Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 147 (7.12 seconds)
Documents citing Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 11 August, 1986

Indian Young Lawyers Association vs The State Of Kerala on 28 September, 2018

In Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (supra), this Court emphasised that for a religious practise to receive protection under Article 25(1) it must be “genuinely”, and “conscientiously” held by persons claiming such rights. This Court had noted that such religious beliefs and practises must be consistently and not “idly” held, and should not emanate out of “perversity”.
Supreme Court of India Cites 201 - Cited by 30 - D Misra - Full Document

Prateek Chitkara vs Union Of India And Ors on 26 September, 2023

In the present case, Mr. Akhil Sibal, ld. Senior Counsel has vehemently tried to argue and place before the Court the legal position that the OM itself is unconstitutional in view of the law laid down in A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras [1950 SCC OnLine SC 17], Maneka Gandhi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10998/2022 Page 25 of 54 By:RAHUL Signing Date:27.09.2023 15:20:25 vs. Union of India & Anr. [(1978) 1 SCC 248] and Bijoe Emmanuel vs. State of Kerala [(1986) 3 SCC 615].
Delhi High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - P M Singh - Full Document

Swami Vasudevanand Saraswati Disciple ... vs Jagat Guru Shankarcharya Jyotishpeeth ... on 22 September, 2017

498 687 622 17 Bhagawati Prasad Vs Chandramaul, AIR 1966 SC 735 684, 686 617, 620 18 Bhanu Kumar Jain Vs. Archana Kumar, 2005(1) SCC 787 527, 541 489, 502 19 Bibi Rahmani Khatoon and others Vs. Harkoo Gope and others (1981) 3 SCC 173 417, 421, 422, 424 422, 426, 427, 428 20 Bihar State Board of Religious Trust Vs. Mahant Sri Biseshwar Das, AIR 1971 SC 2057 267 220 21 Bijoe Emmanuel and others Vs. State of Kerala and others, 1986(3) SCC 615 317 252 22 Blair Vs. Churran (1939) 62 CLR 464 490 463 23 Bramchari Sidheswar Shai and others Vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1995 SC 2089 303, 314 244, 250 24 Brij Narain Singh Vs. Adya Prasad, JT 2008 (3) SC 1 460 450 25 Byathaiah (Kum) and others Vs. Pentaiah (Kum) and others, 2000 (9) SCC 191) 504 472 26 Cassomally Vs. Carrimbhoy (1911) 36 Bom.
Allahabad High Court Cites 273 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Naveen Jindal vs Union Of India on 22 September, 1995

Instructions contained in Flag Code cannot stand in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and another v. Thakur Bharat Singh (AIR 1967 S.C. 1170) and Bijoe, Emmanuel and others v. State of Kerala and others . The Central Government can certainly frame guidelines as to when, how, where and in what circumstances the National Flag can be flown, but any infraction of guidelines cannot result in any punishment and these guidelines cannot also be enforced unless restrictions imposed by the guidelines are in contravention of the provisions of the Emblems Act and the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act. It was faintly argued by Mr. Tulsi that the petitioner was using the National Flag by flying it over his factory premises for the purpose of his trade or business. We do not think that is any body's case. The second respondent, the Commissioner, does not say so and there is nothing on record to hold that the petitioner was flying the National Flag improperly or that he contravened section 3 of the Emblems Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next