L cases

April 3, 2018 | Author: Rajat Sharma | Category: Supreme Court Of India, Constitution, Public Sphere, Virtue, Constitutional Law



1874. Tarakeswar Case............This case was so (for lack of a better word) 'popular', that au thorities had to sell tickets to let people come inside the sessions court. And the story itself is nothing short of a blockbuster. Nobin Chandra slit the thro at of his 16-year old wife, Elokeshi, who was apparently having an affair with the mahant of the local Tarakeswar temple. Even though Nobin Chandra handed himse lf over to the police and confessed his crime, the locals were mostly on his sid e. The police had to let him go after two years, even though he was serving a li fe imprisonment while the mahant was arrested and put behind bars for three years. Alternatively, there were also rumours that the mahant had raped Elokeshi on th e pretext of helping her out with "fertility issues".  This case was really importa nt for that time period because this was seen by the society as one of those mo ments where the British rulers meddled in the affairs of the Bengali bhadralok an d a temple priest, something that was very rare back in those days............. (1921-1946) Bhawal Case............. It's still regarded as one of India's weirdest identity cases. It mainly revolved around a possible impostor who claimed to be the prince of B hawal Estate, one which comprised over 2000 villages and was one of undivided B engal's largest zamindari estates. Ramendra, the second kumar of the Bhawal estate died in the early 20th century, but there were rumours about him not really bein g dead. Ten years later,  in 1921, a sanyaasi who looked a lot like Ramendra was found wandering the streets of Dhaka. For some reason, the former tenants and farmer s of Ramendra vouched for this man and also supported his claim to the title. A lmost everyone except Ramendra's widow, Bibhabati, believed him. There was a lon g legal process involving two trials where both sides attempted to prove their c laims. In the meantime, the new Ramendra also moved to Calcutta and where he was welcomed in the elite circles. He used to regularly collect 1/3rd of the estat e revenue, which was his share. He used that money to support his lifestyle whil e also paying the legal fees of the case. In the end, in 1946, the court finall y ruled in his favour, but soon after that he passed away due to a stroke he had suffered a couple of days earlier..............   Now. . 1950. Gopalan case............ , the Supreme Court has taken the narrow interpretation of the Article 21. It h eld that the protection under Article 21 is available only against arbitrary exe cutive action and not from arbitrary legislative action. This means that the Sta te can deprive the right to life and personal liberty of a person based on a la w. This is because of the expression procedure established by law in Article 21, which is different from the expression due process of law contained in the Americ an Constitution. Hence, the validity of a law that has prescribed a procedure c annot be questioned on the ground that the law is unreasonable, unfair or unjust . Secondly, the Supreme Court held. that the personal liberty means only liberty r elating to the person or body of the individual............. Now. . 1951. Champakam Dorairajan case............ the Supreme Court ruled that in case of any conflict between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles, the Fundame . But. 1958 Kerala Education Bill in 1958. Chatterjee of Chatterjee Bros. As a result... Because it was abandoned.. the locals beli eved it was haunted.. has excluded the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in disputes between states with respect to the use .. a village in Balasore district in Orissa to purchase aeroscrap from an ab andoned aerodrome outside the village. The Supreme Court ruled that the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368 also includes the power to amend Fundamental Rights.. Prem Ahuja.. as they were making their way to the aerodrome they saw a flickering light within the premises which.. 1959... This is a bizarre one.. due to the strong wind. K.......... State of Orissa vs Ram Bahadur Thapa.... seemed to .. ..... was challenge d.. Ram Bahadur Thapa was  the servant of one J. murdered his wife's lover...... Therefore.B.. A jury trial was held to decide whether it was a crime of passion (carrying a ten year sente nce) or pre-meditated murder (life imprisonment) to which Nanavati plead 'not gu ilty'.. The Inter-State Water Disputes Act of 1956. Now...... . They had come to Rasogovi ndpur. Now. KM Nanavati.. 1956... the Parliament made the First Amen dment Act (1951)........ Shankari Prasad case.. distribution or control of the water of inter-state river or river valley.. . This case was the last time there was a jury trial in India...M.. the Parliament can abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights by enacting a constitutional amen dment act and such a law will not be void under Article 13... which curtailed the right to property. Now......... Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra. The jury ruled in favour of him but the verdict was dismissed by the Bom bay High Court and the case was retried as a bench trial. It declared that the Directive Principles have to conform to and run as subsidiary to the Fundamental Rights.ntal Rights would prevail. The word law in Article 13 includes only ordinary laws and not the constitutional amendment acts (constituent laws).... Delhi Laws Act in 1951. firm in Calcutta. . it also held that the Fundamental Rights could be amended by the Parliam ent by enacting constitutional amendments acts.... the Fourth Amendment Act (1955) and the Seventeenth Amendment Act (1964) to implement some of the Directives.. a naval of ficer. 1959..   Now.. ... At night. 1951... Now. This piqued the curiosity of Chatterjee who wanted to "see the ghosts". the constitutional validity of the First Amendment Act (1951).... .. 1964. O Steam Navigation Company case Sea Customs Act in 1963.. the Supreme Court held that the President s satisfaction can be questioned in a court on the g round of malafide. islature in 1964.. The 25th Amendment Act inserted a new Article 31C which contained the following two provisions:.. the state of Punjab... . the Supreme Court ruled that the Parliament cannot take away or a bridge any of the Fundamental Rights.) ..... Thapa jumped into action as he unleashed his khukri to attack the "ghosts"... acquitted Thapa declaring that his actions were the result of a stern belief in ghosts and that in the m oment. so as to byp . state of Rajasthan case that the fundamental rights can be amend ed. The Parliament reacted to the Supreme Court s judgement in the Gol aknath Case (1967. .. assembly. The 24th Amendment Act declared that the Parliament has the power to abridge or take away any of the Fundamental Rights by enacting Constit utional Amendment Acts.. To remove the difficulties in the process the government in the 24th amendment amended article 368 empowering the legislature the power to amend the constitution.. The Sessions court judge however.. . .) or Article 31 (right to property.move. Now. 1961..   Now. Now.. Thapa believed that they were lawfully justified.) ... Golaknath Vs. ....... etc.. By this pronouncemen t the Supreme Court has retraced its own judgment in Shankari Prasad case and Sa jjan Singh vs. Now.) and the 25th Amen dment Act (1971. which are sacrosanct in nature. Now.) In a land mark judgment Supreme Court made it clear that no cons titutional amendments can be made on the part 3 of the constitution and there b y fundamental rights cannot be abridged by the legislature.. 1960. ..) by enacting the 24th Amendment Act (1971. . This means that the decision of the President to issue an ordinance can be question ed in a court on the ground that the President has prorogued one House or both Houses of Parliament deliberately with a view to promulgate an ordinance on a controversial subject.. 1970 In Cooper case.. . Now.. In that case.) 23 shall be void on the ground of contravention of the Fundamental Rights conferred by Article 14 (equality before law and equ al protection of laws.. they were local adivasi women with a hurricane lantern who had gathered under a mohua tree to collect some flowers... Article 19 (protection of six rights in respect of speech. 1970 Bank Nationalisat-ion case..) 22 and (c...... ... Now.. Keshav Singh s case relating to the privileges of the Leg Kasturilal case. Thapa's indiscriminate hacking caused the death of one Gelhi Majhiani and inju red two other women. In other wo rds. 1965. Turns out.. the Court held that the Fundamental Rights cannot be amended for the implem entation of the Directive Principles. They thought it was will-o'-the-wisp. 1963...... No law which seeks to implement the socialistic Directive Principles specified in Article 39 (b. Now. 1967 Berubari Union.. movement.... . The 38th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1975 made the President s satisfaction final and conclusive and be yond judicial review. . It ob served that the Preamble is of extreme importance and the Constitution should be read and interpreted in the light of the grand and noble vision expressed in the Preamble...... .. the Supreme Court first propounded the doctrine of basic structu re or basic features ... Now. .. If there's one reason India can still call itself 'the world's l argest democracy'. the Court held that the basic elements or the fundamental features of the Constitution as contained in the Preamble cannot be altered by a n amendment under Article 368 Now. this provision was deleted by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act o f 1978... Swami Kesavananda Bharti ran a Hindu Mutt in Edneer village in Kerala but the state wanted to appropriate the land. the Supreme Court ruled that t he constituent power of Parliament under Article 368 does not enable it to alter the basic structure of the Constitution. Thus. who was consulted by noted jurist Nanabhoy Palhkivala.... which are enshrined in the Preamb le.. only those civil cases that involved a sum o f `20.. subject to the condition that no am endment is done to the basic features .ass the parliamentary decision and thereby circumventing the authority of the Parliament. But. . 