Associations Incorporation Act 1981 Constitution And Rules Words And Expressions To: Fill & Download for Free

Some of Landmark judgments have changed the Constitution as well as everyday life of common citizen of India. The judgments by Supreme Court have a close relation with Polity .Citing important Supreme Court judgment in the answer will fetch you more marks in UPSC exam.1 The Nirbhaya Case - Led to the change in the Juvenile Justice ActThis subsequently led to the replacement of our Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. The age bar to be tried as an adult was lowered from 18 to 16 years.2.Golaknath and State of Punjab 1967-Supreme Court ruled that Parliament could not restrict any of the Fundamental Rights of individuals enshrined in the Constitution.3.Waman Rao and Union of India 1981-This case has facilitated in determining a satisfactory way of addressing grievances pertaining to the violation of fundamental rights.4.Mohd Ahmed Khan and Shah Bano Begum 1985-This case challenged the Muslim petition law.5.MC Mehta and Union Of India 1986-Enlarged the scope and sphere of Article 32 and Article 21 to incorporate the right to healthy and pollution-free environment.6.Indra Sawhney and Union of India 1992-It defined the “creamy layer” criteria and uphold the execution of the recommendations made by the Mandal Commission7.First Judges Case or S.P. Gupta case 1981-The ruling gave the Executive dominance over the Judiciary in judicial appointments for the next 12 years8.Second Judges Case or Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association versus Union of India 1993-The majority verdict gave back Chief Justice of India’s power over judicial appointments and transfers.9.Three judges case or Special Reference case of 1998-Chief Justice of India must check with a plurality of four senior-most Supreme Court judges to shape his opinion on judicial appointments and transfers.10.SR Bommai and Union of India 1994-This has created major repercussion on Center-State relations.11.Vishaka and State of Rajasthan 1997-Introduction of Vishaka Guidelines and provided basic definitions of sexual harassment at the workplace.12.Samatha and State of Andhra Pradesh 1997-SC declared that the forest land, tribal land, and government land, in scheduled areas could not be leased to private companies or non-tribal for industrial operations. Such activity is only permissible to a government undertaking and tribal people.13.I.R Coelho and State of Tamil Nadu 2007-If a law is included in the 9th schedule of the Indian constitution, it can still be examined and confronted in court.14.Section 377 case 2009-The Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 declared as unconstitutional. The same was reversed by the Supreme Court in 2013.15.Pedophilia case 2011-SC declared that the Children are the endowment to humanity. The sexual abuse of children is one of the most monstrous transgressions.16.NOTA- None-Of-The-Above Judgment 2013-An option of not voting for any candidate was given if they don’t find any of the apt candidates.17.Lily Thomas and Union Of India 2013-SC ruled that any Member of the legislative assembly, Member of a legislative council or Member of Parliament who was found guilty of a crime and given a minimum of two-year imprisonment, would lose membership of the House with an immediate effect.18.Nirbhaya case March 2014-Introduction of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 and definition of rape under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Code of Criminal Procedures, 1973.19.National Legal Services Authority and Union of India April 2014-This case resulted in the recognition of transgender persons as a third gender. SC also instructed the government to treat them as minorities and expand the reservations in education, jobs, education etc20.Shreya Singhal and Union of India 2015-The controversial section 66A of the Information Technology Act which permitted arrests for unpleasant content posted on the internet was struck down as unconstitutional.21.Aruna Shanbaug Case-Along with guideline supreme court allowed passive euthanasia in the country.22 Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu - Extended the boundaries of right to privacy for media & the freedom of expression.This judgement for Rajagopal vs State of TN upheld freedom of expression and the right to privacy.23.Triple Talaq case(Shayra Bano v UOI)-The issue which pertains with Triple Talaq i.e. Talaq-i-biddat is that with this practice husband is able to divorce his wife by simply uttering the word ‘talaq’ three-time consecutively which was quite barbaric to Muslim women. The Honorable Supreme Court verdict although is divided in terms of points of law and reasons, however, this decision must be construed as a milestone for the cause of gender justice in India.24.Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India-Right to Privacy is protected as a fundamental constitutional right under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India . The judgement explicitly overrules previous judgements of the Supreme Court in Kharak Singh vs. State of UP and M.P Sharma v Union of India , which had held that there is no fundamental right to privacy under the Indian Constitution.

