Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The chief instrument through which judicial activism has flourished in India is public interest litigation (PIL) or social action litigation (SAL).It refers to litigation undertaken to secure public interest and demonstrates the availability of justice to socially-disadvantaged parties and was introduced by Justice P. N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer.
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.
Others noted the judgment as the expression of judicial activism because only a two-judge bench had made a substantial change in constitution. [7] The decisionappeared while liberalisation was a government policy looking for Indian soil to sprout, and commercialisation of education was not as rampant as it is now. [8]
India has a recent history of judicial activism, originating after the Emergency in India which saw attempts by the Government to control the judiciary. Public Interest Litigation was thus an instrument devised by the courts to reach out directly to the public, and take cognizance though the litigant may not be the victim.
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us
He was known for his judicial innovation through landmark judgements, which made him "the face of judicial activism" in India. [2] His decisions were credited with the forging of powerful new judicial tools such as continuing mandamus, [3] and the expanded protection of fundamental rights as in the Vishaka Judgement. [4]
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us
M. Nagraj & Others v. Union of India and Others (AIR 2007 SC 71) held the amendments constitutional. Suraj Bhan Meena v. State of Rajasthan (2011) 1 SCC 467: Government rules for reservation cannot be introduced without quantifiable data of backwardness and underrepresentation. S. Balakrishnan v. S. Chandrasekar 28/2/2005, The Government of ...