in india which case was hired by the largest ever constitution bench 13 supreme court judges
Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India


Parliament and the Prime Minister's Office. The most notable among these were the 38th and 39th Amendments, culminating in the 42nd Amendment in 1976 during The Emergency, which brought about the most sweeping changes to the Constitution in its history. The Supreme Court reviewed its decision in "Golaknath v. State of Punjab", in 1971 in "Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala", and considered the validity of the 24th, 25th, 26th and 29th Amendments. The case was heard by the largest ever Constitutional Bench of 13 Judges
6860550
Hans Raj Khanna


in Orissa. While some of the charges were found true, Biju himself was absolved. He served as Chief Justice of Delhi High Court from 1969 till September 1971 when he was appointed Judge of the Supreme Court. While the Habeas Corpus case is Justice Khanna's most celebrated ruling, almost as well known is his judgment in the landmark case of Kesavananda Bharati. In 1973, the Supreme Court constituted its largest ever bench of 13 judges to decide whether Parliament had the unfettered right to amend the Constitution or not. On 24
21373817
Twenty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution of India


reviewed its decision in "Golaknath v. State of Punjab", in 1971 in "Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala", and considered the validity of the 24th, 25th, 26th and 29th Amendments. The case was heard by the largest ever Constitutional Bench of 13 Judges. The Bench gave eleven judgements, which agreed on some points and differed on others. The Court held, by a margin of 7-6, that although no part of the Constitution, including Fundamental Rights, was beyond the amending power of Parliament
15728190
2018 Supreme Court of India crisis


This case of investigation of death of BH Loya, was given to a lower order bench, consisting of Justice Arun Mishra who is alredy alleged for giving favourable and biased judgements. Supreme Court judges Jasti Chelameswar, The for judges argued that this case should be given to senior judges. Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph alleged against allotment of matters to benches and constituting Constitution Benches was done by the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra in a way that arbitrarily ignored Senior Judges of the Court. That important cases were heard
19287839
Constitution bench (India)


Constitution bench is the name given to the benches of the Supreme Court of India which consist of at least five judges of the court which sit to decide any case “involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation” of the Constitution of India or "for the purpose of hearing any reference" made by the President of India under Article 143. This provision has been mandated by Article 145 (3) of the Constitution of India. The Chief Justice of India has the power to constitute a Constitution Bench and refer
18185190
Basic structure doctrine


Constitution including the provisions relating to Fundamental Rights. This was done by amending articles 13 and 368 to exclude amendments made under article 368, from article 13's prohibition of any law abridging or taking away any of the Fundamental Rights. Chief Justice Koka Subba Rao writing for the majority held that: Six years later in 1973, the largest ever Constitution Bench of 13 Judges, heard arguments in "Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala" (case citation: AIR 1973 SC 1461). The Supreme Court reviewed the decision in Golaknath
16152537
Chief Justice of India


The Chief Justice of India (CJI) is the head of the judiciary of India and the Supreme Court of India. The CJI also heads their administrative functions. As head of the supreme court, the chief justice is responsible for the allocation of cases and appointment of constitutional benches which deal with important matters of law. In accordance with Article 145 of the Constitution of India and the Supreme Court Rules of Procedure of 1966, the Chief Justice allocates all work to the other judges who are bound to refer the matter back to
13570677
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala


largest ever Constitution Bench of 13 Judges. The bench gave eleven separate judgements, which agreed on some points and differed on others. Nanabhoy Palkhivala, assisted by Fali Nariman and Soli Sorabjee, presented the case against the government in both cases. Upholding the validity of clause (4) of article 13 and a corresponding provision in article 368(3), inserted by the 24th Amendment, the Court settled in favour of the view that Parliament has the power to amend the fundamental rights also. However, the Court affirmed another proposition also
18918226
Supreme Court of India


) when required to settle fundamental questions of law. A bench may refer a case before it to a larger bench, should the need arise. A citizen of India not exceeding 65 years age as per of the constitution who has been is eligible to be recommended for appointment, a judge of the supreme court. In practice, judges of the supreme court have been selected so far, mostly from amongst judges of the high courts. Barely seven justices—S. M. Sikri, S. Chandra Roy, Kuldip Singh, Santosh Hegde
14032167
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India


bench. On 8 January 2018, the case ("Navtej Singh Johar and others v. Union of India") was listed to be heard by the Chief Justice's bench, which passed an order stating that the case would be heard by a constitution bench. The matter was heard from 17 January 2018 by a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court. On 10 July 2018, the SC commenced hearing of the pleas challenging the constitutionality of section 377. The bench ended its hearing on 17 July and reserved its
1751202
Samata (NGO)


They filed a case in the local court and again in the High Court against the Government of A.P for leasing tribal lands to private mining companies in the scheduled areas. The High Court dismissed the case after which Samata filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court of India. In July 1997 by a three judge-bench. In its final verdict the Supreme Court of India declared that the term ‘person’ would include both natural persons as well as juristic persons, including constitutional governments, and that all lands leased by
10272425
Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi


Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi is a landmark Indian case decided by a two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court, which held that treating consensual homosexual sex between adults as a crime is a violation of fundamental rights protected by India's Constitution. The verdict resulted in the decriminalization of homosexual acts involving consenting adults throughout India. This was later overturned by the Supreme Court of India in Suresh Kumar Koushal vs. Naz Foundation, in which a 2 judge bench reinstated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. However
9252428
Supreme Court of India


the cases presented before them. As the work of the court increased and cases began to accumulate, parliament increased the number of judges(including CJI) from the original 8 in 1950 to 11 in 1956, 14 in 1960, 18 in 1978, 26 in 1986 and 31 in 2009, 34 in 2019(current strength). As the number of the judges has increased, they sit in smaller benches of two or three (referred to as a division bench)—coming together in larger benches of five or more (referred to as a constitution bench
14032166
Aruna Shanbaug case


