Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.61 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Joseph Shine vs Union Of India on 27 September, 2018
(2018) 16 SCC 408, "K.S. Puttaswami v. Union of India" (2017)
10 SCC 1, "Joseph Shine v. Union of India" (2018) 2 SCC 189 and
other decisions but ultimately left the matter to the discretion of
the SHO of the police station observing as under :-
Section 23 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Kanu Sanyal vs District Magistrate, Darjeeijng & Ors on 11 September, 1973
4. A status report dated 3rd December 2024 has been tendered
in the Court. In this report; it is stated that 'X' expressed her
willingness to stay with her husband Pukhraj and uncle-in-law
Bhanwara Ram. We have however not gone into that aspect and
the present habeas corpus petition is being decided on the basis of
the statements made by the petitioner. We have adopted this
course having in our mind the decision in "Kanu Sanyal v. District
Magistrate" 1974 SCC (4) 141 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that while dealing with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus the Court may examine the legality of the detention
without requiring the person detained to be produced before it;
that was though a case of preventive detention.
Justice K.S.Puttaswamy(Retd) And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 24 August, 2017
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its sterling judgment rendered in
K.S.Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, held in
no uncertain terms that privacy includes at its core, the
preservation of personal intimacies, the sanctity of family life,
marriage, procreation, the home and sexual orientation. The
Apex Court in the same pronouncement also laid down that
privacy also connotes a right to be left alone. Privacy safeguards
individual autonomy and recognises the ability of the individual to
control vital aspects of his or her life. Personal choices governing
a way of life are intrinsic to privacy.
Section 377 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sunil Batra Etc vs Delhi Administration And Ors. Etc on 30 August, 1978
25. On the question of the extent of protection to the petitioners,
it would be prudent to consider the opinion of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration & Others,
reported in (1978) 4 SCC 409. Opining on the right to
protection invoked by prisoners and convicts, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court succinctly laid down that it is the duty of the
Supreme court and all other subordinate courts to protect the
rights of our country's citizens and that in no way are prisoners
and convicts exempt from this.
Shri D.K. Basu,Ashok K. Johri vs State Of West Bengal,State Of U.P on 18 December, 1996
26. Similarly, while delving into the issue of the increasing
number of custodial deaths in India, the Hon'ble Apex Court in
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 1997 SC
610, elaborated upon the scope of Article 21, as follows:
Navtej Singh Johar vs Union Of India Ministry Of Law And ... on 6 September, 2018
8. However, the learned Single Judge of this Court referred to
the decision in "Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India" (2018) 10
SCC 1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the
Courts are to be guided by Constitutional morality and not by the
societal morality and as the final arbiter of the Constitution it has
to uphold the cherished principles of the Constitution and not to
be even remotely guided by the majoritarian or popular
perception. Just to indicate, "Navtej Singh Johar" had laid a
challenge to a provision under section 377 of the Indian Penal
Code as being violative of fundamental rights and therefore the
observations made therein have to be understood in the context of
the issue before the Court.