Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 245 (2.72 seconds)
Documents citing Independent Thought vs Union Of India on 11 October, 2017

Ramnath Ashok Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 19 April, 2022

15. The major inconsistency between POCSO Act and IPC was also considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and therefore, the ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2022 06:50:06 ::: aba118.22 15 said Exception to Section 375 of the IPC was rather modified and instead of age 15 it was replaced by the word "18". It will have to be said that since the law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, it is the law and it will have to be interpreted in the same way which has been put in Independent Thought vs. Union of India (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - V V Kankanwadi - Full Document

Arjun Sitaram Gadage vs Ramnath Ashok Shinde And Another on 19 April, 2022

15. The major inconsistency between POCSO Act and IPC was also considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and therefore, the ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2022 06:50:11 ::: aba118.22 15 said Exception to Section 375 of the IPC was rather modified and instead of age 15 it was replaced by the word "18". It will have to be said that since the law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, it is the law and it will have to be interpreted in the same way which has been put in Independent Thought vs. Union of India (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - V V Kankanwadi - Full Document

Trimbak Arun Borude vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 12 April, 2022

15. The major inconsistency between POCSO Act and IPC was also considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and therefore, the said Exception to Section 375 of the IPC was rather modified and instead of age 15 it was replaced by the word "18". It will have ::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2022 09:48:25 ::: aba203.22 14 to be said that since the law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, it is the law and it will have to be interpreted in the same way which has been put in Independent Thought vs. Union of India (supra).
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 2 - V V Kankanwadi - Full Document

Ranjeet Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others on 2 March, 2021

Considering the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Independent Thought (supra) that a girl child below the age of 18 years who is sought to be married is a child in need of care and protection and is required to be produced before the Child Welfare Committee under Section 27 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 so that she can be cared for, protected and rehabilitated in a society and that under no circumstances can a child below 18 years of age gives consent express or implied for sexual intercourse and also observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shafin Jahan (supra) that when a girl is not a major and expresses fear of life in the custody of her parents, the Court may exercise the jurisdiction to send her to an appropriate home meant to give shelter to women till she 53 53 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 24-08-2021 09:47:38 ::: CRWP-7785-2020 (O&M) becomes a major, this Court is of considered view that there is no inherent right vested in the husband or his relatives to claim custody of minor girl by filing writ of habeas corpus. Keeping a minor girl child in such like circumstances either by an order of judicial Court or by the Child Welfare Committee by following proper procedure cannot be held to be an illegal detention. 40 In the present case, the girl child has specifically refused to go along with her father and is not facing any difficulty or problem while staying at Nari Niketan/Child Protection Home and therefore, her stay at Nari Niketan/Child Protection Home, cannot be said to be detrimental to her well being. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, she cannot be directed to be released till she attains the age of majority by giving her custody either to her husband or his relatives including the petitioner who is stated to be her sister-in-law. However, the Child Welfare Committee constituted under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, shall monitor the well being of Neha by making periodical inspections of Nari Niketan/Child Protection Home and shall comply with all the statutory obligations cast upon the Child Welfare Committee under of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. It is 54 54 of 55 ::: Downloaded on - 24-08-2021 09:47:38 ::: CRWP-7785-2020 (O&M) made clear that if at any time Neha, even before attaining the age of 18 years, expresses her desire to go to her father/parents, then the Child Welfare Committee shall permit her to do so in the presence of her father/parents and by passing an appropriate order in this regard.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 71 - Cited by 3 - J S Puri - Full Document

X vs The Principal Secretary Health And ... on 29 September, 2022

In Independent Thought v. Union of India, 101 this Court held that sexual intercourse with a girl below 18 years of age is rape regardless of whether or not she is married. This Court emphatically rejected the argument that the state had a compelling state interest in preserving the institution of marriage (even child marriages), and observed that the impact of Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC has to be considered with the social realities of the present. It is important to note that the broader issue of marital rape of adult women was not dealt with since the issue was not specifically raised in that case. In the context of right to dignity, it was observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 119 - Cited by 47 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Fatehgarh Bhadla Transmission Company ... vs Central Electricity Regulatory ... on 2 May, 2023

It would be. reluctant to strike down laws as unconstitutional unless it is shown that the legislation clearly violates constitutional provisions or the fundamental rights of the citizens,(Independent Thought v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 800), and, in addition, in the case of subordinate legislation that it is in violation of the parent Act. The fundamental nature and importance of the legislative process is recognised by Courts, and due regard and deference is accorded thereto.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 178 - Cited by 0 - R Ranganathan - Full Document

Jagbir vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 22 July, 2022

15. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts as in most of the cases relied by counsel for the petitioner, the difference of age between the victim and the petitioner was less, and the age of victims happened to be largely just below the age of majority (i.e. 18 years). Also, in view of principles of law as laid down in Independent Thought vs. Union of India (supra) and Jayanti Lal Dabgar vs. State of Gujarat (supra), the petitioner does not deserve the discretion of bail.
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - A K Mendiratta - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next