Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.75 seconds)
Vinit Kumar vs Central Burau Of Investigation And Ors on 22 October, 2019 cites

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

Here the action of the executive is in breach of the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as also directions of the Supreme Court in PUCL's case (supra), in that case there was no direction or provision which could mandate the destruction of record in the patilsr 33/ 37 wp-2367 of 19(J).doc absence of valid order. No case of any infraction of Article 21 of the Constitution of India was raised.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 181 - K Singh - Full Document

Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978

V. The substantive law as laid down in Section 5(2) of the Act must have procedural safeguards for this valuable constitutional right as settled in Maneka Gandhi versus Union of India, that "procedure which deals with the modalities of regulating, restricting or even rejecting a fundamental right falling within Article 21 of the patilsr 8/ 37 wp-2367 of 19(J).doc Constitution of India has to be fair, not foolish, carefully designed to effectuate, not to subvert, the substantive right itself", and the 'procedure' must rule out any thing arbitrary, freakish and bizarre.
Supreme Court of India Cites 134 - Cited by 1982 - M H Beg - Full Document

M. P. Sharma And Others vs Satish Chandra, District ... on 15 March, 1954

In M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chander, already referred to, a search and seizure made under the Criminal Procedure Code was challenged as illegal on the ground of violation of the fundamental right under Article 20(3), the argument being that the evidence was no better than illegally compelled evidence. In support of that contention reference was made to the Fourth and Fifth amendments of the American Constitution and also to some American cases which seemed to hold that the obtaining of incriminating evidence by illegal seizure and search tantamounts to the violation of the Fifth amendment. The Fourth amendment does not place any embargo on. reasonable searches and seizures. It. provides that the right of the people to be secure in patilsr 34/ 37 wp-2367 of 19(J).doc their persons, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. .Thus the privacy of a citizen's home was specifically safeguarded under the- Constitution, although reasonable searches and seizures were not taboo. Repelling the submission, this Court observed at page 1096." A power of search and seizure is in any system of jurisprudence in overriding power of the State for the protection of social security and that power is necessarily regulated by law. When the Constitution makers have thought fit not to subject such regulation to constitutional limitations by recognition of a fundamental right to privacy,. analogous to the American Fourth Amendment, we have no justification to import it, into a totally different fundamental right, by some process of strained construction. Nor is it legitimate to assume that the constitutional protection under article 20(3) would be defeated by the statutory provisions for searches.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 306 - B Jagannadhadas - Full Document
1   2 Next