Ads
related to: court cases status rohtak madras statecourtrec.com has been visited by 100K+ users in the past month
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Court emphasized that dismissing the findings of an expert body solely due to opposition undermines democratic principles, and policy shifts driven by external pressures jeopardize the foundational fabric of the nation.The Court concluded by stating its expectation of receiving a status update from the NCERT on this matter during the next ...
The Rohtak sisters viral video controversy involves a video that went viral on social media in India in late November 2014 and the events that followed. [1] The first video showed two sisters (referred to as the Rohtak sisters or the Sonepat sisters) [2] [3] beating three young men with a belt alleging that the men had harassed them. Soon, the ...
Case Ruling Notes State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan AIR 1951 SC 226 [2] [3] [4] Court ruled that caste-bass per Communal Award violate Article 15(1) of the constitution. Led to the introduction of the First Amendment of the constitution, which invalidated the judgment. M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore AIR 1963 SC 649 [5]
Arun Kumar & Anr. versus Inspector General of Registration & Ors. (2019) is a decision of the Madras High Court which recognised trans woman as a "bride" within the meaning of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and prohibited genital-normalizing surgery (referred to as sex reassignment surgery in the case) for intersex infants and children except on life-threatening situations.
The Jat reservation agitation was a series of violent protests in February 2016 by the Jats of North India, especially those in the state of Haryana, which "paralysed" the state for 10 days. [1] The protestors sought inclusion of their caste in the Other Backward Class (OBC) category, which would make them eligible for affirmative action benefits.
The G.O had provided caste-based reservation in government jobs and college seats. The Supreme Court's verdict held that providing such reservations violated Article 29 (2) of the Indian Constitution. [2] Here, the court held that Directive Principles of State Policy must conform to and run as subsidiary to the Chapter of Fundamental Rights.