PIL filed by NGO Common Cause, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India said that the prior opinion in the "Aruna Shanubaug" case was based on a wrong interpretation of the Constitution Bench's opinion in "Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab". The court also determined that the opinion was internally inconsistent because although it held that euthanasia can be allowed only by an act of the legislature, it then proceeded to judicially establish euthanasia guidelines. The court referred the issue to a larger Constitution Bench for resolution
1055157
Euthanasia in India


-law also asked for the scrapping of 309, the code which penalises those who survive suicide-attempts. In December 2014, government of India declared its intention to do so. However, on 25 February 2014, a three-judge bench of Supreme Court of India had termed the judgment in the "Aruna Shanbaug case to be 'inconsistent in itself' and has referred the issue of euthanasia to its five-judge Constitution bench. And on 23 December 2014, Government of India endorsed and re-validated the Passive
15533040
Basic structure doctrine


the power to amend the rights had been upheld on the basis of Article 368. In 1967, the Supreme Court reversed its earlier decisions in "Golaknath v. State of Punjab". A bench of eleven judges (the largest ever at the time) of the Supreme Court deliberated as to whether any part of the Fundamental Rights provisions of the constitution could be revoked or limited by amendment of the constitution. The Supreme Court delivered its ruling, by a majority of 6-5 on 27 February 1967. The Court held that
16152534
2018 Supreme Court of India crisis


The Supreme Court of India was in crisis after an interview given by Supreme Court judges Jasti Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan Lokur, and Kurian Joseph, in which they spoke against the Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra that he allocates certain politically controversial cases to such benches which gives favourable judgement towards a political party. The judges mentioned the allocation of the case of investigation of death of Special CBI Judge — BH Loya , who was presiding over Sohrabuddin encounter case, in which the BJP President Amit Shah was the prime accused.
19287838
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India


Government of of Delhi versus Union of India Another [ 2357 of 2017] is a civil appeal heard before the Supreme Court of India by a five-judge constitution bench of the court. The case was filed as an appeal to an August2016 verdict of the Delhi High Court that ruled that the lieutenant governor of Delhi exercised "complete control of all matters regarding National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi", and was heard by the supreme court in November and December2017. The supreme court pronounced its judgment in July2018; it
7662476
Aadhaar


a Constitutional Bench. On 19 July 2017 a nine judge bench of the Supreme Court began hearing the arguments on whether there is a fundamental right to privacy. On 24 August 2017 the nine judge bench unanimously upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Constitution. A five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court has heard various cases relating to the validity of Aadhaar on various grounds including privacy, surveillance, and exclusion from welfare benefits. As of 27 February 2018, senior counsels Shyam Divan, Kapil Sibal,
10813005
Nanabhoy Palkhivala


24 April 1973, a Special Bench comprising 13 Judges of the Supreme Court of India ruled by a majority of 7–6, that Article 368 of the Constitution "does not enable Parliament to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution.". In the process it overruled a decision of a Special Bench of 11 Judges, by a majority of 6–5, on 27 February 1967, that "Parliament has no power to amend Part III of the Constitution so as to take away or abridge the fundamental rights" ("I.C.
3643765
Ananga Kumar Patnaik


motion against him in the Lok Sabha. He was a part of the bench which on 27 February 2012 ordered the Government of India to implement the ambitious interlinking of rivers project in a time-bound manner and appointed a high-powered committee for its planning and implementation. On 16 March 2012, he became a part of a special two-judge bench (constituted by Chief Justice of India Justice S H Kapadia) for hearing all cases arising out of 2G spectrum case On 26 October 2018 Supreme Court of India ordered
18243107
Mandal Commission


per cent reservations to "socially and educationally backward classes" for jobs in central services and public undertaking. Having released the Government Order on 13 August, V.P. Singh announced its legal implementation in his Independence Day speech two days later. That same year in September, a case was brought before the Supreme Court of India which challenged the constitutional validity of the Government Order for the implementation of the Mandal Report recommendations. Indra Sawhney, the petitioner in this case, made three principal arguments against the Order: The five-judge Bench
1007844
Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation


Suresh Kumar Koushal and another v. NAZ Foundation and others is a 2013 case in which a 2 judge Supreme Court bench consisting of G. S. Singhvi and S. J. Mukhopadhaya overturned the Delhi High Court case "Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi" and reinstated Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court of India decided to revisit this judgement after several curative petitions were filed against it, in 2017. Thereby in 2018, "Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India," a 5 judge bench of the
19682681
Prafulla Chandra Pant


High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong in the forenoon of 20 September 2013 and continued till 12 August 2014. On being further elevated he took oath of Office of Judge, Supreme Court of India on 13 August 2014. After serving over 3 years as a judge of the Supreme Court of India, He demitted the office at 29 August 2017. A judgement of a two judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, which included Justice Pant and Justice Dipak Misra, has been criticized for upholding defamation to be a criminal offense.
14805225
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala


of India enacted by the Indian parliament which conflict with or seek to alter this basic structure of the Constitution. The 13-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court deliberated on the limitations, if any, of the powers of the elected representatives of the people and the nature of fundamental rights of an individual. In a sharply divided verdict, by a margin of 7-6, the court held that while the Parliament has "wide" powers, it did not have the power to destroy or emasculate the basic elements or fundamental features
18918221
Padma Bhushan


