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.
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.
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]
Establishing a "test" (that is, a measurable standard that can be applied by courts in future decisions), such as the Oakes test (in Canadian law) or the Bolam test (in English law). Sometimes, with regard to a particular provision of a written constitution, only one court decision has been made.
A two-member bench consisting Justice Kuldip Singh and Justice R. M. Sahai gave the judgment of the case on 30 July 1992 (1992 AIR 1858). [2] For the first time in the post independent India, right to education of the Indian citizens and the State obligation to secure the right came under scrutiny at the premises of the apex court.
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 Kesavananda judgment also defined the extent to which Parliament could restrict property rights, in pursuit of land reform and the redistribution of large landholdings to cultivators, overruling previous decisions that suggested that the right to property could not be restricted. The case was a culmination of a series of cases relating to ...