Written by- Akanksha Singh COURSE: BA.LLB( HONS) YEAR : 4th year COLLEGE : university of Allahabad Case Analysis: Indra Sawhney v Union of India 1992 Citation: AIR 1993 SC 477, 1992 SUPP 2 SCR 454 Date of judgment: 13 / 12/ 1999 Bench: M.H Kania , MN venkatachalich, S.Ratnaval pandian, T.K Thommen ,A.M Ahmadi , kuldip …
Name- Diksha Shyam Course- B.A.LL.B ( Hons) College- University of Allahabad Case analysis Aruna Ramachandra shanbaug Vs Union of India (2011) Citation- AIR 2011 SC 1290, 2011 AIR SCW 162 Date of judgement- 7 March 2011 Bench- Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra and Justice Markandeykatju Appellant- Ms. Pinki Virani Respondent- Union of India and others “Death must be so beautiful. To lie in the soft brown earth, with the grasses waving above one’s head, and listen to …
Read more “Aruna Ramachandra shanbaug Vs Union of India (2011)”
Authored by Shailvi Shah Introduction: An Epoch-Shaping Legal Odyssey The Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala case of 1973 stands as an epoch-shaping legal odyssey within the labyrinthine corridors of India’s constitutional landscape. Born against the backdrop of a nation undergoing profound socio-political transformation, this case became the crucible for a profound and contemplative examination of India’s constitutional tenets …
Keshvanand Bharti Case – Basic Structure Doctrine. Himanshu Agarwal Vivekanand Law College, Vastral, Ahmedabad, Gujarat This case holds paramount weight in the history of the Indian constitution. This case is considered a pillar of the concept of “Basic Structure Doctrine”, which in a way limited the Power of Parliament to amend the Constitution. This case …
Read more “Keshvanand Bharti Case – Basic Structure Doctrine.”
Case Analysis: KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961) Citation: AIR 1962 SC 605 Date of Judgement: 24/11/1961 Bench: K Subbarao, S.K. Das, RaghubarDayal Appellant: KM Nanavati Respondent: State of Maharashtra Introduction – The case KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, is a leadingverdict in legal history of India. The case received significant consideration due …
