Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Ban on dissenting media under the Section 9 (1-A) of the Madras Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1949 struck down as unconstitutional. This in-turn led to formulation of the 1st amendment of the Constitution of India which clarified public order can form grounds for reasonable restrictions of free speech. Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh ...
Freedom of information laws allow access by the general public to data held by national governments and, where applicable, by state and local governments. The emergence of freedom of information legislation was a response to increasing dissatisfaction with the secrecy surrounding government policy development and decision making. [1]
In case of the matter involving a petitioner's life and liberty, the information has to be provided within 48 hours. The Act also requires every public authority to computerize their records for wide dissemination and to proactively publish certain categories of information so that the citizens need minimum recourse to request information formally.
Ajmer Tenancy and Land Records Act: 1950: 42 Representation of the People Act: 1950: 43 Air Force Act: 1950: 45 Army Act: 1950: 46 Contingency Fund of India Act: 1950: 49 Road Transport Corporations Act: 1950: 64 Khaddar (Protection of Name) Act: 1950: 78 Jallianwala Bagh National Memorial Act: 1951: 25 Visva-Bharati Act: 1951: 29 President's ...
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us
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 ...
It declared that domain names are subject to the regulatory framework that is applied to trade marks (i.e. the Trade Marks Act, 1999). The court stated that though there is no law in India which explicitly governs the regime of domain names, this state of affairs does not foreclose protection for domain names under the aegis of the Trade Marks Act.
Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India is an Indian public interest litigation case challenging the Ninety-third Constitutional Amendment and the Central Educational Institutions(CEIs) (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006. [1]