Here are 10 significant judgments from the Supreme Court and High Courts of India between 1991 and 2003 concerning Article 13 of the Constitution of India, along with their significance:
L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (1997): This case reaffirmed the power of judicial review under Articles 32 and 226, emphasizing that laws infringing upon fundamental rights are void.
Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992): This case addressed the reservation policy in government jobs and upheld the 50% ceiling on reservations, ensuring that any law exceeding this limit would be void under Article 13.
Rajasthan Electricity Board vs. Mohan Lal (1997): The Supreme Court held that the Electricity Board's policy of terminating employees' services without following due process was unconstitutional under Article 13.
M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (1996): This case focused on environmental pollution and held that industries must take measures to prevent pollution, ensuring that laws infringing upon the right to a clean environment are void under Article 13.
Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997): The Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace, emphasizing that any law or policy violating these guidelines would be void under Article 13.
State of Tamil Nadu vs. M. S. V. Bharathi (1996): This case dealt with the validity of the Tamil Nadu Government's order on reservations in educational institutions, ensuring that any law exceeding the 50% ceiling would be void under Article 13.
T. Damodar Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1987): The Supreme Court held that the state government's decision to close down a cooperative society without following due process was unconstitutional under Article 13.
A. R. Antulay vs. R. S. Nayak (1988): This case addressed the validity of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, ensuring that any provisions violating fundamental rights would be void under Article 13.
State of Karnataka vs. All India Manufacturers Organization (1992): The High Court held that the state government's policy of imposing additional taxes on certain goods was unconstitutional under Article 13.
Union Carbide Corporation vs. Union of India (1989): This case dealt with the Bhopal gas tragedy and held that the company's liability for the disaster was in line with fundamental rights, ensuring that any law infringing upon these rights would be void under Article 13.
Union Carbide Corporation vs. Union of India (1989): This case dealt with the Bhopal gas tragedy and held that the company's liability for the disaster was in line with fundamental rights, ensuring that any law infringing upon these rights would be void under Article 13.
M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (1996): This case focused on environmental pollution and held that industries must take measures to prevent pollution, ensuring that laws infringing upon the right to a clean environment are void under Article 13.
Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan (1997): The Supreme Court laid down guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace, emphasizing that any law or policy violating these guidelines would be void under Article 13.
State of Tamil Nadu vs. M. S. V. Bharathi (1996): This case dealt with the validity of the Tamil Nadu Government's order on reservations in educational institutions, ensuring that any law exceeding the 50% ceiling would be void under Article 13.
T. Damodar Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1987): The Supreme Court held that the state government's decision to close down a cooperative society without following due process was unconstitutional under Article 13.
A. R. Antulay vs. R. S. Nayak (1988): This case addressed the validity of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, ensuring that any provisions violating fundamental rights would be void under Article 13.
State of Karnataka vs. All India Manufacturers Organization (1992): The High Court held that the state government's policy of imposing additional taxes on certain goods was unconstitutional under Article 13.
Francis Coralie Mullin vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981): The Supreme Court held that the right to live with human dignity is part of the right to life under Article 21, and any law infringing upon this right would be void under Article 13.
Rajasthan Electricity Board vs. Mohan Lal (1997): The Supreme Court held that the Electricity Board's policy of terminating employees' services without following due process was unconstitutional under Article 13.
L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (1997): This case reaffirmed the power of judicial review under Articles 32 and 226, emphasizing that laws infringing upon fundamental rights are void.
These cases highlight the judiciary's role in interpreting and upholding fundamental rights under Article 13 during this period.
No comments:
Post a Comment