Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The case came up for hearing before a bench comprising Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah and Justice S. Muralidhar, and the judgment was delivered on 2 July 2009. [9] The Court located the rights to dignity and privacy within the right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 (under the fundamental Right to Freedom charter) of the Constitution, and held that criminalization of consensual gay ...
Government of NCT of Delhi versus Union of India & Another [C. A. No. 2357 of 2017] is a civil appeal heard before the Supreme Court of India by a five-judge constitution bench of the court. The case was filed as an appeal to an August 2016 verdict of the Delhi High Court that ruled that the lieutenant governor of Delhi exercised "complete ...
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India; Sarla Mudgal, & others. v. Union of India; Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum; Shreya Singhal v. Union of India; Sonipat-Kharkhoda IMT land case; Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh; State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan; Supriyo v. Union of India; Suresh ...
Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr. v. NAZ Foundation & Ors. (2013) is a case in which a 2 judge Supreme Court bench consisting of G. S. Singhvi and S. J. Mukhopadhaya overturned the Delhi High Court case Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and reinstated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.
Three Judges Cases: 1981 S.P. Gupta v. Union of India [37] Established the Collegium system of the Indian Judicial System. 1993 Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India [38] Struck down the 99th Amendment of the Constitution of India and the proposal of the National Judicial Appointments Commission. 1998 In re Special ...
The State of Delhi opposed her arguments in the Supreme Court, stating that Section 11 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, which applies to Christians in India, requires that a notice must be given to the 'parents' of a child, before a guardian is appointed. Further, the State of Delhi submitted that Section 19 of the same Act stated that a ...
Nazir Masih, 72, suffered severe head injuries during the May 25 violence and was taken to a Rawalpindi hospital. ... Malhi said police have registered cases against 500 people for attacking Masih ...
[2] [7] [5] However, in later judgements including the Danial Latifi v. Union of India case and Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, the Supreme Court of India interpreted the act in a manner reassuring the validity of the case and consequently upheld the Shah Bano judgement, and The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 was ...