Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib, (1981) 1 SCC 722, was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India in which the Court laid down a test to determine whether an individual, corporation, or society was an instrumentality or agency of the government, and therefore whether it could be considered a State for the purposes of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. [1]
(Writ Petition (Civil) 135 of 1970), also known as the Kesavananda Bharati judgement, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India that outlined the basic structure doctrine of the Indian Constitution. [2] The case is also known as the Fundamental Rights Case.
S. Vinodkumar v. Union of India 1996 6 SCC 580: It is not permissible to relax standards of evaluation in matters of reservation in promotion By the Constitution (82nd) Amendment Act a proviso was inserted at the end of Art 335. M. Nagraj & Others v. Union of India and Others (AIR 2007 SC 71) held the amendments constitutional. Suraj Bhan Meena v.
"Leading case" is commonly used in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth jurisdictions instead of "landmark case", as used in the United States. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] In Commonwealth countries, a reported decision is said to be a leading decision when it has come to be generally regarded as settling the law of the question involved.
The constitution's articles are grouped into the following parts: Preamble, [51] with the words "socialist", "secular" and 'integrity' added in 1976 by the 42nd amendment [52] [53] Part I [54] – The Union and its Territory – Articles 1 to 4; Part II – Citizenship – Articles 5 to 11; Part III – Fundamental Rights – Articles 12 to 35
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India held that reservations cannot be applied in promotions. 1992 Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India judgment laid down the limits of the state's powers: it upheld the ceiling of 50 per cent quotas, emphasized the concept of "social backwardness", and prescribed 11 indicators to ascertain backwardness.
Government of NCT of Delhi versus Union of India & Another [C. A. No. 2357 of 2017] is a civil appeal heard before the Supreme Court of India by a five-judge constitution bench of the court. The case was filed as an appeal to an August 2016 verdict of the Delhi High Court that ruled that the lieutenant governor of Delhi exercised "complete ...