“IBC does not suffer from any manifest arbitrariness to violate Article 14 of the Constitution”
Supreme Court also sought assistance from Attorney General for India, R. Venkataramani.
The issue under consideration was whether the ABC Rules, 2023 unjustly exclude individual veterinarians from the animal birth control programme, thereby infringing upon their constitutional rights.
“Fiscal legislation having uniform application to all registered persons, cannot be said to be violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and the question of such statutory provision being violative of Article 302 of the Constitution and in teeth of Article 13 of the Constitution of India does not arise at all.”
The Agniveer Scheme will increase the ‘leader to led ratio from 1.1 to 1.28; a ratio that would aspire confidence and would ease the pressure of the forces on the ground.
Supreme Court: In a case raising questions on the Constitutional validity of sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 4 [introduced
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by the petitioners challenging the vires of Section 17 of the Maintenance and
“When the legislature acts within its power to usher in a valid law and rectify a legal error, even after a court ruling, the legislature exercises its constitutional power to enact the law and does not overrule an earlier court decision.”
Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of A.M. Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ., directed Maharashtra State Election Commission to expeditiously
Meghalaya High Court: The Division Bench of Biswanath Somadder, CJ. and H. S. Thangkhiew, J., dealt with a PIL which was filed
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Mohammad Rafiq, CJ. and Vijay Kumar Shukla, J., heard a writ petition which was
“A claim to refund is governed by statute. There is no constitutional entitlement to seek a refund.”
Madras High Court: The Division Bench of Sanjib Banerjee, CJ and Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J., while addressing a riveting issue wherein a political
Jharkhand High Court: A Full Bench of H.C. Mishra, Shree Chandrashekhar and Deepak Roshan JJ., while deciding on the validity of the
Kerala High Court: A Division Bench of S. Manikumar and Shaji P. Chaly, JJ., while deciding the Constitutional validity of the Kerala
Patna High Court: In a petition alleging Section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to be unconstitutional, ultra vires and in
Constitutional Court of South Africa: 9-Judge Bench of the Constitutional Court unanimously decided upon the constitutional validity of Section 2(1) of the
Uttaranchal High Court: A Division Bench of Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ and R.C Khulbe, J., addressed the challenge placed on the constitutionality of the
Sucheta Sarkar, Editorial Assistant has put this story together
Allahabad High Court: A Division Bench of Govind Mathur, CJ and Samit Gopal, J., addressed a petition assailing the constitutional validity of