Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Puttaswamy v. Union of India; Court: Supreme Court of India: Full case name: Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. Decided: August 24, 2017 () Citation: Writ Petition (Civil) No 494 of 2012; (2017) 10 SCC 1; AIR 2017 SC 4161: Case history; Related actions: decriminalization of homosexuality; decriminalization of ...
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India in which the Court significantly expanded the interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It overruled A. K. Gopalan v.
Initially, the Constitution of India provided for a Supreme Court with a chief justice and 7 judges. In the early years, a full bench of the Supreme Court sat together to hear the cases presented before them. As the work of the Court increased and cases began to accumulate, Parliament increased the number of judges (including the chief justice ...
Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan was a 1997 Indian Supreme Court case where various women's groups led by Naina Kapur and her organisation, Sakshi filed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the state of Rajasthan and the central Government of India to enforce the fundamental rights of working women under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
However, some states denied the existence of the creamy layer, and a report commissioned by the supreme court was implemented. The case was pressed again in 1999 and, in 2006, the supreme court reaffirmed the creamy layer exclusion and extended it to SCs and STs. [1] This judgement also overruled General Manager Southern Railway v.
(case number: Writ Petition (Civil) 356 of 1977; case citation: AIR 1980 SC 1789) [1] is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India [2] that applied and evolved the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution of India. [3] In the Minerva Mills case, the Supreme Court provided key clarifications on the interpretation of the basic ...
Union Of India by Daniel Latifi in 2001, who was the lawyer of Shah Bano in the Shah Bano case. [2] The Supreme Court tried to maintain a balancing act, attempting to uphold Muslim women's rights without addressing the constitutionality of gender and religious discrimination in personal law. Court reiterated the validity of the Shah Bano judgment.
This case in the history of the Indian Constitution has great implications on Centre-State Relations. It is in this case that the Supreme Court boldly marked out the paradigm and limitations within which Article 356 has to function. The Supreme Court said that Article 356 is an extreme power and is to be used as a last resort in cases where it ...