Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.06 seconds)Article 48A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 51A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Madras vs V.G. Row.Union Of India & State ... on 31 March, 1952
36. Judging from that angle mentioned above in V. G.
Page 10 of 25
Downloaded on : Fri Sep 02 21:29:40 IST 2022
C/SCA/17087/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2022
Row's case (supra), which has been consistently
followed thereafter, in our opinion the closure of
slaughter house cannot be said to be an unreasonable
restriction on the writ petitioners' right to do their trade
and business of slaughtering animals.
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rural Litigation And Entitlement ... vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 12 March, 1985
In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra
and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., 1986 (Supp)
SCC 517, a complete ban and closing of mining
operations carried on in the Mussoorie hills was held to
be sustainable by deriving support from the fundamental
duty as enshrined in Article 51-A(g) of the Constitution.
The Court held that preservation of the environment and
keeping the ecological balance unaffected is a task
which not only Governments but also every citizen must
undertake. It is a social obligation of the State as well as
of the individuals.
K.M. Chinnappa, T.N. Godavarman ... vs Union Of India And Ors on 30 October, 2002
In T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of
India and Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 606, a three- Judge
Bench of this Court read Article 48-A and Article 51-A
together as laying down the foundation for a
jurisprudence of environmental protection and held that
"Today, the State and the citizens are under a
fundamental obligation to protect and improve the
environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, wild life
and to have compassion for living creatures".
The State Of Maharashtra vs Himmatbhai Narbheram Rao And Ors. on 15 October, 1968
In Himmatbhai
Narbheram Rao and Ors. (supra) trade in hides was
completely prohibited and the owners of dead animals
were required to compulsorily deposit carcasses in an
appointed place without selling it. The constitutionality
of such prohibition, though depriving the owner of his
property, was upheld. The court also held that while
striking a balance between rights of individuals and
rights of citizenry as a whole the financial loss caused to
individuals becomes insignificant if it serves the larger
public interest.