Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
One of the earliest public interest litigation was filed by G. Vasantha Pai who filed a case in the Madras High Court against the then sitting Chief Justice of the Madras High court S. Ramachandra Iyer [1] after it was found the judge had forged his date of birth to avoid compulsory retirement at the age of 60 and his younger brother sent invitations to celebrate his 60th birthday and Pai ...
Naz Foundation appealed to the Supreme Court of India against the decision of the High Court to dismiss the petition on technical grounds. The Supreme Court decided that Naz Foundation had the standing to file a public interest lawsuit in this case, and sent the case back to the Delhi High Court to reconsider it on the merits. [6]
Oshlack v Richmond River Council is a decision of the High Court of Australia. The case is notable for its statements regarding costs orders in the context of public interest litigation. Its facts concerned an application for costs against an unsuccessful litigant in a case relevant to the public interest.
Parliament is entitled to limit the jurisdiction of Commonwealth courts, even to the point where a case may only be able to be heard within the High Court's original jurisdiction 22. Oshlack v Richmond River Council: 1998 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11 Gleeson: 3352 Cost orders On the award of costs in public interest litigations 23. M v R: 1994
The Court found that the separate but equal doctrine adopted in Plessy "has no place in the field of public education". Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) Segregated schools in the District of Columbia violate the Equal Protection Clause as incorporated against the federal government by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Sarah ...
The specific public interest contained in the statutory purpose for which the land was actually held outweighed the public interest in registering the land as a town or village green under the Commons Act 2006. [58] Patel v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Secretary of State for the Home Department v Shah [2019] UKSC 59: 16 December
The Court adopted the following framework to apply the government edicts doctrine as follows: First, regarding the identity of the official that created the work, the Court held that the Commission, as the sole author of the work (since the annotations prepared by LexisNexis pursuant to the work-for-hire agreement [22]), qualifies as a legislator.
In its reasons, the High Court declared that the public interest in maintaining the anonymity of police informants was outweighed by the public interest in disclosing the details of what had occurred. In its view, the 'agency of police informer' had been 'so abused as to corrupt the criminal justice system'. [2]