No!! The Supreme Court of The United States WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE PARTISAN PERIOD. As the final Arbiter in all legal matters with jurisdiction inAlabamaAlaska*ArizonaArkansasCalifornia*ColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregon*PennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingWashington, D.C.GuamNorthern Mariana IslandsPeurto RicoU.S. Virgin IslandsAmerican Samoa.NOW CONSIDER ALL THE CULTURES, POLITICAL VIEWS, RELIGIONS AND WAY OF LIFE.Why Should Kavanaugh GET AWAY WITH ALLEGEDLY RAPING A WOMAN at worst and at the very least Sexual Assault. Three reasons in my opinion.Roe v. Wade (1973) is the top of Evangelical Christians. The only reason they Voted To put D. Trump in the WH as President of The United States of America. They will ignore his and Kavanaugh’s Transgressions.LGBTQ ️‍ Also may be another target. Especially the desire to DISCRIMINATE AGAINST LGBTQ Community On Religious Grounds. The Ace would be to Overturn Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). Roll back all LGBTQ Rights won over the last 40 years.The second biggest HATRED that Christians in this country have is the separation of Church and State and Secularizing Public Schools.Justice Kennedy’s Legacy. All Cases involving Affirmative Action, Gay Rights, Abortion, Voting Rights, Partisan Gerrymandering, Death Penalty (Executing a minor, or an inmate that committed his crime as a juvenile was ruled “Cruel and Unusual Punishment”. Hence UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Also The Developmentally Disabled also was found to be unconditional.The Supreme Court of The United States Ruling upholding A Lower Courts Ruling In Engle v. Vitale (1963) Ruled That The SANCTIONING OF A PRAYER BY THE SCHOOL violates the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Therefore The Practice was rendered UNCONSTITUTIONAL.Origin of caseThe Abington case began when Edward Schempp, a Unitarian Universalist and a resident of Abington Township, Pennsylvania, filed suit against the Abington School District in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to prohibit the enforcement of a Pennsylvania state law that required his children, specifically Ellery Schempp, to hear and sometimes read portions of the Bible as part of their public school education.[2]That law (24 Pa. Stat. 15-1516, as amended, Pub. Law 1928) required that "[a]t least ten verses from the Holy Bible [be] read, without comment, at the opening of each public school on each school day." Schempp specifically contended that the statute violated his and his family's rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.[1]Pennsylvania law, like that of four other states, included a statute compelling school districts to perform Bible readings in the mornings before classes. Twenty-five states had laws allowing "optional" Bible reading, with the remainder having no laws supporting or rejecting Bible reading. In eleven of those states with laws supportive of Bible reading or state-sponsored prayer, the state courts had declared them unconstitutional.[3]A related case was that brought by Madalyn Murray O'Hair, mother of plaintiff William J. Murray III (b. 1946), who filed suit against the local school system in Murray v. Curlett to prohibit compulsory prayer and Bible reading in public schools. In 1963 she founded the group American Atheists (originally known as the Society of Separationists). The Murray case was consolidated with Schempp's on appeal to the Supreme Court. [1]District court argumentsDuring the first trial in federal district court, Edward Schempp and his children testified as to specific religious doctrines purveyed by a literal reading of the Bible "which were contrary to the religious beliefs which they held and to their familial teaching" (177 F. Supp. 398, 400). The children testified that all of the doctrines to which they referred were read to them at various times as part of the exercises. Edward Schempp testified at the second trial that he had considered having his children excused from attendance at the exercises but decided against it for several reasons, including his belief that the children's relationships with their teachers and classmates would be adversely affected. [2]District court rulingThe district court ruled in Schempp's favor, and struck down the Pennsylvania statute. The school district appealed the ruling, and while that appeal was pending, the Pennsylvania legislature amended the statute to allow children to be excused from the exercises upon the written request of their parents. This change did not satisfy Schempp, however, and he continued his action against the school district, charging that the amendment of the law did not change its nature as an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Because of the change in the law, the Supreme Court had responded to the school district's appeal by vacating the first ruling and remanding the case to the district court. The district court again found for Schempp. The school district appealed to the Supreme Court again, and, on appeal, the case was consolidated with a similar Maryland case launched by O'Hair.