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..
Upon hearing the parties to the case, the Court held that, Article 19(1)(g) does not entitle citizens to carry on trade or business in activities which are immoral and criminal and in articles or goods which are obnoxious and injurious to health, saf..
Upon hearing the parties, the Court held that, Koran is an object which comes within the phrase “objects held sacred by the religion under Section 295 IPC” therefore no action can be taken against it. Further, declaring the holy Koran as unconstitut..
The Apex Court while deliberating upon the concept of mental cruelty, examined a catena of cases observed that there cannot be any exhaustive definition of mental cruelty. “What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in other case.” Hence, ..
Article 22 deals with preventive detention and all laws passed under it or any action taken must be in conformity to the article. Article 21 also lays down restrictions on the power of preventive detention. TheSupreme Court in Maneka Gandhi. v. Union..
The High Court while deliberating upon various judgments under the English and Indian law on the point of insanity, ruled that the defence of insanity is not available against cruelty in most matrimonial cases. Even if the offending spouse is not cap..
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 verdict of the Supreme Court concluded that the power of the President to dismiss a State government is not absolute. Further, the President should exercise the power only after his proclamation is approved by both Houses of Parliament. Until the..
The court held that the promotion of petitioner as Chief Secretary was only in an acting or officiating capacity and not in a substantive capacity.It was held that the addition of the post in the Indian Administrative Service Cadre of Tamil Nadu Stat..
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..
The activist on Friday moved the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail and has alleged that the complaint against her was because of religious and political rivalry and also added that her actions were part of the freedom of an individual. ..
Upon hearing the parties to the case, the Court held that, any person who has vivid knowledge about the vedas and all other sacred documents and sufficient experience can become a priest. Further caste/community cannot be a criterion to decide his e..
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 observed that right to life also includes the right to livelihood. “The sweep of the right to life conferred by Art. 21 is wide and far-reaching... That, which alone makes it possible to live, leave aside what makes life liveable, must be d..
The five-judge Constitutional Bench had held that “Right to Life” under Article 21 of Indian Constitution does not include the “Right to Die” or “right to be killed”. ..
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 Court held that the International Law that the remedy for breach of International Law can’t be found in Municipal Courts. The reason behind this is that for enforceability of international law it must first take the form of Municipal Law. It was ..
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
