Whether the provisions of ordinance, contravention with the provisions laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution of India?
Claim under article 14 is dealt with the presumption that actions performed by the state are justified and reasonable.
Whether there was actual damage to the roof of godowns of the firm?
Whether the damage on roofs on godowns of the firm is caused by the military?
Section 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
Articles 14, 20, and 136 of Constitution of India, 1949.
Section 342 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.
Whether Section 377 of IPC violates the Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution?
Whether Section 377 of IPC violates Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19 of the Constitution?
Whether Section 377 of IPC violates the Right to Life with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution?
Whether discrimination based on sexual orientation under Section 377 of IPC violates Article 15 of the Constitution?
Section 377 of IPC
Article 14, Article 19, and Article 21 of the constitution.
Are the provisions under Articles 21, 14, and 19 connected with each other, or are they mutually exclusive?
What is the scope of the phrase “Procedure established by law” in Article 21?
Whether the right to travel abroad resides in Article 21?
Is a legislative law that snatches away the right to life reasonable?
Section 10(3) and section 10(5) of the passport Act.
Article 14, article 19, and article 21 of the constitution.
Whether Section 497 of the IPC read with Section 198(2) of the Cr. P.C violated Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India?
Section 498 of IPC
Section 198(2) of CR.P.C
Whether the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951, which was recently passed by the present provisional Parliament and purports to insert, inter alia, articles 31A And 3lB in the Constitution of India is ultra vires and unconstitutional?
The terms of article 368 are perfectly general and empower Parliament to amend the Constitution without any exception whatever.
Whether making a change in a basic feature of the Constitution can be regarded merely as an amendment or would it be, in effect, rewriting a part of the Constitution; and if the latter, would it be within the purview of Article 368?
Justice Khanna has explained that Fundamental Rights are the key features which have been granted to all the citizen of the Country, before the proposition of the basic structure, any part of the Constitution inclusive of Fundamental Rights were amenable by the Parliament through Article 368 of the Constitution of India. The Constitution of India has basic features, this concept was first theorised in the year 1964 by Justice J.R. Mudholkar in this case. He mentioned that it is matter for consideration that making a change in a basic feature of the Constitution of India can be regarded merely as an amendment or would it be, in effect, rewriting a part of the Constitution; and if the latter, would it be within the purview of Article 368.
Whether the parliament has the absolute power and the power to amend the fundamental rights enshrined under the constitution or not?
The court held that Parliament could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution.
Whether the 24th Constitutional (Amendment), Act 1971 is Constitutionally valid or not?
Whether the 25th Constitutional (Amendment), Act 1972 is Constitutionally valid or not?
The extent to which the Parliament can exercise its power to amend the Constitution?
The Parliament has an unlimited power to amend the Constitution subject to the sole condition that such amendments must not change the basic structure of the Constitution.
Whether the settlement made under section 8A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947is valid?
Can a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution be waived?
Under section 5(1) of the Investigation Act which has already been held unconstitutional then the settlement under section 8A could not be enforced, for the foundation of the proceedings under section 8A was the reference under section 5(1) and the very foundation for the report of the Investigation Commission has disappeared and settlement can neither be valid, nor it can be enforced?
Waiver of a right means relinquishment of that right by the individual. A Constitution Bench of five judges of the Supreme Court in Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi and Rajasthan, AIR 1959 SC 149 held that Fundamental Rights cannot be waived.