Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
Javascript must be enabled to continue!
The Function of Judiciary towards Harmonizing Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy: An Overview
View through CrossRef
1. Austin, G. (1999). The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a nation. Oxford University Press.
2. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802 (Supreme Court of India 1983).
3. Bhatia, G. (2020). The transformative constitution: A radical biography in nine acts. HarperCollins India.
4. Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras, AIR 1951 SC 226 (Supreme Court of India 1951).
5. Chandra Bhawan Boarding and Lodging, Bangalore v. State of Mysore, AIR 1970 SC 2042 (Supreme Court of India 1969).
6. Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978. (1978). Government of India.
7. Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976. (1976). Government of India.
8. Constitution (Twenty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 1971. (1971). Government of India.
9. Constitution of India, 1950.
10. Consumer Education and Research Centre v. Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42 (Supreme Court of India 1995).
11. Desai, A. (2023). Selective harmonization: Judicial inconsistency in reconciling Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles. Indian Journal of Constitutional Law, 17(2), 145–171.
12. Golak Nath v. State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643 (Supreme Court of India 1967).
13. In Re Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1958 SC 956 (Supreme Court of India 1958).
14. Jain, M. P. (2018). Indian constitutional law (8th ed.). LexisNexis.
15. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 (Supreme Court of India 2017).
16. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 (Supreme Court of India 1973).
17. Krishnan, R., & Iyer, S. (2022). Reading Part IV into Article 21: An empirical study of Directive Principle citation in right-to-life jurisprudence. Journal of Indian Law and Society, 13(1), 55–82.
18. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 (Supreme Court of India 1978).
19. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789 (Supreme Court of India 1980).
20. Mohd. Hanif Qureshi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731 (Supreme Court of India 1958).
21. Nair, P., & Thomas, V. (2024). Privacy, dignity, and the dissolving line between Part III and Part IV: Post-Puttaswamy constitutionalism. National Law School Journal, 22(1), 1–29.
22. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180 (Supreme Court of India 1985).
23. Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal, (1996) 4 SCC 37 (Supreme Court of India 1996).
24. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 458 (Supreme Court of India 1951).
25. Sharma, K., & Verma, N. (2021). Basic structure and the stabilisation of the Fundamental Rights-Directive Principles relationship after Minerva Mills. Constitutional Law Review (India), 9(3), 201–228.
26. Shukla, V. N. (2001). Constitution of India (10th ed.). Eastern Book Company.
27. State of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas, AIR 1976 SC 490 (Supreme Court of India 1975).
Title: The Function of Judiciary towards Harmonizing Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy: An Overview
Description:
1.
Austin, G.
(1999).
The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone of a nation.
Oxford University Press.
2.
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v.
Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 802 (Supreme Court of India 1983).
3.
Bhatia, G.
(2020).
The transformative constitution: A radical biography in nine acts.
HarperCollins India.
4.
Champakam Dorairajan v.
State of Madras, AIR 1951 SC 226 (Supreme Court of India 1951).
5.
Chandra Bhawan Boarding and Lodging, Bangalore v.
State of Mysore, AIR 1970 SC 2042 (Supreme Court of India 1969).
6.
Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978.
(1978).
Government of India.
7.
Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976.
(1976).
Government of India.
8.
Constitution (Twenty-Fifth Amendment) Act, 1971.
(1971).
Government of India.
9.
Constitution of India, 1950.
10.
Consumer Education and Research Centre v.
Union of India, (1995) 3 SCC 42 (Supreme Court of India 1995).
11.
Desai, A.
(2023).
Selective harmonization: Judicial inconsistency in reconciling Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.
Indian Journal of Constitutional Law, 17(2), 145–171.
12.
Golak Nath v.
State of Punjab, AIR 1967 SC 1643 (Supreme Court of India 1967).
13.
In Re Kerala Education Bill, AIR 1958 SC 956 (Supreme Court of India 1958).
14.
Jain, M.
P.
(2018).
Indian constitutional law (8th ed.
).
LexisNexis.
15.
Justice K.
S.
Puttaswamy (Retd.
) v.
Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 (Supreme Court of India 2017).
16.
Kesavananda Bharati v.
State of Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461 (Supreme Court of India 1973).
17.
Krishnan, R.
, & Iyer, S.
(2022).
Reading Part IV into Article 21: An empirical study of Directive Principle citation in right-to-life jurisprudence.
Journal of Indian Law and Society, 13(1), 55–82.
18.
Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 (Supreme Court of India 1978).
19.
Minerva Mills Ltd.
v.
Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789 (Supreme Court of India 1980).
20.
Mohd.
Hanif Qureshi v.
State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731 (Supreme Court of India 1958).
21.
Nair, P.
, & Thomas, V.
(2024).
Privacy, dignity, and the dissolving line between Part III and Part IV: Post-Puttaswamy constitutionalism.
National Law School Journal, 22(1), 1–29.
22.
Olga Tellis v.
Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180 (Supreme Court of India 1985).
23.
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v.
State of West Bengal, (1996) 4 SCC 37 (Supreme Court of India 1996).
24.
Shankari Prasad v.
Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 458 (Supreme Court of India 1951).
25.
Sharma, K.
, & Verma, N.
(2021).
Basic structure and the stabilisation of the Fundamental Rights-Directive Principles relationship after Minerva Mills.
Constitutional Law Review (India), 9(3), 201–228.
26.
Shukla, V.
N.
(2001).
Constitution of India (10th ed.
).
Eastern Book Company.
27.
State of Kerala v.
N.
M.
Thomas, AIR 1976 SC 490 (Supreme Court of India 1975).
Related Results
On the Status of Rights
On the Status of Rights
Photo by Patrick Tomasso on Unsplash
ABSTRACT
In cases where the law conflicts with bioethics, the status of rights must be determined to resolve some of the tensions. ...
Social Rights in Refugee Law and Human Rights Law: The Non-discrimination Principle as a Harmonization Tool
Social Rights in Refugee Law and Human Rights Law: The Non-discrimination Principle as a Harmonization Tool
The European “refugee crisis” of today may lead to tomorrow’s integration difficulties. The large-scale influx of refugees has brought and is bringing many who, unless the situatio...
Autonomy on Trial
Autonomy on Trial
Photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash
Abstract
This paper critically examines how US bioethics and health law conceptualize patient autonomy, contrasting the rights-based, individualist...
Fundamental Rights Adjudication in the Central European Region
Fundamental Rights Adjudication in the Central European Region
The protection and adjudication of fundamental rights have been playing an increasingly important role in the legal systems of Western countries since the end of World War II. Howe...
Responsibilised Resilience? Reworking Neoliberal Social Policy Texts
Responsibilised Resilience? Reworking Neoliberal Social Policy Texts
Introduction This essay begins with the premise that resilience, broadly defined as positive adaptation despite adversity (Garmezy and Rutter), and resilience building are importa...
The Role of the Judiciary in Constitutional Interpretation in Pakistan
The Role of the Judiciary in Constitutional Interpretation in Pakistan
This study examines the evolving role of the judiciary in Pakistan in interpreting the Constitution, exploring how the courts have come to terms with their position as the primary ...
Bioethics-CSR Divide
Bioethics-CSR Divide
Photo by Sean Pollock on Unsplash
ABSTRACT
Bioethics and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) were born out of similar concerns, such as the reaction to scandal and the restraint ...
Piece by piece: Collaborative mosaic-making for inclusive policy development
Piece by piece: Collaborative mosaic-making for inclusive policy development
This report sets out the findings from one of four projects commissioned by Wellcome Policy Lab to pilot creative approaches to policy development. In this project, Scientia Script...