Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Constitution (Forty‑fourth Amendment) Act, 1978

13 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION, ALLAHABADversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2024 INSC 15029 February 2024Reference answered

The Supreme Court was asked to consider whether, under its Article 142 powers, it could issue blanket directions that all interim stays granted by High Courts should automatically lapse after six months and that High Courts must dispose of such cases on a day‑to‑day basis. The Court examined the object of interim order

A. K. ROY, ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

1981 INSC 21028 December 1981Disposed off

The petitioners, including A.K. Roy, challenged the National Security Ordinance, 1980 and the subsequent National Security Act, 1980 on grounds that the President's ordinance‑making power under Article 123 is an executive power and not "law" within the meaning of Article 21, that the provisions of the Act are vague, un

SALABUDDIN MOHAMED YUNUSversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

1984 INSC 18628 September 1984Appeal(s) allowed

S.M. Yunus, a former civil servant of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad who retired in 1956, claimed a pension of Rs 1,000 per month in Indian currency, arguing that his right had vested at retirement. The Andhra Pradesh Government had, by a 1971 notification, retrospectively reduced the maximum pension to Rs 857.15 per

RAM NATH & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA

1984 INSC 9225 April 1984Dismissed

The petitioners, owners of land acquired under the Resettlement of Displaced Persons (Land Acquisition) Act, 1948, challenged two provisos in Section 7(1)(e) that fixed compensation based on the market value as of September 1, 1939 plus 40 percent, arguing that they violated Section 299(2) of the Government of India Ac

THE SOCIETY OF ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGEversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2001 INSC 57320 November 2001Disposed off

The Society of St. Joseph's College, a religious minority educational institution, owned a building that the State sought to acquire under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The college filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking a declaration that Article 30(1A) of the Constitution bars the application of the general

MIZO CHIEF COUNCIL MIZORAM, THR. PRESIDENT SHRI L. CHINZAHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

2026 INSC 23613 March 2026Dismissed

The Mizo Chief Council filed a writ petition under Article 32 on behalf of tribal chieftains alleging that the State had acquired their traditional lands without paying due compensation, violating their fundamental right to property. The petition was filed in 2014, more than six decades after the 1955 notification that

STATE OF U.P.versusTHE UPPER JAMUNA VALLEY ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. LTD. AND ORS.

2000 INSC 32312 May 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh issued a notice under Section 6 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, to acquire the Upper Jamuna Valley Electricity Supply Company's undertaking upon expiry of a 35‑year licence in 1964. In 1975 the Uttar Pradesh government amended Sections 6 and 7‑A of the Act, replacing the market‑value bas

ASSAM SILLIMANITE LIMITED AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1991 INSC 33410 December 1991Dismissed

Assam Sillimanite Ltd., a public company that owned a refractory plant, challenged the Assam Sillimanite Ltd. (Acquisition & Transfer of Refractory Plant) Act, 1976 which vested the plant in the Central Government and fixed a payment of Rs 1,07,17,000. The company argued that the amount was illusory, arbitrary and viol

GLANROCK ESTATE (P) LTD.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

2010 INSC 5899 September 2010Dismissed

The petitioners, Glanrock Estate Ltd., challenged the validity of the Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 (the Janmam Act) after it was placed in the Ninth Schedule by the Constitution (Thirty‑fourth Amendment) Act, 1974. They argued that the Act violated Articles 14, 19 and 300A,

VIDYA DEVIversusTHE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

2020 INSC 238 January 2020Appeal(s) allowed

Vidya Devi, an illiterate widow, had her 3.34‑hectare land taken by the Himachal Pradesh State in 1967‑68 for a road without any acquisition proceeding or compensation. The State later initiated acquisition only for neighbouring owners, leaving her claim unaddressed. Vidya filed a writ petition seeking compensation; th

RAGHUNATHRAO GANPATRAO ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA

1993 INSC 384 February 1993Dismissed

The petitioners, former rulers of Indian princely states, challenged the Constitution (Twenty‑sixth Amendment) Act, 1971 which repealed Articles 291 and 362 and amended Article 366(22), thereby abolishing privy purses and royal privileges. They argued that the amendment violated the basic structure doctrine, exceeded P

BERNARD FRANCIS JOSEPH VAZ AND OTHERSversusGOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

2025 INSC 31 January 2025Disposed off

The appellants purchased residential plots in Bengaluru between 1995 and 1997, which were later acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) under a preliminary notification dated 29 January 2003. Although possession was taken in 2005, no compensation award was made until a Special Land Acquisit

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search