Whether the appointment of the third respondent who was not a Malayala Brahmin, as “Santhikaran” or Poojari (priest) of the Temple in question violated the constitutional and statutory rights of the appellant secured under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution?
Article 25 in The Constitution Of India 1949.
Article 26 in The Constitution Of India 1949.
Whether ananda Marga is a religion or denomination?
Whether tandava dance forms part of essential religious practice of Ananda Marga belief?
Whether prohibitory orders issued were valid?
Article 25 in The Constitution Of India 1949
Article 26 in The Constitution Of India 1949
Whether the expulsion of three children from school for their refusal to sing the national anthem of India was consistent with the constitutional rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion?
The right of free speech and expression also includes the right to remain silent and that standing for the national anthem showed proper respect. The Court ordered the school authorities to readmit the children.
Whether the two Acts were violative of Article 25(1), and (2)?
Whether the State Legislatures were competent to enact them?
The judgment proceeds on two basic postulates, namely, that the right to convert another person is not part of freedom of conscience guaranteed by Article 25(1) and that forcible conversions result in the disturbance of public order.
The constitutional Validity of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993.
Does Article 25, only protect belief and practices of particular significance of a faith or all practices regarded by the faith as essential?
While offer of prayer or worship is a religious practice, its offering at every location where such prayers can be offered would not be a essential or integral part of such religious practice unless the place has a particular significance for that religion so as to form an essential or integral part thereof.
Whether the practice of talaq-e-biddat is an essential practice of Islam?
Whether the practice of triple talaq violates any fundamental rights?
The court held that the meaning of essential religious practices are those based on which the religion finds its base. Only such practices can be protected under Article 25 of the Constitution.
Whether this restriction imposed by the temple authorities violates Articles 15, 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution?
Whether this restriction violates the provisions of Kerala Hindu Place of Public Worship Act, 1965?
Whether the Sabarimala Temple has a denominational character?
The right to practise religion under Article 25(1), in its broad contour, encompasses a non-discriminatory right which is equally available to both men and women of all age groups professing the same religion.
Whether Suit 3 is barred by limitation?
Whether Shebaits have an exclusive right to sue?
Whether Suit 5 can be held to be within limitation on the ground that a deity is a perpetual minor?
The Court altered the Muslims right under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of India said that the Sunni Central Waqf Board failed to establish any exclusive possession but the Hindus established the possession in the outer courtyard by virtue of long, continued and unimpeded worship.
Whether Chapter XX of the UP Police Regulations is constitutionally valid?
Domiciliary visits impact the right to life protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Such a violation can only be justified if it is backed by law.
The infringement of the right to privacy prevents a person from expressing his or her innermost thoughts and is thus, violative of Article 19(1)(a).
Whether the court had the jurisdiction to consider the grievances of prisoners?
What parts of Articles 14, 19 and 21 are guaranteed to a prisoner?
What judicial remedies can be granted to prevent and punish the breach of the rights prisoners are entitled to?
What amendments and changes were required in the Prison Act of 1984 to avoid a breach of the Fundamental Rights of prisoners.
The Supreme Court referred to Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India that grant it the power to intervene and restore the Fundamental Rights of prisoners.
A prisoner still possesses the right to life and liberty and their freedom can only be constrained when there is a clear backing of the law.
Section 56 of the Prison Act is in violation of basic human dignity, thus, it must be trimmed and controlled by the court.
Prisoners must be protected from cruel and unjust punishment, and they must be afforded a minimum standard of living.