Constitutional Law with Article 26

Supreme Court to Reconsider Excommunication in Dawoodi Bohra Community: Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community vs. State of Maharashtra (2023)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Bombay Protection of Excommunication Act, 1949, Bombay Protection of Excommunication Act, 1949 with Section 2(a), Bombay Protection of Excommunication Act, 1949 with Section 2(b), Bombay Protection of Excommunication Act, 1949 with Section 3, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 25, Constitutional Law with Article 26, Fundamental Rights, J.K. Maheshwari, Judges, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court to Reconsider Excommunication in Dawoodi Bohra Community: Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community vs. State of Maharashtra (2023) Date of the Judgment: February 10, 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 108 Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J., Abhay S. Oka, J., Vikram Nath, J., and J.K. Maheshwari, J. Can a religious community’s practice […]

Supreme Court to Reconsider Excommunication in Dawoodi Bohra Community: Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community vs. State of Maharashtra (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court to Reconsider Excommunication in Dawoodi Bohra Community: Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community vs. State of Maharashtra (2023)

/ Abhay S. Oka, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 25, Constitutional Law with Article 26, Constitutional Morality, Freedom of Religion, J.K. Maheshwari, Judges, Religious Denominations, Religious Freedom, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court to Reconsider Excommunication in Dawoodi Bohra Community: Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community vs. State of Maharashtra (2023) **Date of the Judgment:** February 10, 2023 **Citation:** 2023 INSC 1152 **Judges:** Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J., Abhay S. Oka, J., Vikram Nath, J., and J.K. Maheshwari, J. Can the practice of excommunication

Supreme Court to Reconsider Excommunication in Dawoodi Bohra Community: Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community vs. State of Maharashtra (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Haryana Sikh Gurdwara Act, Settles Inter-State Body Corporate Issue: Harbajan Singh vs. State of Haryana (20 September 2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 25, Constitutional Law with Article 26, Fundamental Rights, Hemant Gupta, Inter-State Corporation Act, 1957, Inter-State Corporation Act, 1957 with Section 3, Inter-State Corporation Act, 1957 with Section 4, Judges, Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 with Section 72, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Upholds Haryana Sikh Gurdwara Act, Settles Inter-State Body Corporate Issue LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Haryana State Legislature has the legislative competence to enact the Haryana Sikh Gurdwara (Management) Act, 2014, or if it falls under the exclusive domain of the Parliament as an inter-state body corporate. CASE TYPE: Constitutional Law, Religious Institutions Case

Supreme Court Upholds Haryana Sikh Gurdwara Act, Settles Inter-State Body Corporate Issue: Harbajan Singh vs. State of Haryana (20 September 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Review Petition Scope in Religious Freedom Cases: Kantaru Rajeevaru vs. Indian Young Lawyers Association (2020)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Ashok Bhushan, B.R. Gavai, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 25, Constitutional Law with Article 26, Fundamental Rights, Indu Malhotra, Inherent Powers, Judges, L. Nageswara Rao, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, R. Banumathi, R. Subhash Reddy, Ranjan Gogoi, Review Jurisdiction, S. Abdul Nazeer, S.A. Bobde, Supreme Court of India, Supreme Court Rules, Surya Kant

Supreme Court Clarifies Review Petition Scope in Religious Freedom Cases (2020) Date of the Judgment: 11 May 2020 Citation: Not Available Judges: S.A. Bobde, CJI, R. Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan, L. Nageswara Rao, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, S. Abdul Nazeer, R. Subhash Reddy, B.R. Gavai, and Surya Kant, JJ. This was a nine-judge bench. Can the Supreme

Supreme Court Clarifies Review Petition Scope in Religious Freedom Cases: Kantaru Rajeevaru vs. Indian Young Lawyers Association (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court to Reconsider Mosque’s Essentiality in Islam: M. Siddiq vs. Mahant Suresh Das (27 September 2018)

/ Ashok Bhushan, Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 145, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 25, Constitutional Law with Article 26, Dipak Misra, Fundamental Rights, Judges, S. Abdul Nazeer

Supreme Court to Reconsider Mosque’s Essentiality in Islam: M. Siddiq vs. Mahant Suresh Das (27 September 2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a mosque is an essential part of the practice of Islam and if the right to worship at a particular place is an integral part of that right. CASE TYPE: Civil, Property Dispute, Religious Rights

Supreme Court to Reconsider Mosque’s Essentiality in Islam: M. Siddiq vs. Mahant Suresh Das (27 September 2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds 1934 Constitution in Malankara Church Disputes: K.S. Varghese & Ors. vs. St. Peter’s & Paul’s Syrian Orth. & Ors. (2017)

/ Amitava Roy, Arun Mishra, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 25, Constitutional Law with Article 26, Fundamental Rights, Judges

LEGAL ISSUE: Applicability of the 1934 Constitution to Parish Churches within the Malankara Church and the powers of the Patriarch versus the Catholicos. CASE TYPE: Civil Case Name: K.S. Varghese & Ors. vs. St. Peter’s & Paul’s Syrian Orth. & Ors. Judgment Date: 3 July 2017 Date of the Judgment: 3 July 2017 Citation: (2017)

Supreme Court Upholds 1934 Constitution in Malankara Church Disputes: K.S. Varghese & Ors. vs. St. Peter’s & Paul’s Syrian Orth. & Ors. (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top