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
Reportable 2024 INSC113IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (C) No.880 of 2017 Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents With Writ Petition (C) No.59 of 2018 With Writ Petition (C) No.975 of 2022 And With Writ Petition (C) No.1132 of 2022 1 JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI A. Background ................................................................................................... 4 i. Corporate Contributions ........................................................................... 5 ii. Curbing black money .............................................................................. 10 iii. Transparency ........................................................................................... 11 iv. Objections of RBI and ECI to the Electoral Bond Scheme .................. 13 v. Electoral Bond Scheme .......................................................................... 18 B. Is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Oregon v. Mitchell - 400 U.S. 112 (1970) U.S. Supreme Court Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970) Oregon v. Mitchell No. 43, Orig. Argued October 19, 1970 Decided December 21, 1970 * 400 U.S. 112 ON BILL OF COMPLAINT Syllabus These original actions involve the constitutionality of three provisions of the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970 which (1) lower the minimum age of voters in both state and federal elections from 21 to 18, (2) bar the use of literacy tests (and similar voting eligibility requirements) for a five-year period in state and federal elections in any area where such tests are not already proscribed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and (3) forbid States from disqualifying voters in presidential and vice-presidential elections for failure to meet state residency requirements and provide uniform national rules for absentee voting in such elections. Held: (1) The 18-year-old minimum-age requirement of the Voting Rights Act Amendments is valid for nation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Northwest Austin Municipal Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder - 08-322 (2009) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008 NORTHWEST AUSTIN MUNICIPAL UTIL. DIST.NO. ONE V. HOLDER SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NORTHWEST AUSTIN MUNICIPAL UTILITYDISTRICT NUMBER ONE v . HOLDER,ATTORNEY GENERAL, etal. appeal from the united states district court for the district of columbia No. 08322.Argued April 29, 2009Decided June 22, 2009 The appellant is a small utility district with an elected board. Because it is located in Texas, it is required by 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Act) to seek federal preclearance before it can change anything about its elections, even though there is no evidence it has ever discriminated on the basis of race in those elections. The district filed suit seeking relief under the bailout provision in 4(a) of the Act, which allows a political subdivision to be released from the preclearance requirements if certain conditions are met. The district argued in the alternative t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Richardson v. Ramirez - 418 U.S. 24 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974) Richardson v. Ramirez No. 72-1589 Argued January 15, 1974 Decided June 24, 1974 418 U.S. 24 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus After the three individual respondents, who had been convicted of felonies and had completed their sentences and paroles, were refused registration to vote in three different California counties respectively because of their felony convictions, they brought a class petition, on behalf of themselves and all other ex-felons similarly situated, for a writ of mandate in the California Supreme Court, naming as defendants the Secretary of State and the three county election officials who had denied them registration "individually and as representatives of the class of all other" county election officials in the State, and challenging the constitutionality of respondents' disenfranchisement on the ground, inter alia, that provisions ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ. - 431 U.S. 209 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Educ., 431 U.S. 209 (1977) Abood v. Detroit Board of Education No. 75-1153 Argued November 9, 1976 Decided May 23, 1977 431 U.S. 209 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN Syllabus A Michigan statute authorizing union representation of local governmental employees permits an "agency shop" arrangement, whereby every employee represented by a union, even though not a union member, must pay to the union, as a condition of employment, a service charge equal in amount to union dues. Appellant teachers filed actions (later consolidated) in Michigan state court against appellee Detroit Board of Education and appellee Union (which represented teachers employed by the Board) and Union officials, challenging the validity of the agency shop clause in a collective bargaining agreement between the Board and the Union. The complaints alleged that appellants were unwilling or had refused to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Civil) No.502 of 2021 Madras Bar Association .... Petitioner(s) Versus Union of India & Another . Respondent (s) JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.1. The Madras Bar Association has filed this Writ Petition seeking a declaration that Sections 12 and 13 of the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 and Sections 184 and 186 (2) of the Finance Act, 2017 as amended by the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 as ultra vires Articles 14, 21 and 50 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as these are violative of the principles of separation of powers and independence of judiciary, apart from being contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras 1 | Pa ge Bar Association1, Madras Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr.2, Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited & Ors.3 and Madras Bar Ass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter, Communities for Great Ore. - 515 U.S. 687 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1994 Syllabus BABBITT, SECRETARY OF INTERIOR, ET AL. v. SWEET HOME CHAPTER OF COMMUNITIES FOR A GREAT OREGON ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 94-859. Argued April 17, 1995-Decided June 29,1995 As relevant here, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA or Act) makes it unlawful for any person to "take" endangered or threatened species, 9(a)(1)(B), and defines "take" to mean to "harass, harm, pursue," "wound," or "kill," 3(19). In 50 CFR 17.3, petitioner Secretary of the Interior further defines "harm" to include "significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife." Respondents, persons and entities dependent on the forest products industries and others, challenged this regulation on its face, claiming that Congress did not intend the word "take" to include habitat modification. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE/INHERENT/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION M A No.1151 of 2018 In Civil Appeal No.2368 of 2011 B K Pavitra and Ors ...Appellants Versus The Union of India and Ors ...Respondents With Review Petition (c) Diary No.7833 of 2017 With Review Petition (c) Diary No.10240 of 2017 With Review Petition (c) Diary No.10258 of 2017 With 1 Review Petition (c) Diary No.10859 of 2017 With Review Petition (c) Diary No.12622 of 2017 With Review Petition (c) Diary No.12674 of 2017 With Review Petition (c) Diary No.13047 of 2017 With Review Petition (c) Diary No.14563 of 2017 With Review Petition (c) Diary No.16896 of 2017 With M A No.1152 of 2018 In Civil Appeal No.2369 of 2011 With Writ Petition (c) No.764 of 2018 With Writ Petition (c) No.769 of 2018 With 2 Writ Petition No.791 of 2018 With Writ Petition (c) No.823 of 2018 With Writ Petition (c) No.827 of 2018 With Writ Petition (c) No.850 of 2018 With Writ Petition (c) No.875 of 2018 With Writ Petition (c) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Morse v. Republican Party of Va. - 517 U.S. 186 (1995) OCTOBER TERM, 1995 Syllabus MORSE ET AL. v. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF VIRGINIA ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA No. 94-203. Argued October 2, 1995-Decided March 27,1996 Appellee Republican Party of Virginia (Party) invited all registered Virginia voters willing to declare their support for the Party's nominees at the 1994 general election to become delegates to a convention to nominate the Party's candidate for United States Senator upon payment of a registration fee. Appellants Bartholomew and Enderson desired, and were qualified, to become delegates, but were rejected because they refused to pay the fee; appellant Morse paid the fee with funds advanced by supporters of the eventual nominee. Alleging, inter alia, that the imposition of the fee violated 5 and 10 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, appellants filed a complaint seeking an injunction preventing the Party from...
Tag this Judgment!