Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Atypical families are deserving of equal protection under law and benefits available under social welfare legislation. Decision by. D. Y. Chandrachud and A. S. Bopanna. Deepika Singh versus Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors. (2022) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that widens the definition of 'family' under Indian law.
Three Judges Cases: 1981 S.P. Gupta v. Union of India [37] Established the Collegium system of the Indian Judicial System. 1993 Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. 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 ...
t. e. The final judgement in the Ayodhya dispute was declared by the Supreme Court of India on 9 November 2019. [4] The Supreme Court ordered the disputed land (2.77 acres) to be handed over to a trust (to be created by the government of India) to build the Ram Janmabhoomi (revered as the birthplace of Hindu deity, Rama) temple.
Supriyo a.k.a Supriya Chakraborty & Abhay Dang v. Union of India thr. Its Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice & other connected cases (2023) are a collection of landmark cases of the Supreme Court of India, which were filed to consider whether to extend right to marry and establish a family to sexual and gender minority individuals in India. [4]
The case was heard before a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, composed of Justice K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Justice Arjan Kumar Sikri. [6] Justice Radhakrishnan had functioned as a Standing Counsel for a number of educational and social organizations and held appointments in the High Courts of Kerala, Jammu and Kashmir and Gujarat before his elevation to the Supreme Court. [7]
Constitution of India, Article 356. 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.
The Supreme Court justices’ ruling on the first and most significant case Wednesday will likely give the final answer on whether the law’s revival window violates the North Carolina State ...
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 ...