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.
T. S. R. Subramanian & Ors. versus Union of India and Ors., was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India in which the Court ruled that civil servants were not bound to follow oral directives. The case began with a public interest civil writ petition filed before the Supreme Court of India and was decided in October 2013. [1] [2] [3]
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.
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India ([1994] 2 SCR 644 : AIR 1994 SC 1918 : (1994)3 SCC1) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India, [2] where the Court discussed at length provisions of Article 356 of the Constitution of India and related issues. This case had huge impact on Centre-State Relations.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India held that reservations cannot be applied in promotions. 1992 Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India judgment laid down the limits of the state's powers: it upheld the ceiling of 50 per cent quotas, emphasized the concept of "social backwardness", and prescribed 11 indicators to ascertain backwardness.
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 ...
Union of India [1] is a judgement by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in 2015, on the issue of online speech and intermediary liability in India. The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 , relating to restrictions on online speech, as unconstitutional on grounds of violating the freedom of ...