Follow Us ЁЯСЗ

Sticky

рддрдд्рд╕рдо рдФрд░ рддрдж्рднрд╡ рд╢рдм्рдж рдХी рдкрд░िрднाрд╖ा,рдкрд╣рдЪाрдирдиे рдХे рдиिрдпрдо рдФрд░ рдЙрджрд╣ाрд░рдг - Tatsam Tadbhav

рддрдд्рд╕рдо рд╢рдм्рдж (Tatsam Shabd) : рддрдд्рд╕рдо рджो рд╢рдм्рджों рд╕े рдоिрд▓рдХрд░ рдмрдиा рд╣ै – рддрдд +рд╕рдо , рдЬिрд╕рдХा рдЕрд░्рде рд╣ोрддा рд╣ै рдЬ्рдпों рдХा рдд्рдпों। рдЬिрди рд╢рдм्рджों рдХो рд╕ंрд╕्рдХृрдд рд╕े рдмिрдиा...

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS ON PERSONAL LIBERTY

-Hadiya Judgement 2017
Matters of dress and of food, of ideas and ideologies, of love and partnership are within the central aspects of identity. Neither the State nor the law can dictate a choice of partners or limit the free ability of every person to decide on these matters.

-K.S. Puttuswamy or ‘privacy’ Judgment 2017
Autonomy of the individual was the ability to make decisions in vital matters of concern to life.

-Lata Singh Case 1994
The apex court held that India is going through a “crucial transformational period” and the “Constitution will remain strong only if we accept the plurality and diversity of our culture”.
Relatives disgruntled by the inter-religious marriage of a loved one could opt to “cut off social relations” rather than resort to violence or harassment.

-Soni Gerry case, 2018:
The SC warned judges from playing “super-guardians”, succumbing to “any kind of sentiment of the mother or the egotism of the father”.

-Salamat Ansari-Priyanka Kharwar case of Allahabad High Court 2020
The right to choose a partner or live with a person of choice was part of a citizen’s fundamental right to life and liberty (Article 21).
It also held that earlier court rulings upholding the idea of religious conversion for marriage as unacceptable are not good in law.


0 comments: