Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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]
Court: Supreme Court of India: Full case name: Deepika Singh versus Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors. Decided: 16 August 2022: Citations: C.A. No 5308/2022: Court membership; Judges sitting: D. Y. Chandrachud, J.; and A. S. Bopanna, J. Case opinions; Atypical families are deserving of equal protection under law and benefits available under ...
On 18 August, the Supreme Court took suo moto cognizance of the case. A three-judge bench headed by the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud heard the matter on 20 August. They criticised the State government, Kolkata police, as well as the college administration over mishandling of the case and the vandalism which occurred on the night of 14 ...
Initially, the Constitution of India provided for a Supreme Court with a chief justice and 7 judges. In the early years, a full bench of the Supreme Court sat together to hear the cases presented before them. As the work of the Court increased and cases began to accumulate, Parliament increased the number of judges (including the chief justice ...
Three Judges Cases: 1981 S.P. Gupta v. Union of India [37] Established the Collegium system of the Indian Judicial System. 1993 Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India [38] Struck down the 99th Amendment of the Constitution of India and the proposal of the National Judicial Appointments Commission. 1998 In re Special ...
By adding Articles 15(6) and 16(6) to the Indian Constitution, the state acquired the authority to impose specific restrictions on reservations for economically weaker sections, with a maximum of 10%. The Superem court compiled all the writ under the case Janhit Abhiyan Vs Union of India.
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]
Mohammad Salimullah v. Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) 793 of 2017), is a petition challenging the deportation of Rohingya Muslims who had taken refuge in India to escape persecution in Myanmar. The court however, in an interim order rejected any relief and allowed their deportation subject to proper procedure being followed. [1] [2]