High Court on 13 February 1992 by Balaji Raghavan and another in the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) on 24 August 1992 by Satya Pal Anand. Both petitioners questioned the civilian awards being "titles" per an interpretation of of the Constitution of India. On 25 August 1992, the Madhya Pradesh High Court issued a notice temporarily suspending all civilian awards. A Special Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India was formed comprising five judges: A. M. Ahmadi C. J., Kuldip Singh, B. P. Jeevan Reddy, N.
20148374
Anand Grover


On the night before Yakub Memon was scheduled to be executed, Anand Grover along with other senior lawyers of the Supreme Court, sought appointment from the Chief Justice of India, H. L. Dattu at his residence. After the Chief Justice constituted a 3 Judge bench, Grover argued for the mandatory 14-day period between the rejection of the mercy plea of a condemned prisoner, and the execution of the death warrant, as per the guidelines set by the Supreme Court of India in the Shatrughan Chauhan vs Union of India case. Grover argued
2832955
V. M. Tarkunde


practice to become a full-time member of the Radical Democratic Party. He resumed his legal practice in the Bombay High Court in 1948 after Independence and was elevated to the bench as a Judge of the Bombay High Court in September 1957. He stepped down voluntarily as Judge of the Bombay High Court in 1969 and set up practice in the Supreme Court of India where he continued till his resignation in 1977 at the age of 68. He was chiefly concerned with Public Interest Litigations and constitutional cases, most of which he conducted
9002987
History of the Supreme Court of Pakistan


held valid by Chief Justice Shahabuddin's court. The first ever Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) was declared by General Zia ul Haq on 25 March 1981. Established by General Muhammad Zia ul-Haq in 1980, the Shariat Appellate Bench is composed of three Muslim Judges of the Supreme Court, and two ad hoc judges drawn either from the Federal Shariat Court or from among the Ulema. Decisions made the Shariat Court may be appealed to the Appellate Bench, as the Bench is the final authority on Islamic law in Pakistan.
7645181
The Emergency (India)


Court's order. This judiciary–executive battle would continue in the landmark "Kesavananda Bharati" case, where the 24th Amendment was called into question. With a wafer-thin majority of 7 to 6, the bench of the Supreme Court restricted Parliament's amendment power by stating it could not be used to alter the "basic structure" of the Constitution. Subsequently, Prime Minister Gandhi made A. N. Ray—the senior most judge amongst those in the minority in "Kesavananda Bharati"—Chief Justice of India. Ray superseded three judges
7747312
Supreme Court of India


in effect restored the decision in Golak Nath regarding non-amendability of the constitution on account of infraction of fundamental rights, contrary to the judgment in the "Kesavananda Bharati" case. Another important decision was of the five-judge bench in "Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India"; where the constitutional validity of Central Educational Institutions (Reservations in Admissions) Act, 2006 was upheld, subject to the "creamy layer" criteria. Importantly, the court refused to follow the 'strict scrutiny' standards of review followed
14032196
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla


and Kashmir and was appointed to serve as the acting Chief Justice two months later. In September 2011, he was named as the Chief Justice of High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. On 2 April 2012, he was named to the Supreme Court of India, sworn in by Chief Justice Sarosh Homi Kapadia. Justice Kalifulla retired from the Supreme Court of India on 22 July 2016. On 8 March 2019 a five-judge Constitution Bench has referred Ayodhya's Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri disputed structure land dispute case to mediation for amicable
3630643
Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code


The Section 309 in the Indian Penal Code lays down the punishment for attempted suicide. There have been appeals to remove the section from different sources. In the Gian Kaur Case in 1996, a five judge bench of the Supreme Court of India had ruled that the section 309 was not violative of article 21 of the constitution of India. The law commission of India had also recommended removal of the section from the statute. A bill in this regard was introduced in the parliament, but was not made into law. The Supreme
10387171
Amendment of the Constitution of India


of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution inserted by the 52nd Amendment in 1985 was challenged. The decisions of the Speakers/Chairmen on disqualification, which had been challenged in different High Courts through different petitions, were heard by a five-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. The case, now popularly known as Anti-Defection case, was decided in 1992. The Constitution Bench in its majority judgement upheld the validity of the Tenth Schedule, but declared Paragraph 7 of the Schedule invalid because it was not ratified by the
9461141
Administrative courts of appeal in Sweden


by the county councils, serving four years at a time. The composition of the court varies. The bench usually constitutes a quorum with three qualified judges. However, two officers of the court is enough if they are in agreement about granting a leave to appeal. In certain cases, such as when the case involves decision about social welfare insurance and child custody cases, two lay judges are required to form part of the bench. The Supreme Administrative Court needs to grant a leave to appeal, to consider a case.
13095222
Y. V. Chandrachud


or office after retirement, as the Congress government wanted to "punish" him for standing up to them during his tenure as Chief Justice of India. In one of the most notable cases in Indian constitutional history, during the Indian Emergency (1975-1977) of Indira Gandhi, a bench constituted of the five most senior judges of the Supreme court of India heard the famous Habeas Corpus case (A.D.M. Jabalpur vs. Shukla), where detenues under the restrictive Maintenance of Internal Security Act had argued that the Right to Life and
14316497
Gauhati High Court


of Nagaland, Kohima. The building where the Kohima Banch is, was earlier a Hostel which was renovated for the Kohima Bench. The inauguration of the Bench at the capital Kohima, was on 1 December 1972, by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.C.Pathak. Permanent Judge for the State of Nagaland Elevated as Additional Judge on 22 May 2013. The Permanent Bench at Itanagar was inaugurated on 12 August 2000 by Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, Dr. A.S. Anand at Naharlagun which is located about 13 km. from the
8289352
Euthanasia in India


