Karnataka High Court in Nigamma v. Chikkaiah held that to decide the question of paternity of a child, no party can be compelled by the Court to undergo medical examination...
In Sunil Batra(I) v. Delhi Administration, the Court emphasized that Article 21 means that “the law must be right, just, fair, and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. Otherwise, it...
The Supreme Court in Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka held that the right to education is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution which cannot be denied...
Article 21 of the Indian constitution in its grammatical form, appears to be negative, but, in reality, it has been given a positive effect by judicial interpretation. The...
The Supreme Court has made a novel use of Article 21 to ensure that the female workers are not sexually harassed by their male co-workers at their places...
In P.Rathinam v. Union of India, it was held by the Supreme Court that a person cannot be forced to enjoy right to life to his detriment, disadvantage or...
In Maneka Gandhi’s case, the Supreme Court laid down a number of propositions seeking to make Article 21 much more meaningful than hitherto. The Court reiterated the proposition...
In Himachal Pradesh v. Raja Mahendra Pal , it was held that the right to livelihood as contemplated under Article 21 of the constitution cannot be so widely constructed which...
