Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.590 OF 201.Manohar Lal Sharma .. Petitioner Versus M.C.I. and others ....Respondents With I.A.No.2 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.28480 of 2012 JUDGMENT K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.1. We are, in these cases, concerned with the legal validity of the approval granted by the Medical Council of India (for short the MCI) dated 15th July, 2013 for renewal of permission for admission of the third batch of 150 M.B.B.S. students at Chintpurni Medical College & Hospital (for short the College) for the academic year 2013-14. The above mentioned College was established during the year 2011-12 and it admitted 150 M.B.B.S. students for that year. Renewal of permission for the second batch was sought for the academic year 2012-13. The MCI carried out an inspection on 19/20th April, 2012 and noticed various deficiencies and, in addition, one fake faculty was also presented before the Inspection Team. Copy of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2371; JT1987(4)SC111; 1987(2)SCALE780; 1987(Supp)SCC692; [1988]1SCR525
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The above petition is filed by the petitioner, Shri Mithilesh Kumar under the provisions of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential elections Act, 1952 (Act No. 31 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act') calling in question the validity of the election of Shri R. Venkataraman, the 1st respondent herein as the President of India at the election held in July, 1987 for electing the President of India and praying for a declaration that he is the successful candidate at that election. There were three candidates at the election, namely, Shri R. Venkataraman - respondent No. 1, Shri V.R. Krishna Iyer - respondent No. 2 and Shri Mithilesh Kumar - the petitioner. The result of the election was declared on 16.7.1987 by the Returning Officer for Presidential Election 1987 - respondent No. 4, declaring Shri R. Venkataraman - respondent No. 1 as the President of India.2. The Act was passed in the year 1952 for the purpose of regulating certain matters relating to o...
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
..... officials of central government. and writ petition (crl.) no.2099 of 2015 (gnctd vs. nitin manawat) impugning:"order passed by the lt. governor, nct of delhi under section 24 of cr. p.c. appointing a special public prosecutor to conduct the trial in fir no.21/2012 in the special court under pc act ..... polity. this political vision combines with 28 martin loughlin, the silences of constitutions , international journal of constitutional law (2019, in press), available at https://www.jura.uni-freiburg.de ..... , limits the power of the legislative assembly to legislate and this restriction has to be understood in the context of conferment of special status. 39 39. to reiterate the position that the president remains the executive head for all union territories, mr. singh has drawn the attention ..... placed reliance on maumsell v. olins92, eastman photographic materials company v. comptroller general of patents, designs and trademarks93, tikri banda dullewe v. padma rukmani dullewe94, black clawson ..... stitutional objectives be fulfilled. it is submitted that judgments of this court in rustom cavasjee cooper vs. union of india, (1970)1 scc248 air1970sc564and judgment of this court in maneka gandhi vs. union of in dia and another, (1978)1 ..... chief justice for constituting a constitution bench:"during the hearing of these appeals our attention is drawn to the provisions of article 145(3) of the constitution of india. having gone through the matters and the aforesaid provisions, we are of the opinion that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL/CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.55 OF2019JANHIT ABHIYAN PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA RESPONDENT(S) WITH T.C.(C) No.8/2021, W.P.(C) No.596/2019, W.P.(C) No.446/2019, W.P.(C) No.427/2019, W.P. (C) No.331/2019, W.P.(C) No.343/2019, W.P.(C) No.798/2019, W.P. (C) No.732/2019, W.P. (C) No.854/2019, T.C. (C) No.12/2021, T.C.(C) No.10/2021, T.C. (C) No.9/2021, W.P.(C) No.73/2019, W.P. (C) No.72/2019, W.P. (C) No.76/2019, W.P.(C) No.80/2019, W.P. (C) No.222/2019, W.P. (C) No.249/2019, W.P.(C) No.341/2019, T.P.(C) No.1245/2019, T.P. (C) No.2715/2019, T.P.(C) No.122/2020, SLP(C) No.8699/2020, T.C.(C) No.7/2021, T.C.(C) No.11/2021, W.P.(C) No.69/2019, W.P.(C) No.122/2019, W.P. (C) No.106/2019, W.P.(C) No.95/2019, W.P.(C) No.133/2019, W.P. (C) No.178/2019, W.P.(C) No.182/2019, W.P.(C) No.146/2019, W.P. (C) No.168/2019, W.P.(C) No.212/2019, W.P.(C) No.162/2019, W.P.(C) No.419/2019, W.P.(C) No.473/2020, W.P.(C) No.493/20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(12)SC200; 2007(12)SCALE40; 2007AIRSCW7026; JT2007(12)SC200
