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
Supreme Court of India cases (2 C, 60 P) ... List of landmark court decisions in India; M. Manoj–Babli honour killing case; Mathura rape case; Meerut Conspiracy ...
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 ...
With the same view, defamation has been criminalised in India by inserting it into Section 499 of the I.P.C. Where defamation is concerned, in case of a criminal defamation suit as laid down in Sections 499 and Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, the issue - in question - being the truth isn't considered a defence.
In India, a defamation case can be filed under either criminal law or civil law, or both. [157] According to the Constitution of India, [158] the fundamental right to free speech (Article 19) is subject to "reasonable restrictions": 19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc. (1) All citizens shall have the right—
Kasturilal Ralia Ram V. The State of Uttar Pradesh 1965 AIR 1039; 1965 SCR (1) 375 : is a Landmark case on Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 300(1)-State Liability for tortious acts of its servants. Owen Diaz vs. Tesla, 137 million dollars in damages to a Tesla, Inc. employee who faced racial harassment. [1] [2]
The Indian National Congress observed the day of disqualification as a "black day for Indian democracy" [28] which was re-iterated by other opposition parties. [29] [30]The conviction and disqualification prompted opposition leaders to take a unified stand; 14 major opposition parties jointly moved to the Supreme Court of India and filed a petition seeking judicial intervention against the ...
Upheld the 93rd Amendment; found creamy layer principle applies to OBCs and not STs and SCs. The government must set reservation thresholds to ensure quality and merit do not suffer, and set a deadline to achieve free and compulsory education for every child. Recommended reviews of backwardness every 10 years. Janhit Abhiyan vs Union Of India