1995 Kesavananda Bharati Case. and held that the Preamble can be amended.. 1973. for the first time in the historic case of Kesavananda Bharati (1973). It was urged that the Preamble cannot be amended as it is not a part of the Constitution. The petitioner contended that the amending power in Article 368 cannot be used to destroy or damage the bas ic elements or the fundamental features of the Constitution. 1973 Kesavananda Bharti vs State of Kerala..... Now. 1971 Privy Purses Abolition case..000 could be appealed before the Supreme Court. filed a petition claiming ... But this monetary limit was removed by the 30th C onstitutional Amendment Act of Now.... 1973 It was on April 24. that Ref. In other words.. .... Now.. 1972 Originally. in the Kesavananda Bharati case . it is this case. The Court stated that the opinion tendered by it in the Berubari Union (1960) in this regard was wrong. the President s satisfaction is justiciable on the ground of malafide.. Bharti. even during emergency in Now. The State invoked Article 31 which states "no person shall be d eprived of his property save by authority of law...submission does not mean consent. This is one of the most important cases in the country. As of now...that a religious institution had the right to run its business without governme nt interference. forced some important changes in rape l aws in India.  His dissenting judgement upholding the right to life the case was not appreciated by the Government. . . But what constitutes th e basic structure was not specified. 1973 Now. the Supreme Court overrule d its judgement in the Gopalan . In this landmark judgment Supreme Court first kicked the Hornet s nest in the name of the basic structure of constitution.. Mr Lal Biha ri was registered as 'deceased'... the emergency followed. 1972 Mathura Rape Case. Yes. which puts some restrictions to how much the Parlia ment can amend the Constitutional laws. was born in 1955.. In this case the Gola knath case was over ruled and parliament regained the power of amending but Sup reme Court explicitly said that the legislature by virtue of the amending power cannot change the basic structure of the constitution.. was dead through 1975 to 1994. . in Menaka case12 (1978). he performed his mock funeral. because the protests that followed the verdict. In many ways..  Now. . Once he realized what had happened... The Sessions court judge found the accused not guilty. The amendments to the law that were forced by the pro tests got one thing right . Presidential Election in 1974. was raped by two constables within the premises of the Desai Ganj Police Station in Chandrapur district of Mahara shtra.... .. he started his struggle against the Indian bureaucracy to prove that he was alive." A bench of 13 judges delib erated on the facts of the case and through a narrow 7-6 majority.. To remove the constitutional hurdles in an amendment the government inserted clause 4 and 5 in the article 368 which mentio ns that limited power of amendment is a basic structure of constitution. The reasoning behi nd this was (believe it or not) that Mathura was habituated to sexual intercours e. Now. 1976 ADM Jabalpur v Shivkant Shukla case.. formulated t he Basic Structure Doctrine. In the m eantime. you read that right.   Now. and so. asked for widow's compensation for his w ife... the judgement here is cons idered to be a big middle finger to the then Central government under Indira Gan dhi. 1975 The Criminal Procedure Code (1973). according to the judge.. This... a young tribal woman. clearly implied that the sexual act in the poli ce station was consensual.. as per of ficial records...... 1974 Now. Soon after. stood in the election against Rajiv Gandhi in 1989 and even added a 'Mritak ' to his name. he heads an organization that tries to handle similar identity cases for people who have been of ficially declared dead but are actua lly still alive. and since then he has been an activist.. Lal Bihari Identity Case (1975-1994) Lal Bihari.... 1978 But. His uncle had bribed government of ficials to declare him dead so as to inherit their ancenstral land.. .. Mathura. it ruled that the right to life and personal liberty of a person can be deprived by a law provided the procedure prescribed by that law is reasonable. In the Minerva Mills case12 (1980). it has introduced the American expression due process of law . the court held that the right to life as embodied in Article 21 is not merely confined to animal e xistence or survival but it includes within its ambit the right to live with human dignity and all th ose aspects of life which go to make a man s life meaningful. It means that the Directive Principles were once again made subordinate to the Fundamental R ights. Further. the Supreme Court held that t he Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between the Fundamental Rights an d the Directive Principes. Theref ore. the Supreme Court in the Mine rva Mills case (1980) invalidated this provision as it excluded judicial review which is a basic feature of the Constitu tion. in the Minerva Mills case. 1980 Minerva