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Interpretation and/or application of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short, 'the Act') is involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 30.04.2007 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 15920 of 2004.Facts:3. The land bearing Survey No. 82 situate in village Bowenpally and Survey No. 157/1 situate in Village Thokatta appurtenant to Trimulgherry Mandal, Hyderabad, admeasuring 7788 sq. metres were inam lands. The said lands vested in the State of Andhra Pradesh upon coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short, 'the 1955 Act') with effect from 20.07.1955.4. One B. Ramender Reddy and several others were claiming ownership of the said lands purported to have acquired title of the Inamdars. They sought for the grant of occupancy certificate from the State. The application filed in that behalf was rejec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Swatanter Kumar, J.1. Unlike natural calamities that are beyond human control, avoidable disasters resulting from human error/negligence prove more tragic and completely imbalance the inter-generational equity and cause irretrievable damage to the health and environment for generations to come. Such tragedy may occur from pure negligence, contributory negligence or even failure to take necessary precautions in carrying on certain industrial activities. More often than not, the affected parties have to face avoidable damage and adversity that results from such disasters. The magnitude and extent of adverse impact on the financial soundness, social health and upbringing of younger generation, including progenies, may have been beyond human expectations. In such situations and where the laws are silent or are inadequate, the courts have unexceptionally stepped in to bridge the gaps, to provide for appropriate directions and guidelines to ensure that fundamentals of Article 21 of the Const...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Writ Petition (Criminal) No.154 of 2020 Vinod Dua vs. Union of India & Ors. 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.154 OF2020VINOD DUA PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India prays for following principal reliefs:- a. Quash FIR No.0053 dated 06.05.2020 registered at Police Station Kumarsain, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. b. Direct that henceforth FIRs against persons belonging to the media with at least 10 years standing be not registered unless cleared by a committee to be constituted by every State Government, the composition of which should comprise of the Chief Justice of the High Court or a Judge designated by him, the leader of the Opposition and the Home Minister of the State. Writ Petition (Criminal) No.154 of 2020 Vinod Dua vs. Union of India & Ors. 22. FIR No.0053 dated 06.05.2020 was registered pursuant to Com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994SCC(3)569; JT1994(2)423
JUDGMENT:The Judgments of the Court were delivered by S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. (on behalf of himself, Punchhi, J., K. Ramaswamy, J., Agrawal, J. and Sahai, J.).1.The above batch of matters consisting of a number of writ petitions, criminal appeals and SLPs are filed challenging the vires of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act (No. 61 of 1984), the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (No. 31 of 1985) and the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (No. 28 of 1987) commonly known as TADA Acts (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1984, Act of 1985 and Act of 1987 respectively) and challenging the constitutional validity of Section 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1976 (U.P. Act No. 16 of 1976) by which the Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh has deleted Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as applicable to the State of Uttar Pradesh. Though originally, a number of other matters falling under various A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE2024INSC223IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). /2024 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO(S). 5463-5464/2023 APOORVA ARORA & ANR. ETC. . APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. RESPONDENT(S) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). /2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6786/2023 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). /2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5532/2023 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). /2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8385-8387/2023 JUDGMENT PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellants/accused are the actors, casting director, script writers, creator of the web-series College Romance1, and the media company that owns the YouTube channel on which the 1 TVF Media Labs Private Ltd. 1 web-series was hosted2. They are sought to be investigated and prosecuted for production, transmission, and online publication of obscene and sexually-explicit material under Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 20003. The appellan...
Tag this Judgment!