Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Shreya Singhal v. 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.
Shreya Singhal is an Indian lawyer. Her fight against Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 in 2015 brought her to national prominence in India. [1]
UOI (2014), Puttaswamy v. UOI (2017) and Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI (2018), the petitioners argued for extending the right to marry and establish a family to sexual and gender minority individuals based on Articles 14, 15, 19, 21 and 25 of the Indian Constitution. [6] High Courts have considered the constitutionality of Indian marriage laws.
It included within the moral right of integrity the right to protect an artistic work from outright destruction. The interim decision in the case, given by Justice Jaspal Singh, given in favour of the plaintiff, restricted the Indian Government from causing any further loss to the plaintiff by destroying the property.
Supreme Court of India, in its judgement dated 10 July 2013 while disposing the Lily Thomas v. Union of India case (along with Lok Prahari v. Union of India), [1] ruled that any Member of Parliament (MP), Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or Member of the Legislative Council (MLC) who is convicted of a crime and given a minimum of two years' imprisonment, loses membership of the House ...
Singh also said that because the Article 239AA of the Constitution of India came under the section for union territories, Delhi was a union territory. [ 61 ] While hearing the case, the supreme court said Delhi's lieutenant governor had more powers than state governors , who were supposed to generally follow the aid and advice of the state ...
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. This was overruled in the 1992 case Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India. [12] Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India
[9] [10] On 8 January 2018, the case (Navtej Singh Johar and others v. Union of India) was listed to be heard by the Chief Justice's bench, which passed an order stating that the case would be heard by a constitution bench. [11] [12] [13] The matter was heard from 17 January 2018 by a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court. [14]