Court : Supreme Court of India
..... admit that erp was not the core issue in the matter, but the petitioners before the karnataka high court had no choice as they were, inter alia, attacking the government order dated 5 february 2022, which clearly stated that prohibiting hijab in schools will not be violative of article 25 of the constitution of india. be ..... reply was that fundamental rights are not absolute and they are always subject to reasonable restrictions. prohibiting hijab inside a classroom is a reasonable restriction. wearing of hijab was also said to be not an essential religious practice.12. the karnataka high court had formulated four questions for its consideration. these questions are as follows: a) ..... in the abovementioned rulings of the hon ble supreme court and various high courts, since the prohibition of a headscarf or a garment covering the head is not a violation of article 25 of the constitution. additionally, in terms of the [karnataka education act, 1983 article 133 sub rule (2) and article 7(1)(i), 7( .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... distribution or control of such waters or the implementation of such agreement; or (iii) the levy of any water rate in contravention of the prohibition contained in section 7. 164. section 3 deals with complaint by the state government as to water disputes. the said provision is extracted below:- ..... is annexed hereto; whereas, differences have arisen with regard to certain aspects of the order; whereas, on july 25, 1991, the governor of karnataka promulgated the karnataka cauvery basin irrigation protection ordinance, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the ordinance ), a copy whereof is annexed hereto; whereas, doubts have been expressed ..... following, namely:- (a) (b) (c) (d) secretary, the ministry of water resources, government of india chief secretaries to the state, governments of karnataka, tamil nadu, kerala and the union territory of puducherry or his nominated representative chairman, water commission chief engineer, central water commission secretary central duly chairman ex officio .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... and inviolability of communications from any kind of arbitrary or abusive interference from the state or individuals; consequently, recording and dissemination of such communications is prohibited, except in the cases established by law that are adapted to the objects and purposes of the american convention. the surveillance, intervention, like other international ..... savage sentence is anathema to the civilized jurisprudence of article 21. 26 olga tellis vs. bombay municipal corporation (1985) 3 scc54527 mohini jain vs. state of karnataka (1992) 3 scc666 unnikrishnan j.p. vs. state of andhra pradesh (1993) 1 scc64528 mansukhlal vithaldas chauhan vs. state of gujarat (1997) 7 scc62229 ..... right which is not conferred by the constitution but only recognized as such.4. shri kapil sibal, learned senior counsel on behalf of the states of karnataka, west bengal, punjab and puducherry broadly supported the petitioners. according to him, the 8- judge bench and the 6-judge bench decisions have ceased .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... or perhaps read as either "and" or "nor:" i think it means "nor;" that is to say, that the two things comprised in the prohibition are both prohibited, and not merely prohibited in the alternative. if the sense which i attribute to the word is right, it would have been more strictly grammatical to have written "nor" instead ..... dismissed, the interest of justice requires that any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must be neutralized." 323. in karnataka rare earth and anr. v. senior geologist, department of mines & geology216, this court observed that maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit requires that the party should be ..... through a representative, such 204 representative, must show legal authority for receiving the compensation on behalf of the principal. (emphasis supplied) 227. in the state of karnataka too similar rules were framed in 1965 under section 55 of the act of 1894. similarly, in the state of kerala also rule 14(2) of the land .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... reflects a guarantee to protect the dignity of all individuals who have faced systematic discrimination, prejudice and social exclusion. construed in this context, the prohibition against untouchability marks a powerful guarantee to remedy the stigmatization and exclusion of individuals and groups based on hierarchies of the social structure. notions of purity ..... high court in devarajiah while upholding the constitutional validity of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (prevention of atrocities) act 1989. in state of karnataka v appa balu ingale109, a two judge bench of this court traced the origins of untouchability. the court held that untouchability is an indirect form ..... corporation runs special buses during the season of pilgrimage. the buses connect pampa directly with almost all the main cities in kerala, tamil nadu and karnataka. 24 the pilgrimage has three distinctive features: (i) it is almost exclusively a male-centric pilgrimage that bars women between the ages of ten and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... under article 14. equality of opportunity for unequals can only mean aggravation of inequality. equality of opportunity admits discrimination with reason and prohibits discrimination without reason. discrimination with reasons means rational classification for differential treatment having nexus to the constitutionally permissible object. preferential representation for ..... thirty-six. schedule part i madras (1) scheduled castes throughout the province :- adi-andhra gosangi paidi adi-dravida haddi painda adi-karnataka hasla paky ajila holeya pallan arunthuthiyar jaggali pambada 24 baira jambuvulu pamidi bakuda kalladi panchama bandi kanakkan paniyan bariki kodalo panniandi battada koosa ..... the appropriate and constitutional approach.39. mahendra kumar mitra, petitioner-in-person appearing on behalf of dr. ambedkar scheduled castes federation, karnataka submitted that the recommendation of the justice usha mehra committee to include clause (3) to article 341 providing parliament the power to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... that normally, the investigating officer is required to produce all the relevant documents at the time of submitting the charge-sheet. at the same time, as there is no specific prohibition, it cannot be held that the additional documents cannot be produced subsequently. if some mistake is committed in not producing the relevant documents at the time of submitting the report ..... to rely upon before commencement of the trial, under the relevant sections of the crpc. 60 51. in a recent judgment, a division bench of this court in state of karnataka v. m.r. hiremath (2019) 7 scc515 after referring to anvar p.v. (supra) held: 16. the same view has been reiterated by a two- judge bench of this court .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... opinion also holds that considerations such as that legislation was motivated by a genuine concern to implement public policy was irrelevant. the majority opinion exposited that prohibition (separation of power) was violated when an individual final judgment is legislatively rescinded for even the best of reasons, such as legislature s genuine conviction ..... dam is endangered on account of its age, degradation, structural or other impediments and limits the water level to 136 ft. sub-section (2) prohibits increase of water level fixed in the second schedule notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any court or any other law or any treaty, contract ..... to defy the law and yet to get away with it. cauvery reference 100. in cauvery reference18, this court was concerned with the validity of karnataka cauvery basin irrigation protection ordinance, 1991. relying upon its previous decisions in madan mohan pathak14 and p. sambamurthy39, this court declared the ordinance unconstitutional as .....
Tag this Judgment!