of law involved which needs to be reflected in the light of social, legal, medical and constitutional perspective, it becomes extremely important to have a clear enunciation of law. Thus, in our cogent opinion, the question of law involved requires careful consideration by a Constitution Bench of this Court for the benefit of humanity as a whole."The Five-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether Article 21 of the Constitution includes in its ambit the right to die with dignity by means of executing a living wills
15533049
Supreme Court of India


appear, act and plead for a party in the court. Those advocates who are designated as 'senior advocates' by the supreme court or any of the high courts can appear for clients along with an advocate-on-record. Any other advocate can appear for a party along with or under instructions from an advocate-on-record. Initially the Constitution of India provided for a supreme court with a chief justice and 7 judges. In the early years, a full bench of the supreme court sat together to hear
14032165
Human rights in India


rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India, and such criminalising is violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution. On 11 December 2013, homosexuality was again criminalized by a Supreme Court ruling. On 6 September 2018, a five judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgement, decriminalized homosexuality and banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. A Human Rights Watch report notes that journalists and human rights activists have been arrested for falsely reporting on human rights abuses. Assam continues to be one of
14672540
Sidharth Luthra


to his litigation work, Luthra is assisting the Supreme Court of India as amicus curiae in the matter of criminalisation of politics which is due to be heard by the constitution bench of the Supreme Court. The said matter was referred to a constitution bench of the Supreme Court by a bench comprising Justices A K Sikri and R K Agrawal examining an appeal filed by the Uttar Pradesh government challenging Allahabad High Court order for constituting a committee of eminent persons to suggest ways and means to check criminalisation of politics. Luthra told the bench that
2609736
PCO Judges case


The Provisional Constitutional Order Judges case (shortened to PCO Judges case), refers to cases heard and decided by the Pakistan Supreme Court pertaining to the High Court and Supreme Court judges who took their oath of offices under the Provisional Constitutional Order in 2007. On 3 November 2007, then-President Pervez Musharraf declared a Provisional Constitutional Order, which declared a state of emergency and suspends the Constitution of Pakistan. Under this emergency law, all High court judges, including the Supreme Court justices, were asked to take oath under this
21935682
PCO Judges case


, Musharraf declared a Provisional Constitutional Order, which suspended the Constitution of Pakistan and declared a state of emergency. High court judges were asked to take oath under the new Provisional Court Order. Approximately 100 judges refused to take this oath, and were placed under house arrest. Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was one of these judges. He was dismissed and replaced by Chief Justice Dogar. On 3 November 2007, a restraining order was issued by a seven-member bench of the Supreme Court to bar the government from implementing emergency rule
21935684
Three Judges Cases


The Supreme Court of India's collegium system, which appoints judges to the nation's constitutional courts, has its genesis in, and continued basis resting on, three of its own judgments which are collectively known as the Three Judges Cases. Following are the three cases: Over the course of the three cases, the court evolved the principle of judicial independence to mean that no other branch of the state - including the legislature and the executive - would have any say in the appointment of judges. The court then created the collegium
692626
TANSI land acquisition case


her as the chief minister. On 21 September 2001, a five member bench of the Supreme Court ordered that a disqualified person cannot hold office of the Chief minister. The judges quoted that people's mandate cannot overrule constitution. The governor of Tamil Nadu, Fathima Beevi, who administered oath to Jayalalithaa, was advised to step down by the union ministry, who also sent the report to the President of India. It was a rare case of a constitutional functionary being removed from power for omission of duties. She
4925295
Supreme Court of El Salvador


legislators is necessary. Under the 1983 Constitution of El Salvador, the legislature also designates one judge as the President of the Supreme Court. This person is also then the head of the judicial branch and the Constitutional Court. Article 176 of the Constitution establishes the criteria for a Supreme Court judgeship: The Supreme Court is organized into four courts: In 2009, the Legislative Assembly elected Supreme Court judges for the period from July 16, 2009 through July 15, 2018. However, judges sitting on the Constitutional bench will serve for
14076175
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India


Shreya Singhal v. Union of India is a judgement by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in 2015, on the issue of online speech and intermediary liability in India. The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, relating to restrictions on online speech, as unconstitutional on grounds of violating the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The Court further held that the Section was not saved by virtue of being a 'reasonable restriction' on the
19669993
Judiciary of India


or any petition filed under Article 32 which is the right to constitutional remedies or if a case involves a serious issue that needs immediate resolution. It had its inaugural sitting on 26 January 1950, the day India's constitution came into force, and since then has delivered more than 24,000 reported judgements. The Supreme Court comprises the Chief Justice and 30 other Judges. The proceedings of the Supreme Court are conducted in English only. The Supreme Court Rules of 1966 are framed under Article 145 of the Constitution to regulate the practice and
2700452
Supreme Court of British Columbia


The Supreme Court of British Columbia (BCSC) is the superior trial court for the province of British Columbia, Canada. The BCSC hears civil and criminal law cases as well as appeals from the Provincial Court of British Columbia. There are 90 judicial positions on the BCSC bench in addition to supernumary judges, making for a grant total of 108 judges. There are also 13 Supreme Court masters who hear and dispose of a wide variety of applications in chambers. The court was established in 1869 as the "Supreme Court of the
17171303
Teesta Setalvad


anticipatory bail plea regarding the case. However she was given an interim protection by the Supreme Court of India and on 19 March 2015, a two-judge bench of the Court referred the issue involved in her case to a large three-judge bench. A private organisation in India can accept donations from abroad only if it is registered under the Foreign Contributions Regulation Act. Teesta's Sabrang Communications and Publishing (not registered under FCRA) had between 2004 and 2014 accepted $290,000 from the US-based Ford Foundation without the
20317570
Faqir Muhammad Khokhar


decided to refer the cases of all judges of higher judiciary who took oath on PCO to Supreme Judicial Council. On August 5, 2009 Justice Khokhar resigned from the Supreme Court of Pakistan. His normal tenure would have ended on April 15, 2010 when he would have turned 65. He was one of the four Supreme Court judges from a total of 17, who took oath under the provisional constitution on November 3, 2007, despite a ruling by a 7-member bench regarding the suspension of constitution illegal. The other judges who
6054741
Supreme Court of India


