Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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]
The episode discussed this incident along with other cases in the episode. [92] [93] In August 2013, senior journalist Chander Suta Dogra, published a book, Manoj and Babli: A Hate Story (Penguin) based on the honour killing case. [94] [95] In 2015, a Bollywood Hindi film Guddu Rangeela used Manoj–Babli honour killing case in its storyline. [96]
The ADM Jabalpur case was overruled on the doctrinal grounds concerning the rights by the Puttaswamy v. Union of India delivered by a nine judge, constitutional bench of the Supreme court. At the paragraph 119 of the majority opinion the Court had ruled: [4]
Mohd. Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum [1985], [1] commonly referred to as the Shah Bano case, was a controversial maintenance lawsuit in India, in which the Supreme Court delivered a judgment favouring maintenance given to an aggrieved divorced Muslim woman.
The civil court/district court is judged by the district and sessions judge who is the judicial head of a district with a limited control over administration also. It is the principal court of original civil jurisdiction besides the high court of the state and which derives its jurisdiction in civil matters primarily from the Code of Civil ...
He is the highest judicial authority below a high court judge. Below him, there are courts of civil jurisdiction, known by different names in different states. Under Article 141 of the constitution, all courts in India, including high courts – are bound by the judgements and orders of the Supreme Court of India by precedence.
The Supreme Court also read down Section 79 and Rules under the Section. It held that online intermediaries would only be obligated to take down content on receiving an order from a court or government authority. The case is considered a watershed moment for online free speech in India. [2]
The 2008 Gram Nyayalayas Act had foreseen 5,000 mobile courts in the country for judging petty civil (property cases) and criminal (up to 2 years of prison) cases. [16] However, the Act was not enforced, with only 151 functional Gram Nyayalayas in the country (as of May 2012) against a target of 5000. [ 31 ]