Mills case However. Applying the doctrine of basic structure with respect to Article 368. It also ruled th at the expression Personal Liberty in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variet y of rights that go to constitute the personal liberties of a man.case by taking a wider interpretation of the Article 21. complete and worth living. the court held that: the 42nd Amendment Act accorded the position of legal primacy and supremacy to the Directive Princi ples over the Fundamental Rights conferred by Articles 14. the protection under Article 21 should be availab le not only against arbitrary executive action but also against arbitrary legislative action. In other words. this extension was declared as unconstitutional and invalid by the Supreme Court in the Minerva Mills case25 (1980). Article 31 (right to property) was abolished by the 44th Amendment Act (1978). the union of India and other states In this case the Supreme Court over ruled that amending power is a basic structure of constitution. Special Courts Bill in 1978. However. But the Fundamental Rights conferred by Article 14 and Article 19 were accepted as subordin ate to the Directive Principles specified in Article 39 (b) and (c). . 19 and 31. . Now. . Further. (1980). fair and just. the Supreme Court held that t he proclamation of a national emergency can be challenged in a court on the ground of malafide or that the declaration was based on wholly extraneous and irrelevant facts or is absurd or perverse. Now. Minnerva Mills vs. By this time the legislative and the judiciary in India were at loggerheads. In effect. 1982.. Jammu and Kashmir Resettlement Act in 1982.. 1987. the court pointed out that between 1967 1981 the Governor of Bihar promulgated 256 ordinances and all these were kept in force for periods ranging from one to fourteen years by repromulgation from time to time. ..  Now.. Hence. D C Wadhwa case... ... . succumbed t o the pressure and passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Ac t.. The court ruled that successiv e repromulgation of ordinances with the same text without any attempt to get the bills passed by the assembly would amount to violation of the Constitution and the ordinance so repromulgated is liable to be struck down. Shah Bano Begum was divorced by her husband. Similarly. is highly relevant here. This case is regula rly mentioned during talks about 'Uniform Civil Code' in the country. But...Now... He should consult a collegium of four seniormost judges of the Supreme Court and even if two judges give an adve rse opinion. Mohd. The sole opinion of the chief justice ofIndia does not constitute the consultation process..   the Court held that consultation does not mean concurrence and it only implies exchange of views . in the third judges case2 (1998). Ahmed Khan. The court held that the recomm endation made by the chief justice of India without complying with the norms and requirements of t he consultation process are not binding on the government... Now. the Court reversed its earlier ruling and changed the me aning of the word consultation to concurrence. 1985... the Court opined that the consult ation process to be adopted by the Chief justice of India requires consultation of plurality judge s .. 1982 First Judges case (1982). She filed a criminal suit against him in the Supreme Court and claimed alimony. In that case.. . . It held that the exceptional power of law-making through ordinance cannot be use d as a substitute for the legislative power of the state legislature. which was then granted to her. But then the Islamic orthodoxy protested the judgement claiming the practice of granting alimony as anti-Islamic. The Congress government.. Now.. Ahmed Khan vs Shah Bano Begum (1985) 62-year old mother of five. in the Second Judges case (1993). he should not send the recommendation to the government. which was in power back then. Mohd. the Chief Justice would tender his advice on the matter after consulting two of h is seniormost colleagues... But. 1986 which diluted the Supreme Court judgement and further denied destitute M uslim divorcees the right to alimony from their ex-husbands. it ruled that the advice tendered by the Chi ef Justice of India is binding on the President in the matters of appointment of the judges of the Supreme Court. ... . Though the Court has rejected the additional reservation of 10% for poorer sections of higher castes.... Second Judges case (1993).. reservation should be confined to initial appointments only.. the states are .. the Supreme Court laid down tha t the Constitution is federal and characterised federalism as its basic feature ..... This rule should be applied every year... it upheld the constitutional validity of 27% reservatio n for the OBCs with certain conditions.. viz. Within the sph ere allotted to them. 1993 Supreme Court Advocates v. Any existing reservation in promotions can continue for five yea rs only (i. unless it is in conformity with the opinion o f the chief justice of India. Now.. .... .. .. (d) The carry forward rule in case of unfilled (backlog) vacancie s is valid.... he Supreme Court ruled that no appoin tment