B. R. Ambedkar clarified as given below in the Constituent Assembly debates on high lighting its inevitable implementation. As per the constitution, as held by the court in the Three Judges Cases – (1982, 1993, 1998), a judge is appointed to the supreme court by the president on the recommendation of the "collegium"  — a closed group of the Chief Justice of India, the four most senior judges of the court and the senior-most judge hailing from the high court of a prospective appointee. This has resulted
14032172
Fundamental rights in India


They were made permanent and sacrosanct reversing the Supreme Court's earlier decision which had upheld Parliament's power to amend all parts of the Constitution, including Part III related to fundamental rights. Up until the 24th constitutional amendment in 1971, the fundamental rights given to the people were permanent and can not be repealed or diluted by the Parliament. The 24th constitutional amendment introduced a new enabling Parliament to legislate on the subjects of using its constituent powers per . In 1973, the 13 member constitutional bench of the Supreme Court also upheld with
13026594
Three Judges Cases


system, which has been in use since the judgment in the Second Judges Case was issued in 1993. There is no mention of the collegium either in the original Constitution of India or in successive amendments. Although the creation of the collegium system was viewed as controversial by legal scholars and jurists outside India, her citizens, and notably, Parliament and the executive, have done little to replace it. The Third Judges Case of 1998 is not a case but an opinion delivered by the Supreme Court of India responding to a question
692627
Euthanasia in India


" case was based on a wrong interpretation of the constitution bench judgment in "Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab". Court observed that the judgment in inconsistent in itself as though it observes that euthanasia can be allowed only by legislature yet it goes on to lay down guidelines on the same. Therefore, court has referred the issue to a constitution bench which shall be heard by a strength of at least five judges. Court observed:"In view of the inconsistent opinions rendered in Aruna Shanbaug (supra) and also considering the important question
15533048
Madras High Court


contrast with the country's other high courts, which have been directly established under the Indian Constitution. However, the Constitution of India recognises the status of the older courts. The Chennai High Court was formed by merging the Supreme Court of Judicature at Madras, and the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut. The Court was required to decide cases in accordance with "justice, equity and good conscience". The earliest judges of the High Court included Judges Holloway, Innes and Morgan. The first Indian to sit as a judge of the High
8325166
Female genital mutilation in India


that FGM was already a crime under existing law. The bench adjourned the case and issued notices to Kerala and Telangana, having earlier notified Maharashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Delhi. In September 2018 the Supreme Court referred the PIL to a five-judge constitution bench at the request of Venugopal and the counsel for the Dawoodi Bohras. In November 2011 a Bohra woman posted an online petition requesting that Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, religious leader of the Dawoodi Bohras, ban FGM. A spokesman ruled out any change saying "Bohra women should
13213931
PCO Judges case


Sindh High Court, Peshawar High Court, and the Islamabad High Court. Justices Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon and Anwarul Haq Pannun filed petitions to review the 31 July 2009 verdict. The two justices' complaints included: After the 31 July decision, contempt of court notices were issued to the judges who took the Provisional Constitutional Order oath. On 9 November 2010, a four-member Supreme Court bench took up the contempt of court charges against the nine justices who have not apologised for taking the oath. Although these judges petitioned the Supreme
21935687
Money bill


from judicial review. In view of this crucial constitutional question, it has been suggested that the Supreme Court in "Jairam Ramesh v. Union of India" should create a constitution bench of at least nine judges to settle the law on this issue. The five judge bench decided that the Aadhar Bill was a Money Bill by a vote of 4–1. In the Republic of Ireland, the Senate may not delay a money bill () more than 21 days. The President of Ireland may not refuse to sign a money bill and
111743
Supreme Court of Pakistan


of the decision was sent to the High Court or to the judges concerned. According one news article, the Supreme Court has applied its judgement retroactively, having effect from 3 November 2007. The 14-member Supreme Court bench has not, however, applied the sanction to judges who took oath under the 1999 PCO. Some of these are current justices, and some have not yet taken a constitutional oath. Critics of the decision also argue that it is inconsistent with the principles laid down in Malik Asad Ali's case where it was
11184699
Judiciary of Cyprus


1964 from a merger of the Supreme Constitutional Court and the High Court. Although it can act as a court of first instance it is primarily an appeal court for both civil and criminal cases. As an appellate court the Supreme Court can review and re-examine all the evidence, request or admit other evidence and order cases to be reheard. It is composed of 13 judges, one of whom acts as the court president. The Supreme Court also acts as a constitutional, admiralty and administrative court. It can also rule
3984513
A. N. Ray


Allahabad High Court. In August 1969, he was appointed as Judge of the Supreme Court of India, and became Chief Justice of India in April 1973. His appointment as CJI came as a reward from the then PM Indira Gandhi for his dissenting opinion in the Keshavanand Bharti case which gave rise to the BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE of the Indian Constitution. This appointment superseded three senior judges of the Supreme Court, Jaishanker Manilal Shelat, AN Grover and K. S. Hegde, and was viewed as an attack on the independence of the Judiciary
22211415
Politics of the Republic of Ireland


ex officio" the President of the High Court. The Supreme Court rarely sits as a full bench and normally hears cases in chambers of three, five or seven judges. Both the Supreme Court and the High Court have the power of judicial review and may declare to be invalid both laws and acts of the state which are repugnant to the constitution. The Government, through the civil and public services and state-sponsored bodies, is a significant employer in the state; these three sectors are often called the "public sector
14832054
Padma Vibhushan


