Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (7.04 seconds)
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) vs Union Of India on 26 September, 2018 cites

State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors.Etc vs Mcdowell & Co.And Ors.Etc on 21 March, 1996

78) The historical development of the doctrine of arbitrariness has been noticed by the said Judges in Shayara Bano in detail. It would be suffice to reproduce paragraphs 67 to 69 of the said judgment as the discussion in these paras provide a sufficient guide as to how a doctrine of arbitrariness is to be applied while adjudging the constitutional validity of a legislation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 491 - B P Reddy - Full Document

People'S Union Of Civil Liberties ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 18 December, 1996

243.   The Commission held that information was rightly submitted to the Insurance Co. in accordance with law. It   is   also   relevant   to   refer   the   judgment   of   this Court   in  People’s   Union   for   Civil   Liberties(PUCL)   v. Union   of   India,   1997   (1)   SCC   301,  where   the   writ petition   was   filed   under   Article   32   alleging   serious invasion of an individual’s privacy on the account of Telephone­tapping.   The   Court   adverted   to   the   Indian Telegraph   Act,   1885   and   the   Rules   framed   thereunder. The   Court   has   noticed   that   Section   5(2)   of   the Telegraph Act permits the interception of messages in accordance with the said section, “Occurrence of any 224 public   emergency”   or   “in   the   interest   of   public safety”. In paragraph 28 following was held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 181 - K Singh - Full Document

Raj Kumar Gupta vs Lt. Governor, Delhi And Ors on 5 November, 1996

257.  This Court in Rajkumar Gupta versus Lt.Governor, Delhi   and   Others,   (1997)   1   SCC   556,  had   occasion   to consider Section 34(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947   and   objective   behind   putting   such   restriction. Section 34 of Industrial Disputes Act provided that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or of the abetment of any such offence, save   on   complaint   made   by   or   under   the   authority   of the   appropriate Government. Section 34 of Industrial Disputes   Act   is  pari   materia  with   Section   47   of   the Aadhaar   Act.   This   Court   noticing   the   objective   of Section   34   laid   down   following   in   the   paragraph   16. The   Court   held   that   Section   34   is   in   the   nature   of limitation   on   the   entitlement   of   workman   or   trade union or an employer to complain of offences under the Act.  Following was laid down in paragraph 16:
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

State Of Bihar & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Bihar Distillery Ltd. Etc. Etc on 3 December, 1996

“99. However, in State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd., SCC at para 22, in State of M.P. v. Rakesh Kohli, SCC at paras 17 to 19, in Rajbala v. State of Haryana, SCC at paras 53 to 65 and in Binoy Viswam v. Union of India, SCC at paras 80 to 82, McDowell was read as being an absolute bar to the use of “arbitrariness” as a tool to strike down legislation under Article
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 412 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Madhu Kishwar & Ors. Etc vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 17 April, 1996

“I am glad that the Draft Constitution has… adopted the individual as its unit.”456 Having an individual identity is an important part of the human condition. The negation of identity is the loss of personhood, which in turn affects the freedom of choice and free will. Personhood constructs democracy. It represents the quality of democracy. Our decided cases have recognized the intimate relationship between human liberty and identity. The traveller in Maneka Gandhi v Union of India457, the employee complaining of sexual harassment in Vishaka v State of Rajasthan458, the guardian of the minor in Githa Hariharan (Ms) v Reserve Bank of India459, the bar employee in Anuj Garg v Hotel Association of India460, the transgender in National Legal 456 Constituent Assembly Debates (4 November, 1948) 457 (1978) 1 SCC 248 458 (1997) 6 SCC 241 459 (1999) 2 SCC 228 460 (2008) 3 SCC 1 348 PART H Services Authority v Union of India461, the tribal worker in Madhu Kishwar v State of Bihar462 and the oppressed victim of state violence in Nandini Sundar v State of Chattisgarh463 are all engaged in the assertion of identity.
Supreme Court of India Cites 81 - Cited by 96 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

National Human Rights Commission vs State Of Arunachal Pradesh & Anr on 9 January, 1996

“Our Constitution is a tryst with destiny, preamble with lucent solemnity in the words ‘Justice – social, economic and political.’ The three great branches of Government, as creatures of the Constitution, must remember this promise in their fundamental role and forget it at their peril, for to do so will be a betrayal of chose high values and goals which this nation set for itself in its objective Resolution and whose elaborate summation appears in Part IV of the Paramount Parchment. The history of our country’s struggle for independence was the story of a battle between the forces of socio-economic exploitation and the masses of deprived people of varying degrees and the Constitution sets the new sights of the nation…..Once we grasp the dharma of the Constitution, the new orientation of the karma of adjudication becomes clear. Our founding fathers, aware of our social realities, forged our fighting faith and integrating justice in its social, economic and political aspects. While contemplating the meaning of the Articles of the Organic Law, the Supreme Court shall not disown Social Justice.” In National Human Rights Commission v. State of Arunachal Pradesh19, the Supreme Court explained it again, as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 45 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Smt. Gian Kaur vs The State Of Punjab on 21 March, 1996

166. The purpose of saying so is only to highlight that the law must take cognizance of the changing society and Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012 & connected matters Page 184 of 567 march in consonance with the developing concepts. The need of the present has to be served with the interpretative process of law. However, it is to be seen how much strength and sanction can be drawn from the Constitution to consummate the changing ideology and convert it into a reality. The immediate needs are required to be addressed through the process of interpretation by the Court unless the same totally falls outside the constitutional framework or the constitutional interpretation fails to recognise such dynamism. The Constitution Bench in Gian Kaur [Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 648 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 374] , as stated earlier, distinguishes attempt to suicide and abetment of suicide from acceleration of the process of natural death which has commenced. The authorities, we have noted from other jurisdictions, have observed the distinctions between the administration of lethal injection or certain medicines to cause painless death and non-administration of certain treatment which can prolong the life in cases where the process of dying that has commenced is not reversible or withdrawal of the treatment that has been given to the patient because of the absolute absence of possibility of saving the life. To explicate, the first part relates to an overt act whereas the second one would come within the sphere of informed consent and authorised omission. The omission of such a nature will not invite any criminal liability if such action is guided by certain safeguards. The concept is based on non-prolongation of life where there is no cure for the state the patient is in and he, under no circumstances, would have liked to have such a degrading state. The words “no cure” have to be understood to convey that the patient remains in the same state of pain and suffering or the dying process is delayed by means of taking recourse to modern medical technology. It is a state where the treating physicians and the family members know fully well that the treatment is administered only to procrastinate the continuum of breath of the individual and the patient is not even aware that he is breathing. Life is measured by artificial heartbeats and the patient has to go through this undignified state which is imposed on him. The dignity of life is denied to him as there is no other choice but to suffer an avoidable protracted treatment thereby thus indubitably casting a cloud and creating a dent in his right to live with dignity and face death with dignity, which is a preserved concept of bodily autonomy and right to privacy. In such a stage, he has no old memories or any future hopes but he is in a state of misery which nobody ever desires to have.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 48 - J S Verma - Full Document
1   2 Next