Constitution of India - in Hindi, PDF icon Download. Constitution of India - in Urdu , PDF icon Download. Constitution of India - in Diglot Edition (English-Marathi). The language of constitution of India in Marathi is hard. by the way the all versions of constitution are hard to understand because constitution is. Who are all can get the benefits from this भारतीय संविधान (India Constitution) Question and Answers section? Candidates preparing for following marathi.
|Language:||English, Portuguese, French|
|ePub File Size:||26.43 MB|
|PDF File Size:||9.50 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration needed]|
Indian Constitution and Human Rights (Marathi). Conference Paper (PDF Available) · September with 1, Reads. Conference: Human. Read Introduction To The Constitution Of India (Marathi Translation) book reviews Language: Marathi; ISBN ; ISBN Constitution of India (Full Text). All the hyperlinks given in this page opens a Portable Document Format (PDF) file in a new window.
In Apparel Export Promotion Council v. That sexual harassment of a female at the place of work is incompatible with the dignity and honor of a female and needs to be eliminated…. Right to life right to live with human dignity. Right to life, would, therefore, include all those aspects of life that go on to make life meaningful, complete and worth living.
In Bodhisattwa Gautam v. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushed her into deep emotional crises. It is only by her sheer will power that she rehabilitates herself in the society, which, on coming to know of the rape, looks down upon her in derision and contempt.
Rape is, therefore, the most hated crime. It is one of the finer graces of human civilization that makes life worth living. The Supreme Court referring to D. Marion v. Minnie Davis [xiii] in Smt.
Kiran Bedi v. The court affirmed that the right to enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. The court affirmed that the right to enjoyment of private reputation was of ancient origin and was necessary to human society.
Public Concern of Governance Trust [xv] , where the Court held that good reputation was an element of personal security and was protected by the constitution, equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property. It has been held that the right equally covers the reputation of a person during and after his death. Thus, any wrong action of the state or agencies that sullies the reputation of a virtuous person would certainly come under the scope of Art.
In State of U. Mohammaad Naim [xvi] , succinctly laid down the following tests while dealing the question of expunction of disgracing remarks against a person or authority whose conduct comes in consideration before a court of law: whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself. It has also been recognized that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation, and reserve.
In State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani [xvii] , a two-member commission of inquiry appointed to inquire into the communal disturbances in Bhagalpur district on 24th October, , made some remarks in their report, which impinged upon the reputation of the respondent as a public man, without affording him an opportunity of being heard.
The court further said that in case any authority, in the discharge of its duties fastened upon it under the law, transverse into the realm of personal reputation adversely affecting him, it must provide a chance to him to have his say in the matter. The court observed that the principle of natural justice made it incumbent upon the authority to give an opportunity to the person before any comment was made or opinion was expressed which was likely to prejudicially affect that person.
But the language of Art. The Supreme Court in Olga Tellis v. It does not mean, merely that life cannot be extinguished or taken away as, for example, by the imposition and execution of death sentence, except according to procedure established by law. That is but one aspect if the right to life. An equally important facet of the right to life is the right to livelihood because no person can live without the means of livelihood.
But, any person who is deprived of his right to livelihood except according to just and fair procedure established by law can challenge the deprivation as offending the right to life conferred in Article Deprive a person from his right to livelihood and you shall have deprived him of his life [xxii].
What Art. Therefore anyone who is deprived of the right to livelihood without a just and fair procedure established by law can challenge such deprivation as being against Art. Mazdoor Congress [xxiv] , a regulation conferring power on the authority to terminate the services of a permanent and confirm employee by issuing a noticing without assigning him any reasons and without giving him a hearing has been held to be a wholly arbitrary and violative of Art.
Paul Anthony v. Bihar Gold Mines Ltd [xxv]. The Court has emphasized that a government servant does not his right to life and other fundamental rights. However, if a person is deprived of such a right according to procedure established by law which must be fair, just and reasonable and which is in the larger interest of people, the plea of deprivation of the right to livelihood under Art. In, Chameli Singh v.
The Court opined that the state acquires land in exercise of its power of eminent domain for a public purpose. The landowner is paid compensation in lieu of land, and therefore, the plea of deprivation of the right to livelihood under Art. Sivani v. It was, therefore, held that regulation of video games or prohibition of some video games of pure chance or mixed chance and skill are not violative of Article 21 nor is the procedure unreasonable, unfair, or unjust.
