Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1549 (2.51 seconds)
Documents citing Shakti Vahini vs Union Of India on 27 March, 2018

Navtej Singh Johar vs Union Of India Ministry Of Law And ... on 6 September, 2018

In Shakti Vahini v. Union of India164, a three judge Bench of this Court issued directives to prevent honour killings at the behest of Khap Panchayats and protect persons who enter into marriages that do not have the approval of the Panchayats. The Court recognised the right to choose a life partner as a fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The learned Chief Justice held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 153 - Cited by 923 - Full Document

Sharmishthaben D/O. Amratbhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 17 January, 2019

4. Let the officer concerned be reminded of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shakti Vahini vs. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 192, wherein the Apex Court has held and observed as under:­ "51. We may note with profit that honour killings are condemned as a serious human rights violation and are addressed by certain international instruments. The Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence addresses this issue. Article 42 reads thus:­ "Article 42 - Unacceptable justifications for crimes, including crimes committed in the name of so­called "honour" 44 (1) Parties shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to ensure that, in criminal proceedings initiated following the commission of any of the acts of violence covered by the scope of this Convention, culture, custom, religion, tradition or so­called "honour" shall not be regarded as justification for such acts. This covers, in particular, claims that the victim has transgressed cultural, religious, social or traditional norms or customs of appropriate behaviour.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Knanaya Catholic Congress vs Knanaya Catholic Naveekarana ... on 23 March, 2026

In Shakti Vahini Vs Union of India [(2018) 7 SCC 192], the Supreme Court held that ....'Once a fundamental right is inherent in a person, the intolerant groups who subscribe to the view of superiority class complex 2026:KER:24904 RSAs 656, 675, 725/22 & 23/23 142 or higher clan cannot scuttle the right of a person by leaning on any kind of philosophy, moral or social or self- proclaimed elevation."
Kerala High Court Cites 92 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amandeep Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 19 December, 2023

110. After quoting the previous decision in S. Rangarajan [S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, (1989) 2 SCC 574] , which arose out of the infringement of the freedom of expression in respect of a cinematograph film, this Court said in Shakti Vahini [Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 192 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 1 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 580] as follows : (Shakti Vahini [Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 192 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 1 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 580] , SCC p. 214, para 49) "49. ... We are absolutely conscious that the aforesaid passage has been stated in respect of a different fundamental right, but the said principle applies with more vigour when the life and liberty of individuals is involved. We say so reminding the States of their constitutional obligations to comfort and nurture the sustenance of fundamental rights of the citizens and not to allow any hostile group to create any kind of trench in them."
Allahabad High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - P Bhatia - Full Document

Kotla Saidulu vs The State Of Telangana on 18 June, 2025

17. In the case of Gudur Sandeep Reddy, this Court has held that the alleged honour killing of one Chintha Yoga Hemanth Kumar, who had entered into an inter-caste marriage with the de facto complainant, against her family's wishes. The prosecution alleges that the accused, being close relatives of the de facto complainant, conspired with the principal accused, trespassed into the house of the deceased, abducted him, and participated in his subsequent murder. The remand report and statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. disclose specific overt acts and prima facie involvement of the petitioners in the crime. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the nature of allegations, and the social evil of honour killings, as condemned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, this Court finds no ground to grant bail at this stage. The possibility of interference with the ongoing investigation and intimidation of witnesses cannot be ruled out.
Telangana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Knanayasamudayasamrakshanasamithi ... vs Knanaya Catholic Naveekarana Samithy on 23 March, 2026

In Shakti Vahini Vs Union of India [(2018) 7 SCC 192], the Supreme Court held that ....'Once a fundamental right is inherent in a person, the intolerant groups who subscribe to the view of superiority class complex 2026:KER:24904 RSAs 656, 675, 725/22 & 23/23 142 or higher clan cannot scuttle the right of a person by leaning on any kind of philosophy, moral or social or self- proclaimed elevation."
Kerala High Court Cites 92 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nuvvula Sai Charan, vs The State Of Telangana, on 18 June, 2025

17. In the case of Gudur Sandeep Reddy, this Court has held that the alleged honour killing of one Chintha Yoga Hemanth Kumar, who had entered into an inter-caste marriage with the de facto complainant, against her family's wishes. The prosecution alleges that the accused, being close relatives of the de facto complainant, conspired with the principal accused, trespassed into the house of the deceased, abducted him, and participated in his subsequent murder. The remand report and statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. disclose specific overt acts and prima facie involvement of the petitioners in the crime. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the nature of allegations, and the social evil of honour killings, as condemned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and Shakti Vahini v. Union of India, this Court finds no ground to grant bail at this stage. The possibility of interference with the ongoing investigation and intimidation of witnesses cannot be ruled out.
Telangana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jose Mathew vs Knanaya Catholic Naveekarana Samithy on 23 March, 2026

In Shakti Vahini Vs Union of India [(2018) 7 SCC 192], the Supreme Court held that ....'Once a fundamental right is inherent in a person, the intolerant groups who subscribe to the view of superiority class complex 2026:KER:24904 RSAs 656, 675, 725/22 & 23/23 142 or higher clan cannot scuttle the right of a person by leaning on any kind of philosophy, moral or social or self- proclaimed elevation."
Kerala High Court Cites 92 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next