Public-Interest Litigations were filed in the High Courts of India, one in the Kerala High Court on 13 February 1992 by Balaji Raghavan and another in the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) on 24 August 1992 by Satya Pal Anand. Both petitioners questioned the civilian awards being "titles" per an interpretation of of the Constitution of India. On 25 August 1992, the Madhya Pradesh High Court issued a notice temporarily suspending all civilian awards. A Special Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India was formed comprising five
15776642
University of Pretoria


member of the team that started the futures industry in South Africa in 1987. Meyer Kahn is the Chairman of SAB Miller the second largest brewer in the world. Alumni in law include several Judges of the High Court, Supreme Court of Appeal and Constitutional Court as well as serving as United Nations Special Rapporteurs and the United Nations International Law Commission. Johann van der Westhuizen is a judge in the Constitutional Court of South Africa. He was appointed to the bench in 2004 by Thabo Mbeki. He was previously a professor at the
12820816
Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh


both these cases together and ruled in favour of both the Acts. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had five judges and was headed by Chief Justice A.N. Ray. The Bench interpreted the word `propagate' used in Article 25(1) of the Constitution as `defined' in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary - "to spread from person to person, or from place to place, to disseminate, diffuse (a statement, belief, practice etc.)" and in the Century Dictionary (which is an Encyclopaedic Lexicon of the
11916903
Javed Iqbal (judge, born 1946)


restored to the position of 2 November 2007 on the bench of supreme court. Iqbal is one of the judges who took oath under PCO in 1999 as a Justice of High Court of Balochistan. On 13 April 2005, a bench headed by, then Chief Justice Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, with other members of bench being Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, Javed Iqbal, Abdul Hameed Dogar and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, unanimously dismissed all petitions challenging the 17th Constitutional Amendment and the dual office of General Pervez Musharraf as the President as well as the Chief
11359681
Judiciary of India


that our judiciary must both be independent of the executive and must also be competent in itself.” Finally, the constitution stated that “Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the States as the President may deem necessary for the purpose,” given that “in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the Chief Justice, the Chief Justice of India shall always be
2700450
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors.


"Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors." is a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India, which holds that the right to privacy is protected as a fundamental constitutional right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The nine-judge bench of J.S. Khehar, J. Chelameswar, S.A. Bobde, R.K. Agrawal, R.F. Nariman, A.M. Sapre, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, S.K. Kaul and S.A. Nazeer unanimously held that “the right to privacy is
19740066
Supreme Court of Israel


more in a rehearing on a matter in which the Supreme Court sat with a panel of three Judges. The Supreme Court may sit as a panel of a larger uneven number of Judges than three in matters that involve fundamental legal questions and constitutional issues of particular importance. In a case on which the President of the Supreme Court sits, the President is the Presiding Judge; in a case on which the Deputy President sits and the President does not sit, the Deputy President is the Presiding Judge; in any other case,
8452127
Ranjana Desai


she was promoted as a judge of the Supreme Court of India. On 8 May 2012, the Supreme Court bench composed of Ranjana Desai and Altamas Kabir ordered the government to end the Haj subsidy by 2022. On 27 September 2013, in a landmark judgement, a three-judge bench consisting of the Chief Justice P Sathasivam and Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Justice Ranjan Gogoi of the Supreme Court of India ruled that the right to register a "none of the above" vote in elections should apply. The court said that
8456719
Original jurisdiction


India or between Government of India and states on one side and one or more states on other side or cases between different states. Original jurisdiction is related to cases which are directly brought to the Supreme Court. Cases which require the interpretation of the constitution or cases relating to the denial of fundamental rights are heard In the supreme court. In case there is a dispute between two or more states or between the union and the states, the Supreme Court decides such cases. In addition, Article 131 of the Constitution of India
9301206
Bombay High Court


how the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court was constituted. The Constitution of the Bench by The Hon’ble The Chief Justice V.S.Deshpande then came to be challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Petition filed by the State of Maharashtra was allowed and the aspirations of the people from Marathwada were recognised. The Judgment is a reported one (State of Maharashtra v. Narain Shyamrao Puranik) in AIR 1983 Supreme Court 46. When the High Court of Bombay constituted a bench in Goa, Justice G.F Couto was appointed its first Goan permanent judge
1581026
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India


classes, they will be granted reservations in admissions to educational institutions and jobs. The National Legal Services Authority of India (NALSA) was the primary petitioner. It had been constituted with the primary objective of providing free legal aid services to the disadvantaged sections of Indian society. The other petitioners in the matter were the Poojya Mata Nasib Kaur Ji Women Welfare Society, a registered society and NGO, and Laxmi Narayan Tripathy, a renowned Hijra activist. The case was heard before a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court,
9788482
Uruguay


, 30 of whom are elected for a five-year term by proportional representation and the Vice-President, who presides over the chamber. The judicial arm is exercised by the Supreme Court, the Bench and Judges nationwide. The members of the Supreme Court are elected by the General Assembly; the members of the Bench are selected by the Supreme Court with the consent of the Senate, and the judges are directly assigned by the Supreme Court. Uruguay adopted its current constitution in 1967. Many of its provisions were suspended in
13293324
Supreme Court of Pakistan


requesting the Parliament to increase the number of judges. As the number of the justices has increased, they sit in smaller benches of two or three (referred to as a "division bench"), however, coming together in larger benches of five or more (referred to as a constitution bench) when required to settle fundamental questions of law. The nomination of justices in the Supreme Court comes from an executive selection made by the Prime Minister based on judges' merited qualifications, personal intellectualism, and experiences as judge in
11184636
Ramayyagari Subhash Reddy