The right to life includes the right to livelihood.
Therefore, the right to livelihood cannot hang on to the fancies of the individuals in authority. Even though the petitioner might have been a nuisance to others and conducted themselves either in a disorderly way or unbecoming on their profession but, that in itself, it is not sufficient for the executive to take away their source of livelihood by executive fiat.
New Delhi Municipal Committee [xxix] , the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court distinguished the concept of life and liberty within Art.
Article 21 is not attracted in the case of trade and business. The petitioners, hawkers doing business off the paved roads in Delhi, had claimed that the refusal by the Municipal authorities to them to carry on the business of their livelihood amounted to the violation of their right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court opined that while hawkers have a fundamental right under Article 19 1 g to carry on trade or business of their choice; they have no right to do so in a particular place.
They cannot be permitted to carry on their trade on every road in the city. If the road is not wide enough to be conveniently accommodating the traffic on it, no hawking may be permitted at all or may be permitted once a week. Footpaths, streets or roads are public property and are intended to several general public and are not meant for private use.
However, the court said that the affected persons could apply for relocation and the concerned authorities were to consider the representation and pass orders thereon. The two rights were too remote to be connected together. The court distinguished the ruling in Olga Tellis v. It was not the case of a business of selling articles after investing some capital. Umadevi [xxxi] , the Court rejected that right to employment at the present point of time can be included as a fundamental right under Right to Life under Art.
Right to Shelter In U. Avas Vikas Parishad v. Friends Coop. Housing Society Limited [xxxii] , the right to shelter has been held to be a fundamental right which springs from the right to residence secured in article 19 1 e and the right to life guaranteed by article To make the right meaningful to the poor, the state has to provide facilities and opportunities to build houses [xxxiii].
Upholding the importance of the right to a decent environment and a reasonable accommodation, in Shantistar Builders v.
The difference between the need for an animal and a human being for shelter has to be kept in view. The Constitution aims at ensuring fuller development of every child. That would be possible only if the child is in a proper home. It is not necessary that every citizen must be ensured of living in a well-built comfortable house but a reasonable home, particularly for people in India, can even be a mud-built thatched house or a mud-built fireproof accommodation.
State of U. P [xxxv]. It is however where he has opportunities to grow physically, mentally, intellectually and spiritually. Right to shelter, therefore, includes adequate living space, safe and decent structure, clean and decent surroundings, sufficient light, pure air and water, electricity, sanitation and other civic amenities like roads etc.
Constitution of India
Subhash Chandra Bose [xxxvii] , held that right to social and economic justice is a fundamental right under Art. The learned judge explained that the right to life and dignity of a person and status without means were cosmetic rights. Socio-economic rights were, therefore, basic aspirations for meaning the right to life and that Right to Social Security and Protection of Family were an integral part of the right to life.
State of Arunachal Pradesh [xxxviii] , Chakmas Case , the supreme court said that the State is bound to protect the life and liberty of every human-being, be he a citizen or otherwise, and it cannot permit anybody or group of persons to threaten other person or group of persons.
No State Government worth the name can tolerate such threats by one group of persons to another group of persons; it is duty bound to protect the threatened group from such assaults and if it fails to do so, it will fail to perform its Constitutional as well as statutory obligations. Vishwanath Pande Barde [xxxix] , it was held that right to economic empowerment of poor, disadvantaged and oppressed dalits was a fundamental right to make their right of life and dignity of person meaningful.
Francis De Costa [xl] , the Supreme held that security against sickness and disablement was a fundamental right under Art. Consumer Education and Research Centre [xli] , it was further held that right to life and livelihood included right to life insurance policies of LIC of India, but that it must be within the paying capacity and means of the insured. Right to Health In State of Punjab v. Chawla [xliii] , it has been held that- the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 includes within its ambit the right to health and medical care.
The Supreme Court in Vincent v. Union of India [xliv] , emphasized that a healthy body is the very foundation of all human activities. In Consumer Education and Research Centre v. The health and strength of worker, the court said, was an important facet of right to life. Denial thereof denudes the workmen the finer facets of life violating Art. Union of India [xlvii] , the Supreme Court has very specifically clarified that preservation of life is of paramount importance.
