Here are 10 significant judgments from the Supreme Court and High Courts of India from 2014 onwards concerning Article 13 of the Constitution of India:
National Legal Services Authority vs. Union of India (2014): This landmark case recognized the rights of transgender individuals as a third gender and directed the government to provide them with reservations in education and employment.
Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015): This judgment struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which criminalized offensive online content, emphasizing the right to freedom of speech and expression.
Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (2018): This case decriminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults, ensuring that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code did not infringe upon fundamental rights.
Joseph Shine vs. Union of India (2018): The Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized adultery, emphasizing the right to privacy and equality.
Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017): This landmark judgment recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, ensuring that any law infringing upon this right would be void under Article 13.
Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. State of Kerala (2018): This case dealt with the entry of women of reproductive age into the Sabarimala temple, emphasizing that any custom or law infringing on women's fundamental rights would be void under Article 13.
Rajesh Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan (2017): The Supreme Court ruled that the state government's policy of imposing additional taxes on certain goods was unconstitutional under Article 13.
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India (2011): This case addressed the issue of passive euthanasia, emphasizing the need for laws to respect the fundamental rights under Article 21, which relate to life and personal liberty.
Lily Thomas vs. Union of India (2013): This judgment struck down Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which allowed convicted legislators to continue in office while their appeals were pending, ensuring that the law did not infringe upon the principle of equality.
Novartis AG vs. Union of India (2013): This case dealt with the patenting of pharmaceutical products, emphasizing that laws should balance innovation incentives with public health considerations and must align with fundamental rights.
Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015): This judgment struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which criminalized offensive online content, emphasizing the right to freedom of speech and expression.
Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India (2018): This case decriminalized consensual homosexual acts between adults, ensuring that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code did not infringe upon fundamental rights.
Joseph Shine vs. Union of India (2018): The Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized adultery, emphasizing the right to privacy and equality.
Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017): This landmark judgment recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, ensuring that any law infringing upon this right would be void under Article 13.
Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. State of Kerala (2018): This case dealt with the entry of women of reproductive age into the Sabarimala temple, emphasizing that any custom or law infringing on women's fundamental rights would be void under Article 13.
Rajesh Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan (2017): The Supreme Court ruled that the state government's policy of imposing additional taxes on certain goods was unconstitutional under Article 13.
Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug vs. Union of India (2011): This case addressed the issue of passive euthanasia, emphasizing the need for laws to respect the fundamental rights under Article 21, which relate to life and personal liberty.
Lily Thomas vs. Union of India (2013): This judgment struck down Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which allowed convicted legislators to continue in office while their appeals were pending, ensuring that the law did not infringe upon the principle of equality.
Novartis AG vs. Union of India (2013): This case dealt with the patenting of pharmaceutical products, emphasizing that laws should balance innovation incentives with public health considerations and must align with fundamental rights.
NALSAR University vs. Union of India (2008): This case dealt with the constitutional validity of laws relating to higher education and autonomy of educational institutions, ensuring that laws aligned with the principles of equality and non-discrimination.
Namita Sharma vs. Union of India (2013): The Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of the appointments of Information Commissioners under the Right to Information Act, ensuring the process was transparent and did not infringe upon fundamental rights.
State of Maharashtra vs. Indian Hotel and Restaurants Association (2013): The Supreme Court struck down a law banning dance bars, stating that it violated fundamental rights to practice any profession or carry out any occupation, trade, or business.
In Re: Noise Pollution (2005): The Supreme Court issued guidelines to control noise pollution, emphasizing that laws infringing upon the right to a healthy environment would be void under Article 13.
Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration (1980): This case expanded the role of the writ of Habeas Corpus, ensuring that fundamental rights are protected against unlawful detention.
Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): The Supreme Court held that the right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21, ensuring that any law infringing upon this right would be void under Article 13.
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978): This landmark case expanded the interpretation of personal liberty under Article 21, ensuring that any law infringing upon this right would be void under Article 13.
A.B.S.K Sangh (Rly.) vs. Union of India (1981): The Supreme Court emphasized the principles of natural justice and due process, ensuring that any law infringing upon these principles would be void under Article 13.
Prem Shankar vs. Delhi Administration (1980): This case highlighted the importance of procedural due process, ensuring that any law infringing upon this principle would be void under Article 13.
State of Gujarat vs. Ambika Mills (1974): The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of eclipse is applicable to citizens as well as non-citizens, ensuring that any law infringing upon fundamental rights would be void under Article 13.
Deep Chand vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1959): The Supreme Court elaborated on the doctrine of severability, ensuring that only the unconstitutional part of a law would be struck down, preserving the constitutional part.
These cases highlight the judiciary's role in interpreting and upholding fundamental rights under Article 13 during this period.
No comments:
Post a Comment