Ramayyagari Subhash Reddy is the judge of Supreme Court of India since 2 November 2018. Prior to his elevation to the bench of Supreme Court, he was the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court. He is set to retire on 4 January 2022. Shri Justice Ramayyagari Subhash Reddy, B.Sc., LL.B., was born on 5 January 1957. He was enrolled as an Advocate on 30 October 1980 and practiced at Tribunals, Civil Courts and Andhra Pradesh High Court including before the Supreme Court in Civil, Criminal, Constitutional,
12333921
Central Bureau of Investigation


according to a five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court (in Civil Appeals 6249 and 6250 of 2001) on 17 Feb 2010. The bench ruled: The court clarified "this is an extraordinary power which must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and only in exceptional situations." the SC in CBI VS CBI case held that the power to remove/send on leave the director of CBI, vested in the selection committee, not with the central govt.SC says this verdict when CBI Director challenge the decision of central
8788598
Novartis v. Union of India & Others


Novartis v. Union of India & Others is a landmark decision by a two-judge bench of the Indian Supreme Court on the issue of whether Novartis could patent Gleevec in India, and was the culmination of a seven-year-long litigation fought by Novartis. The Supreme Court upheld the Indian patent office's rejection of the patent application. The patent application at the center of the case was filed by Novartis in India in 1998, after India had agreed to enter the World Trade Organization and to abide by worldwide intellectual property
16164135
Chief Justice of India


him or her (for re-allocation) in any case where they require it to be looked into by a larger bench of more judges. On the administrative side, the Chief Justice carries out the following functions: maintenance of the roster; appointment of court officials and general and miscellaneous matters relating to the supervision and functioning of the Supreme Court. It has been an unbroken convention for decades now, to appoint the senior-most judge of the supreme court as the CJI. The present CJI is Justice Ranjan Gogoi,
13570678
Mullaperiyar Dam


Court issued notice to Kerala to respond, however did not stay the operation of the Act even as an interim measure. The Court then advised the States to settle the matter amicably, and adjourned hearing in order to enable them to do so. The Supreme Court of India termed the act as not unconstitutional. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court constituted a Constitution bench to hear the case considering its wide ramifications. The Kerala Government states that it does not object to giving water to Tamil Nadu, their main cause of objection being the
14842091
List of Padma Bhushan award recipients (1990–1999)


August 1992 in the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and a notice was issued on 25August that led to provisional suspension of all civilian awards. A Special Divisional Bench of the Supreme Court of India was set up with a panel of five judges that delivered the verdict on 15December 1995 that the "Bharat Ratna and Padma awards are not titles within Article 18 of the Constitution of India". Later in 1998 when the presentation of the awards resumed, eighteen recipients received the award followed by fourteen in 1999. The Padma
19218336
Supreme Court of India


guilty of misbehaviour or incapacity, further removal proceedings would be taken up by the parliament if the judge is not resigning himself. The judge upon proven guilty is also liable for punishment as per applicable laws or for contempt of the constitution by breaching the oath under disrespecting constitution A Person who has retired as a judge of the supreme court is debarred from practicing in any court of law or before any other authority in India. Article 137 of the Constitution of India lays down provision for the power of the supreme court to review its
14032180
National Herald corruption case


2015, the judge of the Delhi High Court recused himself from hearing the case and directed that the petitions be directed before an appropriate bench. On 27 January 2015, the Supreme Court of India directed Swamy to make a case for speedy trial in the Delhi High Court which was hearing the appeal of Sonia Gandhi and others against the summons issued to them by the trial court. On plea by Sonia Gandhi and others, defendants requested that the Chief Justice reassign the case to Justice Sunil Gaur, who had recused himself earlier.
3436568
Altamas Kabir


rushed judgement, a bench headed by Justice Kabir quashed the National Eligibility and Entrance Test for admissions to medical colleges in India. This judgement was later set aside by a constitution bench of the Supreme Court. In July 2013, the Supreme Court collegium had stalled Justice Kabir's move to appoint an SC judge just before his retirement, because a warrant of appointment designating Justice P Sathasivam as the next CJI had already been signed, and Justice Kabir's move would have been unprecedented and improper. In 2016, former Chief Minister and
9542501
Bangalore Palace


in their designs, the government ultimately enacted the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition & transfer) Act 1996 under Mr. H.D. Deve Gowda to expropriate the entire premises spreading over 450 acres of prime real estate in the world for a farthing of 11 crores Rupees. This dispute is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India till date as it needs constitutional issues like whether material resources of the community under Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution covers what is privately owned. The same awaits decision by a 9 Judge Constitution Bench of Indian Supreme Court
15771091
Tamil Nadu-Kerala dam row


. The Supreme Court of India termed the act as not unconstitutional. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court constituted a Constitution bench to hear the case considering its wide ramifications. Kerala did not object giving water to Tamil Nadu. Their main cause of objection is the dams safety as it is as old as 110 years. Increasing the level would add more pressure to be handled by already leaking dam. Tamil Nadu wants the 2006 order of Supreme court be implemented so as to increase the water level to . In 2000 Frontline one author stated
11149433
Chokkalingam Nagappan


