Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Samvidhaan: The Making of the Constitution of India is a ten-part television mini-series based on the making of the Constitution of India, directed by Shyam Benegal. The show premiered on 2 March 2014 on Rajya Sabha TV, with an episode scheduled to air every Sunday morning. [1] [2] [3] The series can be viewed on YouTube on Rajya Sabha TV's ...
Vikas Divyakirti was born on 26 December 1973 in Bhiwani, Haryana.He completed his early schooling in Hindi medium at Halwasia Vidhya Vihar. After completing his schooling, he studied at Zakir Husain Delhi College, pursuing a Bachelor of Commerce (honors) degree.
The case came up for hearing before a bench comprising Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah and Justice S. Muralidhar, and the judgment was delivered on 2 July 2009. [9] The Court located the rights to dignity and privacy within the right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 (under the fundamental Right to Freedom charter) of the Constitution, and held that criminalization of consensual gay ...
The case was pressed again in 1999 and the supreme court reaffirmed the creamy layer exclusion and extended it to SCs and STs. [8] General Manager Southern Railway v. Rangachari AIR 1962 SC 36, State of Punjab v. Hiralal 1970(3) SCC 567: A divided court held that reservations could be made in promotions as well as appointments.
Dhananjaya Chandrachud was born in the Chandrachud family on 11 November 1959. [2] His father Yeshwant Vishnu Chandrachud, is the longest serving chief justice of India [6] and his mother, Prabha, was a classical musician who sang for All India Radio.
According to Ajay Kumar of Firstpost, "the judgment has been viewed as a stain on the legacy of the court for many years.The ratio decidendi (rationale behind the judgment) that all rights under our Constitution are a positive creation of law rather than merely recognised greatly increases the power of the State to do what it likes with them."
This was challenged by the Golak Nath family in the courts and the case was referred to the Supreme Court in 1965. The family filed a petition under Article 32 challenging the 1953 Punjab Act on the ground that it denied them their constitutional rights to acquire and hold property and practice any profession (Articles 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g ...
Gopalan was prohibited from disclosing the grounds under which he was detained because of Section 14 of the Act, which prohibited such disclosure even in a court of law. He claimed that the order detaining him violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution and that the provisions of the Act violated Article 22 of the Constitution.