Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC161; (1971)IIMLJ75(SC); (1970)3SCC894; [1971]2SCR790
Hegde, J.1. In this batch of appeals, the validity of the Madras Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Madras Act 26 of 1963); the Madras Lease-Holds. (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Madras Act 27 of 1963) and the Madras Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Madras Act 30 of 1963) is challenged on the ground that the material provisions in those Acts are violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution. The provisions in these Acts reducing the tenants' liability to pay the arrears of rent are also challenged on the ground that the legislature had no competence to enact 'those provisions. A few other minor contentions are also raised in these appeals to which reference will be made in the course of the judgment. All these contentions had been unsuccessfully urged before the High Court. Dealing with the allegation of infringement of Articles 14, 19 and 31, the High Court in addition to holding that the...
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
Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Water Dist. - 410 U.S. 719 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Water Dist., 410 U.S. 719 (1973) Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District No. 71-1456 Argued January 8, 1973 Decided March 20, 1973 410 U.S. 719 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus Appellee district exists for the purpose of acquiring, storing, and distributing water for farming in the Tulare Lake Basin. Only landowners are qualified to elect the district's board of directors, votes being apportioned according to the assessed valuation of the lands. A three-judge District Court, against challenge by appellants, held that the limitation of the franchise to landowners comported with equal protection requirements. Held: 1. Restricting the voters to landowners who may or may not be residents does not violate the principle enunciated in such cases as Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533 , and Kramer ...
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 : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC2299; 1975(Supp)SCC1; [1976]2SCR347
A.N. Ray, J.1. In Civil Appeal No. 887 of 1975 the appellant is Indira Nehru Gandhi and the respondent is Raj Narain. Civil Appeal No. 909 of 1975 is the cross objection of the respondent. On 14 July, 1975 it was directed that both the appeals would be heard together. The appeals arise out of the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad dated 12 June, 1975. The High Court held that the appellant held herself out as a candidate from 29 December, 1970 and was guilty of having committed corrupt practice by having obtained the assistance of Gazetted Officers in furtherance of her election prospects. The High Court further found the appellant guilty of corrupt practice committed under Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the 1951 Act by having obtained the assistance of Yashpal Kapur a Gazetted Officer for the furtherance of her election prospects. The High Court held the appellant to be disqualified for a period of six years from the date o...
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
Reported in : AIR1986SC79; (1986)88BOMLR24; 1985(2)SCALE819; (1986)1SCC366; [1985]Supp3SCR169
A.N. Sen, J.1. This is an unfortunate litigation between near relations and this litigation between the parties is now going on for over four decades.2. These two appeals have been filed with the certificate granted by the High Court against the judgment of the High Court by the plaintiff in the suit instituted by him for partition of joint family properties, for accounts and other reliefs mentioned in the plaint.3. By a common judgment delivered by the High Court in two separate appeals filed by the defendants in the suit against the judgment of the Trial Court., the High Court has substantially reversed the judgment of Trial Court.4. The facts of the case have been fully set out in the judgment of the Trial Court and also in the judgment of the High Court. We shall briefly indicate the facts material for the purpose of disposal of these two appeals. As the High Court disposed of both the appeals by one common judgment and the two appeals which have been preferred against the same jud...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1117; 1986(1)SCALE283; (1986)2SCC275; [1986]1SCR421; 1986(1)LC529(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. These two appeals filed under Article 133(l)(c) of the Constitution of India, as it stood when they were instituted, are filed against the common judgment dated August 6, 1971 of the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No. 180 of 1970 and Writ Petition No. 214 of 1970 dismissing the writ petitions. In the said writ petitions along with some others the appellants questioned the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Amendment Act, 1969 (Act No. 23 of 1969) (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Act') by which certain lands held by each of them had been treated as falling within the scope of the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (Act 26 of 1963) (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 26 of 1963'). The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 1055 of 1972 S. Thenappa Chettiar and others were interested in the lands (both wet and dry) measuring altogether 77.23 acres situated at V...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC604; JT1990(4)SC293; 1990(2)SCALE883; [1990]Supp2SCR393
ORDERK.N. Saikia, J.1. These seven appeals by certificate under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution of India are from the common Judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 20.11.1970 in several appeals and writ petitions. The appellants are the tenants and respondents are the landholders or their legal representatives, as the case may be, in respect of the tenanted agricultural lands of the hitherto inam estates of Kukunuru and Veerabhadrapuram villages in the West Godavari District of Andhra Pradesh. After coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (A.P. Act 25 of 1948), hereinafter referred to as 'the Estates Abolition Act', the inam estates were abolished and the land stood vested in the Government free of all encumbrances. The pre-existing right, title and interest of erstwhile landholders ceased except to claim ryotwari patta. The tenants were not liable to be evicted pending the proceedings for issuance ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1992(6)SC273; 1993LabIC129; 1992Supp(3)SCC212; [1992]6SCR321
ORDER1. 'Equality of status and of opportunity...' the rubric chiselled in the luminous preamble of our vibrating and pulsating Constitution radiates one of the avowed objectives in our Sovereign, Socialist and Secular Democratic Republic. In every free country which has adopted a system of governance through democratic principles, the people have their fundamental inalienable rights and enjoy the recognition of inherent dignity and of equality analogous to the rights proclaimed in the 'Bill of Rights' in U.S.A., the 'Rights of Man' in the French Constitution of 1971 and 'Declaration of Human Rights' etc. Our Constitution is unquestionably unique in its character and assimilation having its notable aspirations contained in 'Fundamental Rights' (in part III) through which the illumination of Constitutional rights comes to us not through an artless window glass but refracted with the enhanced intensity and beauty by prismatic interpretation of the Constitutional provisions dealing with e...
Tag this Judgment!