Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.49 seconds)
Arjun Gopal vs Union Of India . on 23 October, 2018 cites

Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union Of India & Ors on 28 August, 1996

35) It may be stressed that in Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum case, this Court had banned the tanneries when it was found that they were causing immense damage to the environment. Thus, environment protection, which is a facet of Article 21, was given supremacy over the right to carry on business enshrined in Article 19(1)(g). We state at the cost of repetition that right of health, which is recognised as a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution and, therefore, is a fundamental right, assumes greater importance. It is not only the petitioners and other applicants who have intervened in support of the petitioners but the issue involves millions of persons living in Delhi and NCR, whose right to health is at stake. However, for the time being, without going into this debate in greater details, our endeavour is to strive at balancing of two rights, namely, right of the petitioners under Article 21 and right of the manufacturers and traders under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 390 - Full Document

Shivashakti Sugars Ltd vs Shree Renuka Sugar Ltd . on 9 May, 2017

37) We now deal with the argument that banning the sale of firecrackers may lead to extreme economic hardship, namely, on the one hand loss of substantial revenue and on the other hand unemployment to lakhs of persons. This brings up the issue of connect or relationship between the law and economics. This aspect was considered by this Court in Shivashakti Sugars Limited v. Shree Renuka Sugar Limited and Others, (2017) 7 SCC 729, and the relevant portion whereof is reproduced below:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 21 - Cited by 19 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1   2 Next