Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 34 (1.95 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs Naveen Jindal & Anr on 23 January, 2004

Daulat Ram College Society & Anr vs University Of Delhi & Anr on 12 January, 2018

33. The judgments in Kharak Singh (supra), Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala 1986 (3) SCC 619 and Union of India v. Navin Jindal 2004 (2) SCC 510 are authorities for the proposition that any attempt of the state to restrict any fundamental right has to be through authority of law. This means that the restrictive condition is valid, if sanctioned by law.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Thirumagan vs The Superintendent Of Police on 3 July, 2020

15.1(b) Having made this declaration in Article 13, the Constitution itself proceeds to enable the State to make provision for providing exceptions to, or for limiting the exercise of the Fundamental Rights such as in Articles 15, 16, 19(2) to 19(6), 21, 22(7), 25(2). It now requires to be understood if a non-statutory circular, or a non-statutory Order will fall within the definition of law in Article 13(3) (which will be relevant when they are tested for their constitutionality as being inconsistent with, or abridging any of the rights in Part III), and by the same stroke will they become law to enable limiting, or carving an exception to, the Fundamental Rights under Part III (for which the Constitution itself has made provisions) ? 15.2 The difference is well brought out in Union of India Vs. Naveen Jindal & another [(2004) 2 SCC 510]. The issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was about the citizen's right to fly a National Flag, and to understand if it is a part of citizen's fundamental right? The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is part of citizen's fundamental right under Article 34/67 http://www.judis.nic.in WP(MD)No.21040 of 2018 & etc. batch cases 19(1)(a). One ancillary issue which the Court was required to address is on the legal character of the Flag Code, 2002, under which few restrictions are imposed on the right of the citizen to fly his national flag.
Madras High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 26 - N Seshasayee - Full Document

Narayan Chandra Udgata vs State Of Orissa & Others .... Opp. ... on 6 October, 2020

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that as held by the Supreme Court in Punit Rai Vs. Dinesh Chaudhaty, (2003) 8 SCC 204; Union of India Vs. Naveen Jindal, (2004) 2 SCC 510; and State of Kerala Vs. Chandra Mohan, (2004) 3 SCC 429, the executive instructions cannot be termed as law within the meaning of Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution of India.
Orissa High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 17 - M Rafiq - Full Document

Jeeshan @ Jaanu And Another vs State Of U P And 4 Others on 29 January, 2021

16. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Navin Jindal and another, (2004) 2 SCC 510, which provides that Flag Code is not a statute and can not regulate fundamental right to fly national flag, however, the guidelines as laid down under the Flag Code deserve to be followed to the extent it provides for preservation of dignity and respect for the national flag.
Allahabad High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - P Naqvi - Full Document

Sunil Kumar Verma vs The State Of Bihar on 8 April, 2021

51. The Constitution being an organic document, its ongoing interpretation is permissible. The supremacy of the Constitution is essential to bring social changes in the national polity evolved with the passage of time. The interpretation of the Constitution is a difficult task. While doing so, the Constitutional Courts are not only required to take into consideration their own experience over time, the international treaties and covenants but also keep the doctrine of flexibility in mind. It has been so stated in Union of India v. Naveen Jindal and another [(2004) 2 SCC 510].
Patna High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - S Pandey - Full Document

Nawal Kishor Mishra vs High Court Of Judicature Of Allahab&Ors on 17 February, 2015

In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the Constitution Bench decision of this Court reported in State of Bihar and Another v. Bal Mukund Sah & Others - (2000) 4 SCC 640 4 (CB), as well as the decisions reported in Ashok Pal Singh & Ors. v. Uttar Pradesh Judicial Services Association & Ors.- (2010) 12 SCC 635, State of U.P. & Anr. v. Johri Mal - (2004) 4 SCC 714, Union of India v. Naveen Jindal & Anr. - (2004) 2 SCC 510 and Sri Dwarka Nath Tewari & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. - AIR 1959 SC 249 (CB).
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kaushal Kishor vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh Govt. Of U.P. ... on 3 January, 2023

Thus, the right under Article 19(1)(a) is a multi-faceted freedom and includes within its expanse, inter-alia, the right to gender identity as a facet of freedom of expression, vide National Legal Services Authority vs. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438 (“National Legal Services Authority”); the right of the press to conduct interviews, vide Prabha Dutt vs. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 1 (“Prabha Dutt”); the right to attend proceedings in Court and report the same, vide Swapnil Tripathi vs. Supreme Court of India, (2018) 10 SCC 639 (“Swapnil Tripathi”); the right to fly the national flag vide Union of India vs. Naveen Jindal, (2004) 2 SCC 510 (“Naveen Jindal”).
Supreme Court of India Cites 318 - Cited by 22 - V Ramasubramanian - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next