Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Supreme Court of India, in its judgement dated 10 July 2013 while disposing the Lily Thomas v. Union of India case (along with Lok Prahari v. Union of India), [1] ruled that any Member of Parliament (MP), Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or Member of the Legislative Council (MLC) who is convicted of a crime and given a minimum of two years' imprisonment, loses membership of the House ...
Union of India – 1981 [2] (also known as the Judges' Transfer case) Supreme Court Advocates-on Record Association vs Union of India – 1993 [3] In re Special Reference 1 of 1998 [4] Over the course of the three cases, the court evolved the principle of judicial independence to mean that no other branch of the state, – including the ...
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 ...
The Supreme Court of India was in crisis after a press conference was given by Supreme Court judges Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur, and Kurian Joseph, in which they spoke against the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra [1] [2] that he allocated certain politically controversial cases to such benches which give favourable judgements towards a political party.
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 ...
While dealing with the exclusion of High Court jurisdiction in service affairs, a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court declared that Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution, which grants the power of judicial review over legislative action to the Supreme Court and the High Courts, is an integral and essential feature of the basic ...
In India, landmark court decisions come most frequently from the Supreme Court of India, which is the highest judicial body in India. High courts of India may also make such decisions, particularly if the Supreme Court chooses not to review the case or if it adopts the holding of the lower court.
The Supreme Court said that Article 356 is an extreme power and is to be used as a last resort in cases where it is manifest that there is an impasse and the constitutional machinery in a State has collapsed. The views expressed by the court in this case are similar to the concern showed by the Sarkaria Commission.