Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The court ruled that LGBTQ people in India are entitled to all constitutional rights, including the liberties protected by the Constitution of India. [1] It held that "the choice of whom to partner, the ability to find fulfilment in sexual intimacies and the right not to be subjected to discriminatory behaviour are intrinsic to the ...
Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan was a 1997 Indian Supreme Court case where various women's groups led by Naina Kapur and her organisation, Sakshi filed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the state of Rajasthan and the central Government of India to enforce the fundamental rights of working women under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra was a member of the five-judge constitution bench that presided over Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India & Another Building of the Supreme Court of India. In 2017, the supreme court heard arguments for fifteen days, beginning on 2 November 2017 and finishing on 5 December 2017.
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 ...
The Attorney General of India K.K. Venugopal had opposed the elevation of privacy as a fundamental right, representing the stance of the Union government of India in the Supreme Court. The previous Attorney General, Mukul Rohatgi , had opposed the right to privacy entirely, but Venugopal, while opposing the right, conceded that privacy could be ...
(case number: Writ Petition (Civil) 356 of 1977; case citation: AIR 1980 SC 1789) [1] is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India [2] that applied and evolved the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution of India. [3] In the Minerva Mills case, the Supreme Court provided key clarifications on the interpretation of the basic ...
The case was heard before a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, composed of Justice K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Justice Arjan Kumar Sikri. [6] Justice Radhakrishnan had functioned as a Standing Counsel for a number of educational and social organizations and held appointments in the High Courts of Kerala, Jammu and Kashmir and Gujarat before his elevation to the Supreme Court. [7]
The decision had a significant influence on Indian constitutional law and has been described as the moment when the Supreme Court of India rejected "three decades of formalist interpretation, and inaugurated a new path where Courts would expand the rights of individuals against the State, instead of limiting or contracting them."