Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19009 (2.74 seconds)
Documents citing Shayara Bano vs Union Of India And Ors. Ministry Of Women ... on 22 August, 2017

Shahid Azad vs Union Of India on 28 September, 2018

In fact, the main contention of the petitioner before us was that once the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Shayara Bano (supra) prohibits practicing such a form of dissolution of marriage, there is no necessity for further bringing into place a law for again doing something which is nothing but a law laid down by the Supreme Court by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution. In our considered view, this argument cannot be accepted and is misconceived.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - V K Rao - Full Document

Navtej Singh Johar vs Union Of India Ministry Of Law And ... on 6 September, 2018

―The test of manifest arbitrariness, therefore, as laid down in the aforesaid judgments would apply to invalidate legislation as well as subordinate legislation under Article 14. Manifest arbitrariness, therefore, must be something done by the legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining principle. Also, when something is done which is excessive and disproportionate, such legislation would be manifestly arbitrary. We are, therefore, of the view that arbitrariness in the sense of manifest arbitrariness as pointed out by us above would apply to negate legislation as well under Article 14.‖
Supreme Court of India Cites 153 - Cited by 923 - Full Document

Suhail Rashid Bhat vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Others on 25 October, 2019

356. So far as the challenge to the rules framed under the legislation is concerned, in AIR 2017 SC 4609 Shayara Bano v. Union of India (at page 4830 in para 282), the Supreme Court relied upon the judgment reported in (2016) 7 SCC 703 (AIR 2016 SC 2336) Cellular Operators Association of India v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and held thus:
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 164 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Aishat Shifa vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 October, 2022

“13. Coming now to the arguments as to the violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights, it will be convenient to take up first the complaint founded on Article 25(1)… What then, we inquire, are the materials placed before us to substantiate the claim that the sacrifice of a cow is enjoined or sanctioned by Islam? … ............ All that was placed before us during the argument were Surah XXII, Verses 28 and 33, and Surah CVIII. What the Holy book enjoins is that people should pray unto the Lord and make sacrifice. We have no affidavit before us by any Maulana explaining the implications of those verses or throwing any light on this problem. We, however, find it laid down in Hamilton's translation of Hedaya Book XLIII at p. 592 that it is the duty of every free Mussulman, arrived at the age of maturity, to offer a sacrifice on the Yd Kirban, or festival of the sacrifice, provided he be then possessed of Nisab and be not a traveller. The sacrifice established for one person is a goat and that for seven a cow or a camel. It is therefore, optional for a Muslim to sacrifice a goat for one person or a cow or a camel for seven persons. It does not appear to be obligatory that a person must sacrifice a cow. The very fact of an option seems to run counter to the notion of an obligatory duty. It is, however, pointed out that a person with six other members of his family may afford to sacrifice a cow but may not be able to afford to sacrifice seven goats…We have, however, no material on the record before us which will enable us to say, in the face of the foregoing facts, that the sacrifice of a cow on 73 that day is an obligatory overt act for a Mussalman to exhibit his religious belief and idea. In the premises, it is not possible for us to uphold this claim of the petitioners.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 166 - Cited by 0 - H Gupta - Full Document

Sheikh Amanullah Mansoori And Another vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Others on 25 October, 2021

21. From the aforesaid legal proposition, it is crystal clear that Triple Talaq has not been given after due process of law as indicated in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shayara Bano (supra) and subsequently, Honorable the Supreme Court in case of Shayara Bano (supra) declared to be illegal and accordingly, it is held that the divorce given by the petitioner Mohd. Akhtar Mansoori to respondent No.3/complainant is illegal as there is sufficient material for commission of offence, as such no case for Page 20 of 20 interference is made out by this court, therefore, present petitions are liable to be dismissed.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - N K Vyas - Full Document

Arshiya Rizvi And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 13 May, 2022

19. It is admitted fact that revisionist no.1 and opposite party no.2 are wife and husband and they were married on 15.01.2003 which is uncontroverted. The revisionist no.1 was divorced but as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Shayara Bano Vs. Union of India and others (Ministry of Women and Child Development Secretary and others), (2017) 9 SCC 1 wherein it has been pronounced that if the divorce is declared in one go and the Fatava is issued, the same cannot be legal divorce and it has no legal force. The divorce given by opposite party no.2 was not in accordance with the Quoran therefore, the divorce given by the opposite party no.2 was not in accordance with law. Quoran is the only source in which the voice of Allah, Mohammad Sahab have been recited in Aayats. The divorce can be given in accordance with the "verses" which are envisaged in Quoran. The said fact can be seen in Sure Bakar, Sura No.II Aayat No.228, Sure Nisha, Sure No.4, Aayat No.3, 19, 35 and 128 and Sure Talaq Sure No.65, Aayat No.1 and 2.
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

D.Ghouse Basha vs Government Of India on 20 August, 2025

"15.8 One of the offshoots of this test under Part III of the Constitution is the development of the doctrine of manifest arbitrariness. A doctrinal study of the development of this area may not be warranted herein. It is well traced in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1. We may only state that the development of jurisprudence has come full circle from an overly formalistic test of classification to include the test of manifest arbitrariness. A broad formulation of the test was noted in the aforesaid case as under:
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next