He was then further elevated as the Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court and sworn in on 27.02 2013. He was appointed as a Judge of The Supreme Court of India and sworn in on 19.09.2013. Nagappan who held a relatively short tenure retired as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 03.10.2016. A three judge bench of the Indian Supreme Court, comprising Nagappan, Jasti Chelameswar, and Sharad Arvind Bobde ratified an earlier order of the Supreme Court and clarified that no Indian citizen without an Aadhaar card can be deprived
11529595
Oregon Supreme Court


at the next general election. On occasion, a judge will leave office at the end of a term, in which case a general election determines their replacement. If the Supreme Court needs an additional judge on a temporary basis due to illness, an unfilled position, or a justice is disqualified from sitting on a case due to a conflict of interest, the court can appoint a senior judge to serve as a judge pro tempore. Senior judges are all former, qualified judges (a minimum of 12 years on the bench
3173377
K. S. Puttaswamy


this program was rejected by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance, but still the Government of India went ahead with it. How can this awfully wrong program roll out without a clear legislation?”, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy filed the PIL for scrapping the Aadhar project in 2012. On 24 August 2017, a nine judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in a remarkable and wide ranging 547-page judgment ruled unanimously that privacy is a constitutionally protected right in India in the case of Puttaswamy v Union of India. With the Supreme Court
19682626
Capital punishment in India


deterring effect on criminals. In colonial India, death was prescribed as one of the punishments in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which listed a number of capital crimes. It remained in effect after independence in 1947. The first hanging in Independent India was that of Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte in the Mahatma Gandhi assassination case on 15 November 1949. Under of the Constitution of India, no person can be deprived of his life except according to procedure established by law. The Constitution Bench judgment of Supreme Court
10061030
Supreme Court of India


I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (Judgment of 11 January 2007). A unanimous bench of 9 judges reaffirmed the "basic structure" doctrine. It held that a constitutional amendment which entails violation of any fundamental rights which the court regards as forming part of the "basic structure" of the constitution, then the same can be struck down depending upon its impact and consequences. The judgment clearly imposes further limitations on the constituent power of parliament with respect to the principles underlying certain fundamental rights. The judgment in Coelho has
14032195
Gita Mittal


Justice Gita Mittal (born 9 December 1958) is an Indian Judge. Presently, She is Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court. She is former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and Judge also. Born on 9 December 1958 Justice Gita Mittal was a top lawyer in the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India. She was called to Bench of the Delhi High Court as an Additional Judge on 16th July, 2004. She is first ever female Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court. She has
428896
Rishabhdeo


the Supreme Court of India, claiming to have the right to manage the temple. However, this time on the strength of 'Rajasthan Public Trust Act', which says that those temples to which chapter X of the said Act is applicable, would be managed by a Committee constituted from the persons interested in the management. That case was decided by a Bench of the Indian Supreme Court and Hon'ble Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon'ble Justice Markandey Katju vide in the judgment dated 4 January 2007, delivered in Civil Appeal No.4092-95
3498018
John Howard Ferguson


. Ferguson found Plessy guilty of not leaving a ""white"" car and declared the Separate Car Act was in this case constitutional. Plessy then appealed the case to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which affirmed the decision that the Louisiana law was constitutional. Plessy petitioned for a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States where Judge John Howard Ferguson was named in the case brought before the United States Supreme Court because he had been named in the petition to the Louisiana Supreme Court. Judge John Howard Ferguson died
18078862
Yakub Memon


the hearing, the two judges disagreed on the issue and passed an order requesting the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to urgently constitute a larger bench. On July 29, the Supreme Court rejected his petition. Memon also submitted a petition for clemency to Maharashtra Governor C. Vidyasagar Rao and a fresh petition to President Mukherjee, both of which were rejected. As a final resort Memon's lawyers filed a plea for 14-day stay of execution with Supreme Court Chief Justice citing that there needs to be 14-day period between a mercy plea
9956971
Supreme Court of Western Australia


as the Court of Criminal Appeal in 1911. The Supreme Court, Full Court and Court of Criminal Appeal were effectively the one court with each judge able to sit on cases in any of the courts. In 2004 the Full Court and the Court of Criminal Appeal were subsumed by the Court of Appeal, which, while still a division of the Supreme Court, has judges which sit solely on appeal cases. The Supreme Court is currently constituted by the following judicial officers (in order of seniority): The Supreme Court building
15467438
Supreme Court of India


in court. Supreme court judges retire at the age of 65. However, there have been suggestions from the judges of the Supreme Court of India to provide for a fixed term for the judges including the Chief Justice of India. Article 125 of the Indian constitution leaves it to the Indian parliament to determine the salary, other allowances, leave of absence, pension, etc. of the supreme court judges. However, the parliament cannot alter any of these privileges and rights to the judge's disadvantage after his/her
14032177
National Judicial Appointments Commission


the constitutional amendment and the NJAC Act had not been notified then. After the fresh challenge in 2015 after the acts were notified, a three judge bench of the Supreme Court referred the matter to a Constitution Bench. In a collective order, on 16 October 2015 the Supreme Court by a majority of 4:1 struck down the NJAC Act, 2014 meant to replace the two-decade old collegium system of judges appointing judges in the higher judiciary. The judgement was hailed by lawyers Prashant Bhushan and Ram Jethmalani, who had appeared for
15716322
K. S. Panicker Radhakrishnan


Civil Courts at Ernakulam. Radhakrishnan was Standing Counsel for Cochin University of Science and Technology, State Bank of India, State Bank of Travancore, Kerala State Cooperative Rubber Marketing Federation and State Trading Corporation of India. He was a part of a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India that dealt with ""SEBI vs Sahara"" case. The bench held that Sahara illegally collected Rs 24,000 crore and ordered it to return all the money to the investors. However, even after more than one and half years
18525531