of a judge of the high court can be made... (b) No reservation in promotions......... Now.. 1993 In re Presidential Reference (1998)..... (c) The total reserved quota should not exceed 50% except in som e extraordinary situations.. upto 1997)....... greater power is conferred upon the Centre vis-a-v is the states does not mean that the states are mere appendages of the Centre.... has been ex amined thoroughly by the Supreme Court.. which provides for reservation of jobs in favour of backward classes.. (a) The advanced sections among the OBCs (the creamy layer) shou ld be excluded from the list of beneficiaries of reservation.. Union of India (1993)... (e) A permanent statutory body should be Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal in 1992... the scope and extent of Article 16(4). Now. The president sought the Supreme Court s opinion (under Article 143) on certain d oubts over the consultation process to be adopted by the chief justice of India as stipulated in the 1993 case.... But it should not violate 50% rule......Now.... ....e... 1994 In Bommai case16 (1994). 1993 Rama Janma Bhumi case... Now.. The states have an in dependent constitutional existence.. 1992 In the famous Mandal case.. .... They are not satellites or agents of the Centre. It observed: The fac t that under the scheme of our Constitution.. .. .. Nagendra Rao Case. the federalism in India represents a compromise between the following two conflicting considerations..supreme.. Let it be said that the federalism in the Indian Constitution is not a matter of administrative co nvenience.. Now... 1997. Hence. In 1992... Dr B R Ambedkar. fo rcing the latter to adopt the Vishakha Guidelines which now protects working wom en all over the country.REFER 1973... Now. it cannot be ousted or ex cluded even by way of an amendment to the Constitution. The fact that during emergency and in certain other eve ntualities their powers are overridden or invaded by the Centre is not destructive of the e ssential federal feature of the Constitution. the chief justice of India should consult a collegium of two s enior-most judges of the Supreme Court... ..... Due to gross negligence.. . In the Chandra Kumar case. Bhanwari D evi was gang-raped by upper caste men in her village because she tried to raise her voice against child-marriage.. But. Vishakha and some other women' s groups filed a PIL against the State of Rajasthan and the Union of India.. but one of principle the outcome of our own process and a recognition of the ground real ities ..... Ideally. Now... In fact.. the rape could not have taken place because Bhanwari was from a lower c aste.." Following the outrage over this acquittal. the vaginal swabs col lected from her body were taken 48 hours after the incident. the judge presiding over her case (this was the seventh judge after six others were removed) acquitted the accused.... .. . . . hoped that the drastic power conferred by Article 356 would remain a de ad-letter and would be used only as a measure of last resort. even going so far to say..... it should be done so within 24 hours.. In the LIC of India case. the workplace was danger ous for many women especially in case of sexual harassment.. 1995.. 1998 In the Third Judges case (1998). 1997 Vishakha and Others vs.. the Supreme Court again held that the Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution. State of Rajasthan (1997) Before the Vishakha Guidelines came in. Karnataka in 1989 and Meghalaya in 1991... Shockingly..... -Now.. while replying to the critics of this provisio n in the Constituent Assembly. ... the Supreme Court opine d that in case of the appointment of high court judges...... They are exceptions and the exceptions are not a r ule.. "Since the of fenders were upper-caste men and included a brahmin. He observed. the court did not uphold the validity of the imposition of the President s Rule in Nagaland in 1988. 1994. the Supreme Court ruled that the writ jurisdiction of both the high court and the Supreme Court constitute a part of the basic structure of the Constitution.  Now. It said that in modern times when the State activities have been considerably increased it is very difficult to draw a line between its sovereign and non-sovereign functions. Thus. the Supr eme Court opined that in case of the transfer of high court judges. In the Third Judges case (1998). 2001 Legislative competence of the Centre and States on the subject of natural gas and liquefied natural gas in 2001. the sole o pinion of the chiefjustice of India does not constitute the consultation process. & O.. 2004 -2004 Punjab Termination of Agreements Act in 2004. 56. even if medical evidence did not prove rape 2011 The Anchorage Case (2011) What: Restoration of the conviction and sentence of six-year r igorous imprisonment imposed on two British nationals who were acquitted by the Bombay High Court in a pedophilia case.Thus. the chief justice of the two high courts (one from which the judge is being transferred and the other receiving him). 2000. 