Search results
Sep 21, 2013 · 1936: Tindivanam: M.V. Gopalan enrols in Carpentry programme at St. Joseph’s Late 1930’s Madras: Wren Bennett, high quality cabinet-makers employ Gopalan. World War II accelerates.
- Kasturi Building, Anna Salai, 859-860, Mount Road, Chennai, 600002, Tamil Nadu
- A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras
- Shankari Prasad v. Union of India
- Berubari Union Case
- Golaknath v. State of Punjab
- Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain Case
- Minerva Mills v. Union of India
- Mc Mehta v. Union of India
- S. R. Bommai v. Union of India
- Shayara Bano v. Union of India & Ors.
Main Theme: In the A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) case, the Supreme Court interpreted the Fundamental Rights under Part III of Indian Constitution. 1. In this case, it held that the protection underArticle 21 is available only against arbitrary executive action and not from arbitrary legislative action. 1.1. This means that the State can de...
Main Theme: In this case, the constitutional validity of the First Amendment Act (1951), was challenged. 1. The Supreme Court ruled that the power of the Parliament to amend the Constitution under Article 368also includes the power to amend Fundamental Rights. 2. The word ‘law’ inArticle 13 includes only ordinary laws and not the constitutional ame...
Main Theme: In this case, the issue was resolved about whether the Preamble is part of the Constitution or not. 1. According to the Supreme Court, in the Berubari Union case (1960), the Preamble shows the general purposes behind the several provisions in the Constitution and is thusa key to the minds of the makers of the Constitution. 2. Further, w...
Main Theme:In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Parliament cannot take away or abridge any of the Fundamental Rights. 1. The Court held that theFundamental Rights cannot be amendedfor the implementation of the Directive Principles. 2. The Parliament reacted to the Supreme Court’s judgement in the Golaknath Case (1967)by enacting the 24th ...
Main Theme: The doctrine of the basic structureof the constitution was reaffirmed and applied by the Supreme Court in the Indira Nehru Gandhi case (1975). 1. In this case, the Supreme Court invalidated a provision of the 39th Amendment Act (1975) which kept the election disputes involving the Prime Minister and the Speaker of Lok Sabha outside the ...
Main Theme:The Supreme Court reiterated that Parliament can amend any part of the Constitution but it cannot change the “Basic Structure” of the Constitution. 1. In the Minerva Mills case, the Supreme Court held that ‘the Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles. 1.1. T...
Main Theme:The judgement is considered as one of the major ruling in the field of environmental law in our country. The judgement took up various new situations and ways of interpretation of the laws and Fundamental Rights. 1. The Supreme Court, in the M.C. Mehta vs Union of India 1987, found the strict liability principle inadequate to protect cit...
Main Theme: In this case, the Supreme Court laid down that the Constitution is federal and characterised federalism as its ‘basic feature’. 1. It observed the fact that under the scheme of our Constitution, greater power is conferred upon the Centre vis-a-vis the states does not mean that the states are mere appendages of the Centre. 2. The states ...
Main Theme: In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that Instant Triple talaq or talaq-e-biddatis unconstitutional and illegal. 1. To enforce the Supreme Court ruling, the government brought The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2017. 2. The bill was passed by Lok Sabha, but the bill remains pending in Rajya Sabha. 3. The ordinanc...
Apr 22, 2022 · Judgement of A.K. Gopalan vs the State of Madras. The judgment of this case was given by 6 judges constitutional bench of the Supreme Court with the ratio of 5:1 majority. Justice Fazl Ali gave the dissenting opinion. The court rejected the arguments given by A.K. Gopalan and said that personal liberty means freedom of the physical body only ...
- Anushka Saxena
Oct 25, 2019 · The Indian government had dispatched P.V. Gopalan to help Zambia manage an influx of refugees from Rhodesia — the former name of Zimbabwe — which had just declared independence from Britain ...
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.09.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN W.P.No.24546 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 M.V.Gopalan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Regional Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records, Coimbatore Region, Coimbatore.
Oct 3, 2021 · A K Gopalan vs State of Madras [1] is a landmark case for the Indian judiciary. It is referred to as a landmark case as well as the first case where the Indian Supreme Court dealt with various articles enshrined under Part III of the Indian Constitution as well as gives certain principles. The case mainly dealt with Article 19 (1), [2] 21 [3 ...
People also ask
What is a K Gopalan vs State of Madras?
Why was the Supreme Court rejected in Gopalan vs Madras?
Where did P V Gopalan live?
Why was the Gopalan case a landmark decision in Indian legal history?
What was the main theme of Gopalan v State of Madras?
Who was painganadu Venkataraman Gopalan?
P. V. Gopalan. Painganadu Venkataraman Gopalan (1911 – February 1998) [1] was an Indian career civil servant, a member of Central Secretariat Service who served as Director of Relief Measures and Refugees in the government of Zambia, especially the exodus of refugees from Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe ).
