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
Union of India & Others 1990 SCR(3) 713; 1990 SCC Supl. 350: Reaffirmed Bihar State Harijan Kalyan Parishad v. Union of India in that reservation policy cannot be denied by method of selection, and was applicable to the highest level of promotion. [6] [unreliable source?] This judgment was implemented only in Syndicate Bank to April 1993.
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.
On 26 April 1973, Justice Ajit Nath Ray, who was among the dissenters, was promoted to Chief Justice of India superseding three senior Judges, Shelat, Grover and Hegde, which was unprecedented in Indian legal history. [19] The 42nd Amendment, enacted in 1976, is considered to be the immediate and most direct fall out of the judgment. Apart from ...
This judgment received a lot of criticism since it reduced the importance of attached to Fundamental Rights under the Indian Constitution. Going against the previous decisions of High Courts, the bench which included P. N. Bhagwati concluded by a majority 4:1 in favour of the then Indira Gandhi government while only Justice Hans Raj Khanna was ...
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
The Attorney General of India K.K. Venugopal had opposed the elevation of privacy as a fundamental right, representing the stance of the Union government of India in the Supreme Court. The previous Attorney General, Mukul Rohatgi , had opposed the right to privacy entirely, but Venugopal, while opposing the right, conceded that privacy could be ...
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 ...