Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

Which of the following judgments was not over-ruled by the judgment in K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1?

Which of the following judgments was not over-ruled by the judgment in K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1? Correct Answer Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1975) 2 SCC 148

Related Questions

In P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 394 the Supreme Court held Section 309 Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional. Was this judgment overruled and if so in which case?
The Seven Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India in PradeepKumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, 2002 (5) SCC 111 overruled its judgments in the case of
Consider the following judgments of the Supreme Court which dealt with the appointment and transfer of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts:
1. S. P. Gupta v. Union of India
2. Sankal Chand Seth v. Union of India
3. In re Special Reference No. 1 of 1998
4. Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India
Which one of the following is the correct chronological order in which the above judgments were delivered?
Which of the following observations on fundamental rights was made by the Supreme Court in K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India?
1. There is no overlap between rights enumerated under Article 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. The constitutional values embodied under every Article of Part III of the Constitution of India animates the interpretation of the other.
3. Only Article 21 contains residue of fundamental rights that are not expressly stipulated under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
Choose the correct option from below:
Consider the following judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of India in:
1. Keshvananda Bharati v. State of Kerala
2. Re Berubari
3. Excel Wear v. Union of India
The correct chronological sequence of the above judgments is:
Mention the chronology of the following judgments of the Supreme Court of India, starting from the earliest upto the latest case. Use the code given below:
1. Akhil Bhartiya Shoshit Karamchari Sangh v. Union of India
2. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
3. M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore
4. A. I. I. M. S. Students' Union v. A. I. I. M. S.
Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) was decided by-
Which of the following reasons led to the setting aside of the practice of 'talaqe- biddat', triple talaq in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1?
(1) Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 was a pre-constitutional legislation within the meaning of Article 13(1) and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground of arbitrariness.
(2) Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 was a pre-constitutional legislation within the meaning of Article 13(1) and violative of Article 15 of the Constitution of India, being discriminatory.
(3) Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 is not a law regulating triple talaq but the practice of triple talaq was against the basic tenets of the Holy Quran and no practice against the tenets of Quran was permissible.
(4) 'Talaq-e-biddat' is integral to the religious denomination but the Supreme Court may injunct this practice as a means for severing matrimonial relationship.
Which of the following statements is/are correct with regard to 'absolute liability' principle laid down in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India. Answer by using the below:
(1) The principle was approved except as to quantum of damages in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India
(2) The principle in determining compensation was applied in Union Carbide Corporation v. Union of India
(3) The compensation to be awarded must have some broad correlation not only with magnitude and capacity of the enterprise but also with the harm caused by it was held in Deepak Nitrite v. State of Gujarat
(4) The principle is not followed in India because Parliament could not yet pass Public Liability Insurance Bill, 1991
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court passes judgment in a matter. In a later case before a high court, a party presents the Supreme Court judgment as a binding authority. The opposing party claims that the high court is not bound by the Supreme Court's judgment because relevant provisions of law were not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court in that case. Which of the following is most correct in this case?
Principle: Article 141 of the Constitution provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India.