Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
May 2001 – Jayalalithaa-led AIADMK comes back to power in Tamil Nadu; February 2003 – K. Anbazhagan, the secretary of DMK, files an appeal in the Supreme Court to transfer proceedings outside Tamil Nadu to ensure a fair trial. In November that year, the Court orders that the trial be moved to Bangalore, Karnataka
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.
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 case is also significant for having introduced electronic evidence under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act for the first time in a Court, where a certified copy of the electronic document present on Yahoo server was produced by a private techno legal consultant, not being part of a Government forensic lab, and was accepted as the prime ...
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]
From 1817 to 1862, the Supreme Court of Madras was opposite the Chennai Beach railway station.From 1862 to 1892, the High Court was also housed there. The present buildings were officially inaugurated on 12 July 1892, when the then Madras Governor, Beilby, Baron Wenlock, handed over the key to then Chief Justice Sir Arthur Collins.
The Court also ordered a compensation of ₹ 11.95 lakhs from the perpetrators as a compensation to be equally split between Kousalya and Velusamy, Sankar's father. The case was the second in terms of most number of death sentences in a single case. [6] The sentenced challenged the judgement in the High court of Tamil Nadu against the appeal.
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.