landholdings to cultivators, overruling previous decisions that suggested that the right to property could not be restricted. The case was a culmination of a series of cases relating to ...
Establishes that the police cannot enter a home without a search warrant. Egan v Canada: Supreme Court [1995] 2 SCR 513: Charter of Rights, section 15(1) (Equality rights) Establishes that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited under section 15(1). Law v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) Supreme Court
T. S. R. Subramanian & Ors. versus Union of India and Ors., was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India in which the Court ruled that civil servants were not bound to follow oral directives. The case began with a public interest civil writ petition filed before the Supreme Court of India and was decided in October 2013. [1] [2] [3]
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; Shreya Singhal v. Union of India; Sonipat-Kharkhoda IMT land case; Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh; State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan; Supriyo v. Union of India; Suresh ...
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 ...