Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO494OF2012JUSTICE K S PUTTASWAMY (RETD.), AND ANR. ..Petitioners VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..Respondents WITH T.C. (CIVIL) NO151OF2013T.C. (CIVIL) NO152OF2013W.P.(CIVIL) NO833OF2013W.P.(CIVIL) NO829OF2013W.P.(CIVIL) NO932OF2013CONMT. PET. (CIVIL) NO144OF2014IN W.P.(C) No.494/2012 T.P.(CIVIL) NO313OF2014T.P.(CIVIL) NO312OF2014S.L.P(CRL.) NO.2524/2014 W.P.(CIVIL) NO.37/2015 W.P.(CIVIL) NO.220/2015 1 CONMT. PET. (C)NO.674/2015 IN W.P.(C) NO.829/2013 T.P.(CIVIL)NO.921/2015 CONMT.PET.(C)NO.470/2015 IN W.P.(C) NO.494/2012 CONMT.PET.(C)NO.444/2016 IN W.P.(C) NO.494/2012 CONMT.PET.(C)NO.608/2016 IN W.P.(C) NO.494/2012 W.P.(CIVIL) NO.797/2016 CONMT.PET.(C)NO.844/2017 IN W.P.(C) NO.494/2012 W.P. (C) No.342/ 2017 AND WITH W.P.(C) NO.000372/2017 JUDGMENT Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J This judgment has been divided into sections to facilitate analysis. They are : A The reference B Decision in M P Sharma C D E F...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) No.229 OF2020RAJEEV SURI ...PETITIONER Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS with TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) No.230 OF2020CIVIL APPEAL No....... OF2020(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No../2020) (@ Diary No.8430/2020) WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.510/2020 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.638/2020 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.681/2020 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.845/2020 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.853 OF2020WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.922/2020 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.1041/2020 1 JUDGMENT A.M. Khanwilkar, J.TABLE OF CONTENTS S.No.TOPIC PARAS1 Introduction 1 2. Objectives of the Project 2-10 3. Proceedings and Contentions of the 11-123 Parties Consideration 4. Rule of Law 124-135 5. Democratic Due Process and 136-158 Judicial Review 6. Need for Heightened Judicial 159-167 Review 7. Constitutionalism 168-172 8. Participatory Democracy in India 173-198 9. Change in Land Use 199 a) What is Master Plan and Z...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Cal. Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co. - 480 U.S. 572 (1987) U.S. Supreme Court Cal. Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572 (1987) California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co. No. 86-1200 Argued December 2, 1986 Decided March 24, 1987 480 U.S. 572 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The Mining Act of 1872 authorizes a private citizen to enter federal lands to explore for mineral deposits, to perfect a mining claim, and to secure a patent to the land by complying with the requirements of the Act and regulations promulgated thereunder. Appellee Granite Rock Co. holds unpatented mining claims on federally owned lands in a national forest located in California. In accordance with federal regulations, Granite Rock obtained approval from the Forest Service in 1981 of its 6-year plan for mining limestone on the lands, and began to mine shortly thereafter. In 1983, the California Coastal Commission (Commission), acting pursuant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - 05-184 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAMDAN v . RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 05184.Argued March 28, 2006Decided June 29, 2006 Pursuant to Congress Joint Resolution authorizing the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda terrorist attacks (AUMF), U. S. Armed Forces invaded Afghanistan. During the hostilities, in 2001, militia forces captured petitioner Hamdan, a Yemeni national, and turned him over to the U. S. military, which, in 2002, transported him to prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Over a year later, the President deemed Hamdan eligible for trial by military commission for then-unspecified crimes. After another year, he was charged with conspiracy t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Original Civil Jurisdiction Writ Petition (C) No.118 of 2016 Shayara Bano Union of India and others Petitioner Respondents versus with Suo Motu Writ (C) No.2 of 2015 In Re: Muslim Womens Quest For Equality Jamiat Ulma-I-Hind versus Writ Petition(C) No.288 of 2016 Aafreen Rehman Union of India and others versus Petitioner Respondents Writ Petition(C) No.327 of 2016 Gulshan Parveen Union of India and others versus Petitioner Respondents Writ Petition(C) No.665 of 2016 Ishrat Jahan Union of India and others versus Petitioner Respondents Writ Petition(C) No.43 of 2017 Atiya Sabri Union of India and others versus Petitioner Respondents JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI. 2 Sl. No.1. Divisions Part-1 2. Part-2 3.4.5. Part-3 Part-4 Part-5 6.7. 8.9. A. B. C. Part-6 Part-7 I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. Part-8 Part-9 Consideration of the rival contentions, and our Index Contents The petitioners marital discord, and the petitioners prayers The prac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7095 OF2022(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) No.5236 OF2022 AISHAT SHIFA .