Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable 2024 INSC554IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos. 4056-4064 of 1999 Mineral Area Development Authority & Anr. Appellants Versus M/S Steel Authority of India & Anr Etc. Respondents With Civil Appeal No.7937 of 2019 With Writ Petition (Civil) No.512 of 2018 With Civil Appeal No.7938 of 2019 With Civil Appeal No.7936 of 2019 With Civil Appeal No.6221 of 2008 With Civil Appeal No.5250 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.729 of 2019 With Writ Petition (C) No.1029 of 2019 With Special Leave Petition (C) No.16028 of 2021 With Civil Appeal No.4286 of 2023 1 With Civil Appeal No.5682 of 2007 With Civil Appeal No.1295 of 2008 With Civil Appeal No.874 of 2013 With Civil Appeal Nos. 8269-8271 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.8268 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.8267 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.6135 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.8272 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.9458 of 2013 With Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.18600 of 2013 With Civil Appeal No.4...
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 : 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 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 : Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeal No.2732 of 2020 (arising out of SLP(C)No.11295 of 2011) etc. Sri Marthanda Varma (D) Thr. LRs. & Anr. vs. State of Kerala and ors. 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE/CIVIL ORIGINAL/INHERENT JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2732 OF2020[Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.11295 of 2011]. SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRs. & ANR. Appellants STATE OF KERALA & ORS. VERSUS WITH Respondents CIVIL APPEAL No.2733 OF2020[Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.12361 of 2011]. AND WRIT PETITION(C) No.518 OF2011AND CONMT. PET.(C) No.493 OF2019IN SLP(C) No.12361 OF2011Civil Appeal No.2732 of 2020 (arising out of SLP(C)No.11295 of 2011) etc. Sri Marthanda Varma (D) Thr. LRs. & Anr. vs. State of Kerala and ors. 2 JUDGMENT Uday Umesh Lalit, J.1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11295 of 2011 and Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.12361 of 2011.2. Sree Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma who as Ruler of Covenanting State of Travancore had ente...
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 : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10075-10076 of 2014 STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. APPELLANTS VERSUS MOHAMMED BASHEER RESPONDENT JUDGMENT S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.1. The appellant-State of Kerala has preferred these appeals challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment passed by the High Court of Kerala in M.F.A. No.160 of 1991 dated 18.09.2001 and the order in RP No.572 of 2001 in M.F.A. No.160 of 1991 dated 06.02.2007.2. The respondent herein filed a petition in the Forest Tribunal, Palakkad under Section 8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (for short 'the KPF Act') for settlement of the dispute in relation to land measuring about 2 acres bearing R.S No.1200, Muppenad (now in Vellar mala village) Vythiri Taluk, Wynad district (for short 'the land'). In the petition, it was contended 2 that one K.C. Kunji Moosa had orally leased the land in favour of the respondent's father in the year 1962 and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD MANCE (with whom Lord Hope, Lord Hughes and Lord Kerr agree) Summary 1. Two appeals are before the Court by prisoners who were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In the case of the appellant Peter Chester, the tariff period fixed by the sentencing judge expired on 29 October 1997, but he has not yet satisfied the Parole Board that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that he should be confined. In the case of the appellant George McGeoch, the sentencing judge fixed a punishment part of 13 years which expired on 7 October 2011, but he has committed various intervening offences including violently escaping from lawful custody in 2008 for which he received a seven and a half year consecutive sentence. The result is that the earliest date on which McGeoch could be considered for parole is July 2015. 2. Both the appellants claim that their rights have been and are being infringed by reason of their disenfranchisement from voting. Chester's cla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Shelby County v. Holder NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA v. HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 1296.Argued February 27, 2013Decided June 25, 2013 The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted to address entrenched racial discrimination in voting, an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated in certain parts of our country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301. Section 2 of the Act, which bans any standard, practice, or proce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
LADY HALE There are three cases before the Court, two on appeal from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales and one from the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland. This judgment deals with the two English cases, while a separate judgment will deal with the Scottish case. The issue common to all three is the scope for judicial review by the High Court or Court of Session of unappealable decisions of the Upper Tribunal established under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (the "2007 Act"). It is no longer argued on behalf of the Government that such decisions are not amenable to judicial review at all. But it is argued that they are only reviewable in exceptional circumstances. The claimants argue that no such limit exists. The debate, therefore, has focussed upon the effect of the creation of a wholly new and integrated tribunal structure under the 2007 Act. The cases It has been helpful to hear three different cases together, all raising essentially the same qu...
Tag this Judgment!