Whether CSIR was a State within the meaning of Article 12?
If in the light of the cumulative facts as established, the body is financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of the Government, such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive.
Whether Writ Petition against Board of Control for Cricket in India is maintainable?
Whether Board is a State within meaning of Art.12?
Article 12 specifies that the State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.
Whether an aggrieved person is entitled to any relief against a final judgment or order of the Supreme Court, after dismissal of Review Petition, either under Article 32 or otherwise?
Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 mandates that in case of divorce by mutual consent, there has to be a composite period of 18 months of separation — one year provided in Section 13B and, six months in Section 13B.
Whether or not BCCI was ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and if not, whether it was amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
Whether or not Amendment to Rule 6.2.4 of IPL regulations was, to the extent it permitted administrators to have commercial interest in the IPL, Champions League and Twenty-20 events, illegal.
Article 12 specifies that the State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.
Whether a "Deemed University" that imparts education can be considered as a "State" against whom writ jurisdiction may be exercised?
Part III of the Constitution confers fundamental rights to individuals that are integral and cannot be taken away by any State action. Nonetheless, these rights come with a catch, i.e., they can be availed only against a State and not private individuals. For the purposes of Part III, the term “State” has been defined under Article 12 and includes the Central Government, Parliament, State legislature, all local and other authorities.
Whether on and after 24.4.1973 (Date of the judgment in Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala when the basic structure doctrine was propounded, is it permissible for the parliament under Article 31-B to immunize legislations by inserting them into the ninth schedule and thus outside the purview of the courts and, if so, what was its effect on the power of judicial review of the court?
It is the court that is to decide if this interference is justified and if does or does not amount to violation of the basic structure. As stated, the role of the court is “determination by court whether invasion was necessary and if so to what extent”.
Whether the reasons for setting up the NTT, were fallacious and non-existent or not?
Whether the act violates principles of Separation of powers, the rule of law, and judicial review, constitute amongst others, the basic structure of the Constitution?
Whether the Act is unconstitutional or not?
Articles 225, 226, 227, 323B of the constitution of India