Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.67 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Voluntary Health Association Of Punjab vs Union Of India And Others on 13 July, 2012
The argument is founded on the premise that there are
certain statutory provisions and certain judgments of this
Court which prescribe the prohibitory degrees for marriages
and provide certain guidelines for maintaining the sex ratio
and not giving any allowance for female foeticide that is a
resultant effect of sex determination which is prohibited
under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic
Techniques (Prohibition on Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (for
short ‘PCPNDT Act’) (See : Voluntary Health Association of
Punjab v. Union of India and others12 and Voluntary Health
Association of Punjab v. Union of India and others13).
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
S. Rangarajan Etc vs P. Jagjivan Ram on 30 March, 1989
In this context, a passage from S. Rangarajan v. P.
Jagjivan Ram and others14 is worth reproducing:-
Lakshmi Kant Pandey vs Union Of India on 6 February, 1984
51. Once the fundamental right is inherent in a person,
the intolerant groups who subscribe to the view of
superiority class complex or higher clan cannot scuttle the
right of a person by leaning on any kind of philosophy,
moral or social, or self-proclaimed elevation. Therefore, for
the sustenance of the legitimate rights of young couples or
anyone associated with them and keeping in view the role of
this Court as the guardian and protector of the
constitutional rights of the citizens and further to usher in
an atmosphere where the fear to get into wedlock because of
the threat of the collective is dispelled, it is necessary to
issue directives and we do so on the foundation of the
45
principle stated in Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of
India15, Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan and
others 16 and Prakash Singh and others v. Union of
India and others17.
Vishaka & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 13 August, 1997
51. Once the fundamental right is inherent in a person,
the intolerant groups who subscribe to the view of
superiority class complex or higher clan cannot scuttle the
right of a person by leaning on any kind of philosophy,
moral or social, or self-proclaimed elevation. Therefore, for
the sustenance of the legitimate rights of young couples or
anyone associated with them and keeping in view the role of
this Court as the guardian and protector of the
constitutional rights of the citizens and further to usher in
an atmosphere where the fear to get into wedlock because of
the threat of the collective is dispelled, it is necessary to
issue directives and we do so on the foundation of the
45
principle stated in Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of
India15, Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan and
others 16 and Prakash Singh and others v. Union of
India and others17.
Kishan Prakash Sharma & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 March, 2001
51. Once the fundamental right is inherent in a person,
the intolerant groups who subscribe to the view of
superiority class complex or higher clan cannot scuttle the
right of a person by leaning on any kind of philosophy,
moral or social, or self-proclaimed elevation. Therefore, for
the sustenance of the legitimate rights of young couples or
anyone associated with them and keeping in view the role of
this Court as the guardian and protector of the
constitutional rights of the citizens and further to usher in
an atmosphere where the fear to get into wedlock because of
the threat of the collective is dispelled, it is necessary to
issue directives and we do so on the foundation of the
45
principle stated in Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of
India15, Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan and
others 16 and Prakash Singh and others v. Union of
India and others17.