Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (1.48 seconds)Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 5 in The Passports Act, 1967 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Passports Act, 1967 [Entire Act]
Prashant Bhushan vs Union Of India & Anr on 7 January, 2016
If such permission is granted, then the petitioner may move an appropriate application before the Competent Authority, for issuance of a passport, which shall be considered in the light of the provisions of the Act and the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prashant Bhushan Vs. Union of India and Another in Writ-C No.1524 of 2015.
Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors.Etc vs Mcdowell & Co.And Ors.Etc on 21 March, 1996
14. It is a well settled principle of law that a law made by Parliament can be struck down by courts only on two grounds, namely, lack of legislative competence and violation of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution or of any other constitutional provision. It is no doubt true that Section 6(2)(f) of the Act is challenged in the present case on the ground that it is violative of Article 14, however, for the reasons stated supra, we are of the view that Section 6(2)(f) is neither violative of the equality clause nor equal protection clause enshrined in Article 14. It has been held by the courts consistently that presumption of constitutionality is always in favour of a legislation unless the contrary is shown. Parliament and the Legislatures comprising the representatives of the people are supposed to know and be aware of the needs of the people and what is good and bad for them. The court cannot sit in judgment over their wisdom, particularly where they have stood the test of time, unless it is established that the impugned provision suffers from the vice of legislative competence or impinged the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution. The mere fact that there is some inconvenience arising from the language of a statutory provision and its due implementation cannot be a ground for declaring the same violative of fundamental rights [vide State of AP v. McDowell & Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709, State of Haryana v. State of Punjab, (2004) 12 SCC 673 and K.B. Nagur v. Union of India, (2012) 4 SCC 483].
Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
K.B.Nagur M.D(Ayu) vs Union Of India on 24 February, 2012
14. It is a well settled principle of law that a law made by Parliament can be struck down by courts only on two grounds, namely, lack of legislative competence and violation of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution or of any other constitutional provision. It is no doubt true that Section 6(2)(f) of the Act is challenged in the present case on the ground that it is violative of Article 14, however, for the reasons stated supra, we are of the view that Section 6(2)(f) is neither violative of the equality clause nor equal protection clause enshrined in Article 14. It has been held by the courts consistently that presumption of constitutionality is always in favour of a legislation unless the contrary is shown. Parliament and the Legislatures comprising the representatives of the people are supposed to know and be aware of the needs of the people and what is good and bad for them. The court cannot sit in judgment over their wisdom, particularly where they have stood the test of time, unless it is established that the impugned provision suffers from the vice of legislative competence or impinged the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution. The mere fact that there is some inconvenience arising from the language of a statutory provision and its due implementation cannot be a ground for declaring the same violative of fundamental rights [vide State of AP v. McDowell & Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709, State of Haryana v. State of Punjab, (2004) 12 SCC 673 and K.B. Nagur v. Union of India, (2012) 4 SCC 483].