Kerala pastor John Valamatton requested a writ petition in 1997 stating that section 118 of the Indian Succession Act discriminated against Christians due to unreasonable restrictions on donating property for religious or charitable purposes by will...
Religion, which is not defined in the Constitution, cannot be determined by the judiciary either. In the light of the foundations of constitutional norms and the light presented by judicial precedent, we can say that religion is a matter of faith. Th..
The court dismissed the appeal and held that the appellants no longer have claim to their right under Article 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution based on the arguments made by the Defendant...
Upon hearing the parties, the Court directed the district judge to hold an inquiry. Later when the reports of the inquiry were submitted it was known that the injuries in the petitioner’s son’s body was due to merciless beatings and was not caused b..
Double jeopardy is a procedural guard that anticipates a charged person from being tried once more on the same (or similar) charges and on the same facts, following a valid acquittal or conviction. Only certain sorts of criminal cases qualify for dou..
Upon hearing the parties, the Court held that, mere fear ofofficials cannot restrict the freedom of press under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. If such false allegations were contained in the book let the book be published and then the officia..
Upon hearing the parties to the case, the Court held that, the first question to be considered is whether the respondent is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. This question comes into picture to determine the maintainability..
The Supreme Court laid down the process/ certain basic requirementsto be followed in all cases of arrest or detention till legal provisions are made in that behalf as a measure to prevent custodial violence...
Upon hearing the parties to the case, the Court held that, the Board was right in its stand as Jallikattu and Bullock-cart race violates the provisions of PCA and causes grave cruelty to bulls. The Court directed Parliament to make necessary amendmen..
Upon hearing the parties, the Court held that, section 303 IPC makes an unreasonable classification of persons who commit murder when under life sentence and persons who commit murder when not under life sentence as the resultant act is the same in b..
Upon hearing the parties to the case, the Court held that,it is an accepted fact that, Article 15(1) prohibits discrimination on the basis of caste alone. But when a classification is made for the welfare of socially and economically backward class ..
Upon hearing the parties to the case, the Court held that, the amendments made under Article 16 do not affect the basic structure as it aims only in upbringing of socially and economically backward classes of the society. Further the provision is to..
The Supreme Court while affirming the infringement of Right to Privacy via phone tapping laid down several guidelines for the exercise of the Executive’s surveillance. It was laid down that the home secretary of the Union government or the State gove..
The court after taking into consideration the harm caused to the petitioner by the Government of Bihar, as an interim measure, ordered the State to pay the petitioner Rs. 30,000. The court held that the petitioner has the right to move to court for r..
Upon hearing the parties to the case, the Court held that, a prima facie sex based discrimination is made out under section 497 IPC therefore it is liable to be struck down as unconstitutional. Further, the Court clarified that, inclusion of woman a..
Upon hearing the parties, the Court held that, the intent behind such provisions is only to promote “social good” in a matrimonial tie. Instead of suing each other on the grounds of adultery the couple can either break the matrimonial tie forever or..
Upon hearing the parties the Court held that, it would not be proper to direct the appellants at this stage to approach the Tribunal to get the case decided on merits, therefore the Court sent back the case to the Division Bench to decide the case on..
Upon hearing the parties to the case, the Court held that, sections 175(1)(q) and 177(1) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 are constitutionally valid, therefore the petitions which challenged the validity of the said provisions are liable to be..
The court did acknowledge the fact the, the permitting of other religions to sacrifice does case discrimination, but with regard to the same petitioners stated that such an argument was not prioritized by them...
The nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously recognized that the Constitution guaranteed the right to privacy as an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The Court overruled M.P. Sharma, and Kharak Singh ..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
