Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Gandhi filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order on the grounds that it violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The Union responded in their written submissions that her passport was impounded because her presence was likely to be required in connection with legal proceedings before ...
Ong Ah Chuan v Public Prosecutor is a landmark decision delivered in 1980 by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from Singapore which deals with the constitutionality of section 15 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1973 (No. 5 of 1973) (now section 17 of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap. 185, 2008 Rev. Ed.)) ("MDA"), and the mandatory death penalty by the Act for certain offences.
Unconstitutional vagueness is a concept that is used to strike down certain laws and judicial actions in United States federal courts. It is derived from the due process doctrine found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The doctrine prohibits criminal prosecution for laws where it is impossible to ...
[7] [8] Supreme Court in E. P. Royappa (1973) provided guidance on arbitrariness of an act: "Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions and it cannot be ‘cribbed, cabined and confined’ within the traditional and doctrinaire limits. From the positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness.
During the 2005 transit strike, both the strikers and the MTA violated portions of the Taylor Law. Section 210 states that the workers are not allowed to strike; Section 201, Part 4, states that employers are not allowed to negotiate benefits provided by a public retirement fund or payment to a fund or insurer to provide an income for retirees.
Novartis mounted a separate and concurrent litigation before the Madras High Court arguing that section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act violated Article 14 of the Indian constitution because the definition of "enhanced efficacy" was too vague and left too much power in the hands of the patent examiner, and was in violation of India's obligations ...
To guard against this form of arbitrariness, all persons falling into a particular class must be treated the same way. Third form of arbitrariness Basis or rationale of classification is arbitrary. To guard against this form of arbitrariness, the basis of classification must bear a reasonable relationship to the object of the executive action.
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), was a landmark criminal case in which the United States Supreme Court decided that arbitrary and inconsistent imposition of the death penalty violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.