[4]The district court ruling in the second trial, in striking down the practices and the statute requiring them, made specific findings of fact that the children's attendance at Abington Senior High School was compulsory and that the practice of reading 10 verses from the Bible was also compelled by law. It also found that: Abington School District v. Schempp - WikipediaPrecedents for caseThe Court explicitly upheld Engel v. Vitale, in which the Court ruled that the sanctioning of a prayer by the school amounted to a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The Abington court held that in organizing a reading of the Bible, the school was conducting "a religious exercise," and "that cannot be done without violating the 'neutrality' required of the State by the balance of power between individual, church and state that has been struck by the First Amendment" (374 U.S. 203 (1963)). Over the previous two decades, the Supreme Court, by incorporatingspecific rights into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, had steadily increased the extent to which rights contained in United States Bill of Rights were applied against the states.[a]Abington was a continuation of this trend with regard to the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment, and specifically built upon Supreme Court precedents in Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940), Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), and McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948).Opinions of the CourtThe Supreme Court granted certiorari in order to settle the persistent and vigorous protests resulting from its previous decision in Engel v. Vitale regarding religion in schools.[5]Henry W. Sawyer argued the case for Schempp. Abington School District v. Schempp - WikipediaDecisionThe Supreme Court upheld the District Court's decision and found the Pennsylvania prayer statute unconstitutional by virtue of the facts in the case, as well as the clear line of precedent established by the Supreme Court. In writing the opinion of the Court, Justice Tom C. Clark stated, "This Court has decisively settled that the First Amendment's mandate [in the Establishment Clause] has been made wholly applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment ... in a series of cases since Cantwell.[6][7]What was unexpected, however, were the ideas expressed in the second portion of Justice Clark's opinion written for the majority. The Court's recognition of religious ideals as valuable to the culture of the United States in that opinion are generally not cited much by either side of the church-state debate when discussing the case and the effect it had on the United States.[citation needed]His opening thoughts explicitly spelled out that view in past jurisprudence with cases similar to Abington v. Schempp.Clark continued that the Court was of the feeling that no matter the religious nature of the citizenry, the government at all levels, as required by the Constitution, must remain neutral in matters of religion "while protecting all, prefer[ring] none, and disparag[ing] none." The Court had clearly rejected "the contention by many that the Establishment Clause forbade only governmental preference of one faith over another."[8]Citing Justice Hugo Black in Torcaso v. Watkins, Justice Clark added, "We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs." Such prohibited behavior was self-evident in the Pennsylvania law requiring Bible reading (and allowing recitation of the Lord's Prayer) in its public schools. The Court recognized the value of such ideal neutrality from lessons of history when government and religion were either fully fused or cooperative with one another and religious liberty was nonexistent or seriously curtailed.Brennan's concurrenceJustice Brennan filed a lengthy and historically significant concurrence, taking seventy-three pages to elaborate his ideas about what the Framers intended in the formation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, gauging the value of religion in American culture, reviewing legal precedents, and suggesting a course for future church-state cases. Brennan focused on the history of the Establishment Clause to counter numerous critics of the Court's Engel decision, who pointed out that prayer in public schools, as well as in many other areas of public life, was a longstanding practice going back to the framing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. He professed to be aware of the "ambiguities in the historical record",[9]and felt a modern-day interpretation of the First Amendment was warranted. In defense of that approach, Brennan stated:In answer to critics of a broad interpretation of the prohibitions against government in the realm of religion, Brennan said, "nothing in the text of the Establishment Clause supports the view that the prevention of the setting up of an official church was meant to be the full extent of the prohibitions against official involvements in religion".In the third section of his exhaustive concurrence, Justice Brennan charted the course that led to the incorporation of the