Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 701 (1.63 seconds)
Documents citing Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union Of India & Others on 16 December, 1983

K.Guruprasad Rao vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 1 July, 2013

In two of these cases, i.e., Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (supra) and M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395, this Court evolved an innovative mechanism for enforcing the fundamental rights of bonded labourers and those who became victims of the operation of hazardous industries. In the next three cases filed by Mr. M.C. Mehta, the Court considered the impact of mining on national assets like water bodies (Badkal Lake and Surajkund in Haryana), the Taj Mahal and the Aarvali Hills, availed the services of expert bodies and accepted their reports for issuing directions to check pollution and environmental degradation. In the second case, the Court ordered closure of all licensed brick kilns operating within a 20 kilometers radial distance of the Taj Mahal, Taj Trapezium and Bharatpur Bird Sanctuary. The law which regulated the brick kilns did not contain any such restriction, but in larger public interest, namely, protection of a national monument and a bird sanctuary, this Court used its power to order closure of all the licensed brick kilns. In the third case, the Court considered and unequivocally rejected the plea that the mines which were operating under the licences granted in accordance with the 1957 Act and the Rules framed thereunder cannot be closed under the Court’s order and held that all mining operations in the Aarvali Hills shall be suspended. In the last mentioned case, which relates to the mines operating in three districts of Karnataka, the Court gave multiple directions for protecting the environment, ecology and forest wealth.
Supreme Court of India Cites 62 - Cited by 20 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Dr. Jaya Thakur vs Government Of India on 30 January, 2026

112. It is necessary to reconsider the impact that policies such as the setting of informal targets and provision of incentives by the Government can have on the reproductive freedoms of the most vulnerable groups of society whose economic and social conditions leave them with no meaningful choice in the matter and also render them the easiest targets of coercion. The cases of Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity [Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of W.B., (1996) 4 SCC 37] and Bandhua Mukti Morcha [Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 389] have emphasised that the State's obligation in respect of fundamental rights must extend to ensuring that the rights of the weaker sections of the community are not exploited by virtue of their position. Thus, the policies of the Government must not mirror the systemic discrimination prevalent in society but must be aimed at remedying this discrimination and ensuring substantive equality. In this regard, it is necessary that the policies and incentive schemes are made gender neutral and the unnecessary focus on female sterilisation is discontinued.” (Emphasis supplied)
Supreme Court of India Cites 109 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Association For Protection Of ... vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. [Alongwith ... on 16 November, 2007

116. We find merit in the submission of the learned Advocate General that the power enjoyed by the Supreme Court under Article 142 is special and confined to the Supreme Court. It has been held by the Supreme Court that it is at an entirely different level and of a different quality as laid down in the case of Union Carbide Corporation (supra). At the same time, it must be noticed that in these cases powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution were not under the consideration of the Supreme Court, therefore, we are unable to accept the submission of the learned Advocate General that the High Court would have no power to issue a direction to the CBI for investigation.
Calcutta High Court Cites 156 - Cited by 21 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

All India Anna Dravida Munnetra ... vs The Union Of India on 29 April, 2008

(ix) The Court in special situations may appoint a Commission, or other bodies for the purpose of investigating into the allegations and finding out facts. It may also direct management of a public institution taken over by such Committee. (See Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 389 : (1984) 2 SCR 67; Rakesh Chandra Narayan v. State of Bihar, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 644; A.P.Pollution Control Board v. Prof.M.V.Nayudu, (1999) 2 SCC 718).
Madras High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 1 - S J Mukhopadhaya - Full Document

M/S. Telangana State 108 Employees ... vs The State Of Telangana on 18 July, 2023

26. Taking into consideration the above referred facts and circumstances of the case and duly considering the view and the law laid down by the Apex Court in its judgment in S.P.Gupta v Union of India reported in AIR 1982 SC 149, judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1984(3) SCC 161 in Bandhu Mukti Morcha v Union of India, the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2015 (8) SCC 1 in Vipulabhai M. Chowdhary v Gujarat Co- operative Milk Marketing Federationf Ltd. The judgment of the Apex Court in M/s Oswal Agro Furane Ltd and another Vs Oswal Agro Furane Workers Union and Ors reported in 2005 (3) SCC 224 and the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1981 (1) SCC page 72 in Ajay Hasia and others v Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others, the judgment of the Apex Court in Whirl Pool Corporation v Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others reported in 1998 (8) SCC page 1, judgment of the Apex Court in Olga Tellis and others v Bombay Municipal Corporation and others reported in 1985 (3) SCC page 545 and the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2017(1) SCC 14 in State of Punjab v Jagjit 39 WP_29486_2018 SN,J Singh and others and the judgment in K.C. Joshi v Union of India and others reported in 1985(3) SCC 153, the writ petition is allowed and the 4th respondent is directed to consider the case of all the remaining 187 terminated employees out of 947 terminated employees and to re-instate them within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, duly considering the letter dated 24.03.2018 vide No.34/GEN-PR/2018 of the Special Secretary addressed to Hon'ble Chief Minister, duly considering Para 5 of the counter affidavit filed in C.C.No.3307 of 2018 in W.P.No.29486 of 2018 and applying the law laid down by the Apex Court in its various judgments (referred to and extracted above). However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Telangana High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - S Nanda - Full Document

Ganga Sahai vs Suraj Prasad And Ors. on 15 July, 1986

20. The aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court show that it may be permissible to depart from the rules of procedure while dealing with cases relating to public interest litigation which involve the interests of a large number of persons who by reason of their poverty or socially or economically disadvantaged position are unable to approach the Court for relief and in such cases the Court may proceed to exercise jurisdiction on the basis of letters without insisting on a formal petition. But at the same time the Court has struck a note of warning that care and caution should be adopted to ensure that the process of the Court is not abused or misused. Pathak, J. and A.N. Sen J. in their judgments in Bhandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (AIR 1984 SC 802) (supra) have disapproved the letters and communications being addressed to an individual Judge by name and have observed that such communications should be addressed to the Chief Justice of the Court and his companion Judges collectively. In the light of the aforesaid observations we will like to observe that in case a learned Judge receives a communication making complaint about any grievance and seeking redress by way of relief by issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the learned Judge may forward the same to the Registrar or Addl. Registrar with direction to immediately place it before the Judge who is dealing with petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution and the learned Judge who is dealing with such petitions, may after examining the said communication, pass appropriate orders on the same. Such a course would also be in consonance with Rule 54 of the Rules which empowers the Chief Justice to allot the work amongst various Judges of the Court.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - N M Kasliwal - Full Document

Ajit D. Padiwal vs State Of Gujarat And 2 on 15 September, 2004

29.5 It may be noted that in this case this Court is hearing Public Interest Litigation filed by the petitioner against issuance of fake and bogus warrants. The petitioner has raised question regarding importance of judicial standards and also standard of the advocates. However, incidentally Mr. Raju, learned counsel for the applicant who is not a party to the main matter, has stated that several persons have filed several litigations against the applicant and his family members, the details whereof have been stated earlier and this Court under Article 226 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. may quash and set aside those proceedings initiated against the applicant and his family members. As regards PIL, this Court has considered several judgments including judgment in the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha (supra).
Gujarat High Court Cites 152 - Cited by 13 - D K Trivedi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next