Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 766 (6.63 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Madras vs V.G. Row.Union Of India & State ... on 31 March, 1952

Ahmad Ali Akhtar And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 2 March, 1993

5.5.1. On the question of the test of reasonableness as laid down in Article 19, we may point out that in the very case cited on behalf of the petitioners itself, that is, The State of Madras v. V.G. Row , the test which was laid down, is being followed basically with certain clarifications and additions for the last 40 years. The test laid down in the said decision was as follows:
Patna High Court Cites 102 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018

268.   Patanjali Shastri, Chief Justice,  as he then was speaking   for   a   Constitution   Bench   in  State   of   Madras Vs. V.G.  Row, AIR 1952  SC 196,  while  elaborating the expression reasonable restrictions on the exercise of right as occurring in Clause (5) of Article 19 of the 247 Constitution   laid   down   that   reasonable   restriction should not be disproportionate. Following was observed in Paragraph 15:­ “15........It is important in this context to bear in mind that the test of reasonableness, wherever   prescribed,   should   be applied   to each   individual   statute   impugned,   and   no abstract   standard   or   general   pattern,   of reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all cases. The nature of the right alleged to   have   been   infringed,   the   underlying purpose   of   the   restrictions   imposed,   the extent   and  urgency   of  the  evil  sought  to   be remedied   thereby,   the   disproportion   of   the imposition,  the  prevailing   conditions   at   the time,   should   all   enter   into   the   judicial verdict.   In   evaluating   such   elusive   factors and   forming   their   own   conception   of   what   is reasonable,   in   all   the   circumstances   of   a given case, it is inevitable that the social philosophy   and   the   scale   of   values   of   the Judges   participating   in   the   decision   should play   an   important   part,   and   the   limit   to their   interference   with   legislative   judgment in   such  cases  can  only   be  dictated   by  their sense   of   responsibility   and   self­restraint and   the   sobering   reflection   that   the Constitution is meant not only for people of their  way  of  thinking  but  for  all,   and  that the   majority   of   the   elected   representatives of   the   people   have,   in   authorising   the imposition   of   the   restrictions,   considered them to be reasonable.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 661 - Cited by 238 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Joseph Kuruvilla Vellukunnel vs The Reserve Bank Of India And ... on 7 March, 1962

But cases of detention and associations declared unlawful are not in the same class as a banking company on which there is a run by the depositors and whose affairs, on inspection, are found to be mismanaged and conducted in such a way that it is unable to pay all lawful demands upon it. The factual background will not be one of suspicion, and action will be based on concrete facts, which will normally be checked and rechecked before the final decision, and, in our opinion, it is impossible to equate such a case with either A. K. Gopalan's case (2) or V. G. Row's case(1).
Supreme Court of India Cites 87 - Cited by 68 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru ... vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973

In the State of Madras v. V.G. Row (1952) S.C.R. 597 a unanimous Court spoke thus: "(A)s regards the fundamental rights'...this Court has been assigned the role of a sentinel on the qui vive." While the Court took care to assure that it has no 'desire to tilt at legislative authority in a crusader's spirit', it added by way of warning that "it cannot desert its own duty to determine finally the Constitutionality of an impugned statute." The Court moved away from its Gopalan attitude of humility and self-restraint to the sentinel's role, compounded of self-restraint and self-consciousness. In 1954 the Court moved away a step further.
Supreme Court of India Cites 573 - Cited by 999 - Full Document

M.R.F. Ltd vs Inspector Kerala Govt. And Ors on 11 November, 1998

(1962) 3 SCR 786 = AIR 1962 SC 316i Ayyangar, J. who wrote the Judgment observed that though there were several decisions of this Court in which the relative criteria were laid down to test the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed under Clause (6) of Article 19, the passage from the Judgment of Patanjali Sastri, C.J. in State of Madras vs. V.G. Row (supra), which we have already extracted above, was held sufficient for the purpose of reference.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. ... vs The Union Of India And 2 Ors on 6 December, 2017

168. Reference was further made to paragraph-15 of State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196 : 1952 Cri LJ 966, where it was observed that "....It is important in this context to bear in mind that the test of reasonableness, wherever prescribed, should be applied to each individual statute impugned, and no abstract standard, or general pattern of reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all cases. The nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions at the time, should all enter into the judicial verdict."
Bombay High Court Cites 292 - Cited by 219 - N H Patil - Full Document

D. B. Realty Limited And Anr vs The Union Of India Through The Secretary ... on 6 December, 2017

168. Reference was further made to paragraph-15 of State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196 : 1952 Cri LJ 966, where it was observed that "....It is important in this context to bear in mind that the test of reasonableness, wherever prescribed, should be applied to each individual statute impugned, and no abstract standard, or general pattern of reasonableness can be laid down as applicable to all cases. The nature of the right alleged to have been infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions at the time, should all enter into the judicial verdict."
Bombay High Court Cites 292 - Cited by 0 - N H Patil - Full Document

X Corp vs Union Of India on 24 September, 2025

(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court holds that American doctrine cannot be imported under our Constitution, because the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) are not absolute rights, but as pointed by the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF MADRAS v. V.G.ROW supra, they are subject to restrictions placed in the subsequent clauses of Article 19. There is nothing in the American Constitution corresponding to clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 of the Constitution.
Karnataka High Court Cites 189 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

M.R.F. Ltd vs Inspector Kerala Govt. And Ors on 11 November, 1998

(1962) 3 SCR 786 = AIR 1962 SC 316i Ayyangar, J. who wrote the Judgment observed that though there were several decisions of this Court in which the relative criteria were laid down to test the reasonableness of the restrictions imposed under Clause (6) of Article 19, the passage from the Judgment of Patanjali Sastri, C.J. in State of Madras vs. V.G. Row (supra), which we have already extracted above, was held sufficient for the purpose of reference.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - S S Ahmad - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next