First Amendment's religion clauses by way of answering the charge of Abington Township's counsel that Pennsylvania's Bible reading statute was a state issue, outside the purview of the federal court system, including that of the Supreme Court. He labeled the daily recitals of the Lord's Prayer and reading of the Bible as "quite [clear] breaches of the command of the Establishment Clause". He noted the long history of such practices, even before the "founding of our Republic". Additionally, he stated that most of those who demanded reading of the Bible and prayer in schools were hoping to serve "broader goals than compelling formal worship of God or fostering church attendance". He cited the 1858 words of the Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Instruction, who saw the Bible as aptly suited to "teaching the noblest principles of virtue, morality, patriotism, and good order".Justice Brennan took great pains to also show that many states, such as South Dakota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Ohio and Massachusetts, had already enacted and revoked laws similar to Pennsylvania's by the first half of the 20th century. In addition, many political leaders including attorneys general and presidents like Ulysses S. Grant and Theodore Roosevelt insisted that "matters of religion be left to family altars, churches and private schools" and "[It] is not our business to have the Protestant Bible or the Catholic Vulgate or the Talmud read in [public] schools" .Brennan's concurrence also recognized the plurality of religious thought in the nation as basis enough for restriction of church and state relations. He cited this lack of appreciation of that pluralismas the "basic flaw" of Pennsylvania's Bible reading statute and Abington Township's defense of it:Stewart's dissentJustice Potter Stewart filed the only dissent in the case. In it, he was critical of both the lower court opinions and the decision the Supreme Court had reached regarding them. He wished to remand the case to lower courts for further proceedings.Stewart had dissented in Engel v. Vitale and viewed the doctrine relied on in that case as implausible, given the long history of government religious practice in the United States, including the fact that the Supreme Court opens its own sessions with the declaration, "God Save this Honorable Court" and that Congress opens its sessions with prayers, among many other examples. Stewart believed that such practice fit with the nation's long history of permitting free exercise of religious practices, even in the public sphere.He declared the cases consolidated with Schempp as "so fundamentally deficient as to make impossible an informed or responsible determination of the constitutional issues presented"—specifically, of whether the Establishment Clause was violated. As to the intent and scope of the religion clauses of the First Amendment:He stated his agreement with the doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment's embrace and application of the Bill of Rights, but pointed out the irony of such an amendment "designed to leave the States free to go their own way should now have become a restriction upon their autonomy".[10]Other critics of the Court's findings in Abington v. Schempp often quote the following excerpt from Justice Stewart's opinion: Abington School District v. Schempp - Wikipedia[10]What really ENFURIATED THE EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS was That Justice Anthony Kennedy.Anthony McCleod Kennedy was Born July 23, 1936. Served as Associate Justice Of The United States Supreme Court From 1988 till his retirement in 2018. He was Appointed in 1988 By President Ronald Reagan Elected November 1980. Served two terms (Jan 20, 1981 to Jan 20, 1989).KENNEDY DID NOT TURN OUT to be the kind of Conservative Justice on issues they were desperate to undo. Roe v. Wade, he did side with pro life Cases restricting late term abortion. With Homosexuality is where his reputuar and fondness for the concept of liberty would pave the way for Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) making Same Sex (gay/lesbian) marriage law of the land and all Same Sex Marriage Bans ruled unconstitutional by the Equal Protections Clause Of The XIV Amendment. “Equal Protections Under The Law.”No STATE shall deny to any person within it’s JURISDICTION “THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.Full Faith and Credit was also used to side with the plaintiffs in Obergefell v. Hodges.The Full Faith and Credit ClauseArticle IV, Section I.TextArticle IV, Section 1:Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. Full Faith and Credit Clause - WikipediaSO NO nothing in the timing is suspicious to me. What i found Suspicious and ENFURIATING Was Mitch McConnell who REFUSED TO FILL A Supreme Court of The United States SEAT AFTER SCALIA DIED. Merick Garland was LIKED BY BOTH REPS AND DEMS. But it Was Obama God forbid we allow him another pick.I don’t think you’ll find many moderates or liberals who think the timing is fishy.Footnotes[1] Abington School District v. Schempp - Wikipedia[2] Abington School District v. Schempp - Wikipedia