Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Despite attempting to avoid appearing personally before the court, citing security concerns, the Supreme Court ordered Jayalalithaa to do so. [11] Her deposition lasted two days in October 2011. [5] In 2012, Karnataka Advocate General B.V.Acharya, who had spent seven years building the case, resigned as the Special Public Prosecutor. He told ...
The court further held that the reservation for the EWS is a legitimate means to achieve the goal of providing equal opportunities and social justice to all sections of society. It recognized that economic inequality and poverty can also be a form of social disadvantage and that the reservation for the EWS is a step towards addressing this ...
Landmark court decisions in India substantially change the interpretation of existing law. Such a landmark decision may settle the law in more than one way. In present-day common law legal systems it may do so by: [1] [2] Establishing a significant new legal principle or concept;
I. R. Coelho (deceased) by LRS. v. State of Tamil Nadu 2007 (2) SCC 1: 2007 AIR(SC) 861: Supreme court advised Tamil Nadu to follow 50% reservation limit Tamil Nadu Reservations were put under the 9th Schedule of the constitution, which had already been upheld by the court. [citation needed] Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Others. v.
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) is a landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India, which declared transgender people the 'third gender', affirmed that the fundamental rights granted under the Constitution of India will be equally applicable to them, and gave them the right to self-identification of their gender as male, female or third gender.
However, some states denied the existence of the creamy layer, and a report commissioned by the supreme court was implemented. The case was pressed again in 1999 and, in 2006, the supreme court reaffirmed the creamy layer exclusion and extended it to SCs and STs. [1] This judgement also overruled General Manager Southern Railway v.
After Facebook acquired WhatsApp in 2014, WhatsApp's new data sharing policy was challenged in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had to decide if the right to privacy could be enforced against private entities. [4] A three-judge bench first heard the legal challenge to the AADHAR law.
Supreme Courts Reports is the official publication of the reportable decisions of the Supreme Court of India. It is being published monthly since the inception of the Supreme Court of India in 1950. It is published under the authority of the Supreme Court of India by the Controller of Publications, Government of India, Delhi. [1] [2]