Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
The Supreme Court reviewed the decision in Golaknath v. State of Punjab, and considered the validity of the article 24th, 25th, 26th and 29th amendments. The case was heard by the largest ever Constitution Bench of 13 Judges. The bench gave eleven separate judgments, which agreed in some points and differed on others. [14]
The court further held that the reservation for the EWS is a legitimate means to achieve the goal of providing equal opportunities and social justice to all sections of society. It recognized that economic inequality and poverty can also be a form of social disadvantage and that the reservation for the EWS is a step towards addressing this ...
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.
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 ...
Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, a 1992 Supreme Court of India case, occurred when the Government of Karnataka issued a notification that permitted the private medical colleges in the State of Karnataka to charge exorbitant tuition fees from the students admitted other than the "Government seat quota". Miss Mohini Jain, a medical aspirant ...
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.