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S) W I T H WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.120 OF2022CIVIL APPEAL No.7075 OF2022(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) No.15405 OF2022 CIVIL APPEAL No.6957 OF2022(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) No.9217 OF2022 CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7078-7083 OF2022(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 15407-15412 OF2022 CIVIL APPEAL No.7077 OF2022(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) No.15419 OF2022 CIVIL APPEAL No.7074 OF2022(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) No.15403 OF2022 CIVIL APPEAL No.7076 OF2022(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) No.15418 OF2022 1 CIVIL APPEAL No.7072 OF2022(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) No.11396 OF2022 CIVIL APPEAL No.6934 OF2022(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) No.7794 OF2022 CIVIL APPEAL No.7084 OF2022(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) No.15402 OF2022 CIVIL APPEAL No.7085 OF2022(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) No.15416 OF2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. We are in these appeals concerned with an issue of considerable national and international importance, pertaining to the setting up of a nuclear power plant in the South-Eastern tip of India, at Kudankulam in the State of Tamil Nadu. The incidents occurred in Three Miles Island Power Plant USA, Chernobyl, Ukraine, USSR, Fukoshima, Japan, Union Carbide, Bhopal might be haunting the memory of the people living in and around Kudankulam, leading to large-scale agitation and emotional reaction to the setting up of the Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) and its commissioning. The nature of potential adverse effect of ionizing radiation, adds to fears and unrest which might not have even thought of by Enrico Fermi a noble laureate in physics in 1938, who was responsible for the setting up of the first Nuclear reactor in a Doubles quash Court at Slagg Field, at the Chicago University, USA. Since then, it is history, India has now 20 Nuclear Reactors, in place...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4440 OF 201.(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.27335 of 2012) G. Sundarrajan . Appellant Versus Union of India and others Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.4441 OF 201.(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.27813 of 2012) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.4442 OF 201.(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.29121 of 2012) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.4443 OF 200.(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.32013 of 2012) JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. We are in these appeals concerned with an issue of considerable national and international importance, pertaining to the setting up of a nuclear power plant in the South-Eastern tip of India, at Kudankulam in the State of Tamil Nadu. The incidents occurred in Three Miles Island Power Plant USA, Chernobyl, Ukraine, USSR, Fukoshima, Japan, Union Carbide, Bhopal might be haunting the memory of the people living in and around Kudankulam, leading to large-scale agitation and emotional reaction to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.494 OF2012JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD.) AND ANOTHER .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S) WITH TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) No.151 OF2013TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) No.152 OF2013WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.833 OF2013WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.829 OF2013TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.1797 OF2013WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.932 OF2013TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.1796 OF2013CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.144 OF2014WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.494 OF2012IN TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.313 OF2014TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.312 OF2014SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.2524 OF2014WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.37 OF2015Writ Petition (Civil) No.494 of 2012 & c onnected matters Page 1 of 567 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.220 OF2015CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.674 OF2015WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.829 OF2013TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.921 OF2015CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.470 OF2015WRIT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC753Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (C) No.1404 of 2023 Sukanya Shantha Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents 1 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI Contents I. The Writ Petition .................................................................................................. 4 II. Submissions ........................................................................................................ 4 III. Constitutional Interpretation ................................................................................. 6 IV. The Constitution of Emancipation, Equality, and Dignity ...................................... 9 V. The Contours of Article 14 ................................................................................. 17 VI. Non-Discrimination under Article 15 ............................................................... 23 VII. The Ban on Untouchability in Article 17 ...................................
Tag this Judgment!