Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The apex Court raised an important question that "whether right to education is guaranteed to the Indian citizen under the Constitution of India?" The Supreme Court of India observed that mention of "life and personal liberty" in Article 21 of the Constitution [1] automatically implies some other rights, those are necessary for the full ...
A shadow report by the National RTE Forum, representing the leading education networks in the country led by the late Ambarish Rai (a prominent activist), challenging the findings pointing out that several key legal commitments are falling behind schedule.[20] The Supreme Court of India has also intervened to demand implementation of the Act.[21]
The Preamble of the Constitution of India – India declaring itself as a country. The Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties are sections of the Constitution of India that prescribe the fundamental obligations of the states to its citizens and the duties and the rights of the citizens to the State. These sections are considered vital elements of the ...
The decision had a significant influence on Indian constitutional law and has been described as the moment when the Supreme Court of India rejected "three decades of formalist interpretation, and inaugurated a new path where Courts would expand the rights of individuals against the State, instead of limiting or contracting them."
The Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to enforce the Fundamental Rights even against private bodies, and in case of any violation, award compensation as well to the affected individual. Exercise of jurisdiction by the Supreme Court can also be suo motu or on the basis of a public interest litigation .
On 10 April 2008, the Supreme Court of India upheld the Government's 27% OBC quotas in Government funded institutions. The Court categorically reiterated its prior stand that "Creamy Layer" should be excluded from the ambit of reservation policy and private institutions are also not to be included in. The verdict produced mixed reactions.
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 ...
T R Andhyarujina, who was a counsel in this case, wrote a book titled "The Kesavananda Bharati Case: The untold story of struggle for supremacy by Supreme Court and Parliament" to discuss the case and the politics involved during and after the judgment was pronounced. It has been published by Universal Law Publishing Company in 2011.