1999 Common Cause Case. Now. 2006 Om Prakash Vs Dil Bahar (2006) What: A rape accused could now be convicted on the sole evidence of the victim. Thomas appointment as the chief vigil ance commissioner (CVC) was viewed by some quarters as harsh. the sole opinion of the chiefjustice of India alone does not constitute the consultation process. Steam Navigation Company case is very outmoded. and they argued th at Thomas was a victim of political rivalry in Kerala.980 crore today) acquisit ion of Hutchison Whampoa? s Indian operations CVC: The annulment of P. related to the posting of obscene messages on the Interne t. . which es calated attention on the telecom spectrum scanda Vodafone-Hutch deal: Few foreign companies expected India s tax de partment to pursue Vodafone s $11 billion (around Rs. . his home cadre Bellary mining ban: The clampdown on iron ore mining in Bellary (which later became mining of all kinds) was the first combative step taken by a public entity to curb illegalities in Karnataka for over a decade Meghalaya mining: Multinational cement major Lafarge was allowed to resume limestone mining after 17 months in Meghalaya s East Khasi Hill Black money SIT: The black money petition simply demanded that t he government should recover all the untaxed money stashed away in European bank .Consultation process to be adopted by the chiefjustice of India in 1998. the Chief Justice of India should consult. the rule of State liability as laid down in P. in addition to the collegium of four seniormost judges of the Supreme Court. Tamil Nadu Vs Suhas Katti (2004) What: The first case involving conviction under the Information Technology Act.J. 2G spectrum case: The court ventured into hitherto little-known territory the politicocorporate nexus in the aftermath of the Radia tapes. 2002 The constitutional validity of the Election Commission s decision on deferring the Gujarat Assembly Elections in 2002. was declared illegal and unconstitutional Experiments in the classroom: The Right to Education case dealt with radically changing the composition of children in schools Land acquisition in UP: The Uttar Pradesh land acquisition cases saw a strong statement from the court. What: The court said that acid should be sold only to people who show a valid identity card. What: In view of public outrage over people bein g arrested for making comments or liking posts on Facebook. Centre had on Januar y 9 issued advisory to all states and UTs asking them not to arrest a person in such cases without prior approval of a senior police of ficer. -2012 The Nirbhaya Case (2012) What: 4 out of 5 rape accused received the death sentence and as a result of this case the rape law was amended to go b eyond penile-vaginal intercourse. -2013 NOTA (2013) What: Right to negative vote. The new definition penalizes penetration of a ny orifice of the woman with any part of the man s body or with any object. Case Speak: On October 14. boosting the case for ch eaper drugs for life-threatening diseases.  . The petitioner in this case was the National L egal Services Authority (NALSA). sex with animals. NALSA vs Union of India (2014) This is the landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India whi ch declared that Transgendered People were the 'third gender' and that they had equal rights as any other gender. 2014 5. -2013 Re-opening dance bars What: The Supreme Court on July 16 gave its go-ahead to the reopening of Dance Bars in the maximum city and elsewhere in t he state. -2013 Cheap cancer drugs What: The Supreme Court rejected a patent plea by Swiss drugmaker Novartis AG for cancer drug Glivec. Buyers will also have exp lain why they need the chemical and sales will have to be reported to the police . then the right to reject candidate is a fundamental right of speech and expression under Constitution. the Supreme Court recognised the right to negative vote for the electorate in the country. which deemed those acquisitions in which the government took land for one purpose and used it for another Right to Food: The decade-old Right to Food case saw the court f ace of f against the government and the Planning Commission multiple times on wh ere to draw the poverty line. I f the right to vote is a statutory right. -2013 Social Media.  -2013 Lily Thomas vs Union of India (2013) What: Any Member of Parliament (MP). -2013 Curbing the sale of Acid .accounts Salwa Judum: A state-sponsored guerilla army that also allegedly engaged children in combat. Negative voting will lead to systemic cha nge in polls and political parties will be forced to project clean candidates. sex with minors and fellatio.. The voters will now have a None of the Above option if they don t f eel that the candidates deserve a vote. will be disqualified as an elected repr esentative on the date of conviction. 2013 Section 377 (2013) What: Criminalisation of unnatural sex which i ncludes gay sex. Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) or Member of a Legislative Council (MLC) who is convicted of a crime with more than two year sentence. and how to divide food subsidies between the Centr e and the states 2012 2G spectrum case verdict and the mandatory auctioning of natura l resources across all sectors in 2012. the court said.
Copyright © 2020 DOKUMEN.SITE Inc.