Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.54 seconds)
Mool Chand Kucheria vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 May, 2014 cites

Smt. Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani & ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 May, 1995

2. The Supreme Court in Sarla Mudgal supra while dealing with the petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India concerned with the status of the second marriage of a Hindu husband after conversion to Islam held such second marriage to be a void marriage in terms Section 494 of the IPC. However earlier judgments of the Supreme Court on the need for a W.P.(C) No.3604/2014 Page 1 of 4 uniform civil code throughout the territory of India and the long way it will go in solving the problems were noticed and it was observed that the Government would be well advised to entrust the responsibility to the Law Commission to bring about the comprehensive legislation in keeping with modern day concept of human rights.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 181 - K Singh - Full Document

A. K. Roy, Etc vs Union Of India And Anr on 28 December, 1981

3. Nevertheless the fact remains that the Supreme Court, inspite of having held so, did not issue any direction as the petitioner is asking us to issue. The reason therefor is clear from the other judgments of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in A.K. Roy Vs. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 271 held that it is not for the Courts to censure the Executive nor is it for the Courts to take over the function of the Parliament, otherwise, there will be chaos with each organ of the State overstepping its jurisdiction and interfering with the functions of another organ of the State.
Supreme Court of India Cites 105 - Cited by 516 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs A Parent Of A Student Of Medical College. ... on 11 April, 1985

Similarly, in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Shimla (1985) 3 SCC 169, the order of the High Court of the Himachal Pradesh directing the filing of an affidavit setting out what action had been taken towards implementation of the recommendations contained in the report of the Anti-Ragging Committee, was set aside and it was held that the order of the High Court so directing was wholly unsustainable even though made in a public interest litigation. It was held that the direction of the High Court amounts to compelling the Government to initiate legislation and which the Court was not entitled to do. The Supreme Court held that it is entirely a matter for the executive branch of the Government to decide whether or not to introduce a particular legislation and is not a matter which is within the sphere of the functions and duties allocated to the judiciary W.P.(C) No.3604/2014 Page 2 of 4 under the Constitution. It was yet further held that the Courts cannot even indirectly require the executive to introduce a particular legislation or the legislature to pass it and the Courts cannot assume to itself a supervisory role over the law making activities of the Executive and the Legislature.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 186 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Common Cause (A Regd. Society) vs Union Of India And Others on 11 April, 2008

4. Reference may also be made to Common Cause (A Regd. Society) Vs. Union of India (2008) 5 SCC 511 holding that Courts cannot create rights where none exist nor they can go on making orders which are incapable of enforcement or direct legislation or proclaim that they are playing the role of a law maker, merely for an exhibition of judicial valour.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 32 - M Katju - Full Document

V K Naswa vs Home Secretary, Uoi And Ors on 9 January, 2012

A good discussion on the subject and reiteration of the principle can also be found in the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in V.K. Naswa Vs. Home Secretary, UOI (2012) 2 SCC 542 where it was held that Courts have a very limited role and in exercise of that, it is not open to have judicial legislation. It was further held, neither the Courts can legislate nor the Courts have any competence to issue directions to the legislature to enact the law in a particular manner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 29 - Full Document
1