Article 21 casts the obligation on the state to preserve life. It is the obligation of those who are in charge of the health of the community to preserve life so that the innocent may be protected and the guilty may be punished.
No law or state action can intervene to delay and discharge this paramount obligation of the members of the medical profession. The obligation being total, absolute and paramount, laws of procedure whether in statute or otherwise which would interfere with the discharge of this obligation cannot be sustained and must, therefore, give way.
The patient whether he be an innocent person or a criminal liable to punishment under the laws of the society, it is the obligation of those who are in charge of the health of the community to preserve life so that the innocent may be protected and the guilty may be punished. Social laws do not contemplate death by negligence to tantamount to legal punishment….
Every doctor whether at a Government hospital or otherwise has the professional obligation to extend his services with due expertise for protecting life. State of West Bengal [xlix] , a person suffering from serious head injuries from a train accident was refused treatment at various hospitals on the excuse that they lacked the adequate facilities and infrastructure to provide treatment.
In this case, the Supreme Court further developed the right to emergency treatment and went on to state that the failure on the part of the Government hospital to provide timely medical treatment to a person in need of such treatment results in the violation of his right to life guaranteed under Article It acknowledged the limitation of financial resources to give effect to such a right but maintained that it was necessary for the State to provide for the resources to give effect to the entitlement of the people of receiving emergency medical treatment [l].
It has been reiterated, time and again, that there should be no impediment to providing emergency medical care. The court has laid stress on a very crucial point, viz. The state cannot avoid its constitutional obligation to provide adequate medical services to people on account of financial constraints.
But, in State of Punjab v.
Ram Lubhaya Bagga [liii] , the Supreme Court has recognized that provision of health facilities cannot be unlimited. The court held that it has to be to the extent finance permits.
No country has unlimited resources to spend on any of its projects. In Confederation of Ex-servicemen Association v. Union of India [liv] , right to get free and timely legal aid or facilities has been held to be not a fundamental right of ex-servicemen. A policy decision in formulating a contributory scheme for ex-servicemen and asking them to pay one-time contribution does not violate Art. No Right to Die Art.
Does, it also confers a right not to live or a right to die if a person chooses to end his life? If so, what is the fate of Sec. There has been a difference of opinion on the justification of this provision to continue on the statute book. This question came for consideration for the first time before the High Court of Bombay in State of Maharashtra v.
Maruti Sripati Dubal.
Rathinam v. The court argued that the word life in Art. Thus the court concluded that the right to live of which Art. State of Punjab [lvi]. The Court overruled the decision of the Division Bench in the above-stated case and has put an end to the controversy and ruled that Art. In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab [lvii] , the Supreme Court has distinguished between Euthanasia and attempt to commit suicide.
The court held that death due to termination of natural life is certain and imminent and the process of natural death has commenced. These are not cases of extinguishing life but only of accelerating conclusion of the process of natural death that has already commenced.
The court further held that this may fall within the ambit of Right to live with human dignity up to the end of natural life. This may include the right of a dying man to also die with dignity when his life is ebbing out. This cannot be equated with the right to die an unnatural death curtailing the natural span of life. Sentence of death —Rarest of rare cases The issue of abolition or retention of capital punishment was dealt with by the law commission of India.
After collecting as much available material as possible and assessing the views expressed by western scholars, the commission recommended the retention of capital punishment in the present state of the country. The commission held the opinion that having regard to the conditions of India, to the variety of the social upbringing of its inhabitants, to the disparity in the level of morality and education in the country, to the vastness of its area, to the diversity of its population and to the paramount need for maintaining law and order in the country, India could not risk the experiment of abolition of capital punishment.
In Jagmohan v. P [lviii] , the Supreme Court had held that the death penalty was not violative of Articles 14, 19 and It was said that the judge was to make the choice between the death penalty and imprisonment for life on the basis of circumstances, facts, and nature of crime brought on record during trial.
Therefore, the choice of awarding death sentence was done in accordance with the procedure established by law as required under article 21 But, in Rajindera Parsad v. State of Punjab [lx] , the leading case of on the question, a constitution bench of the supreme court explained that article 21 recognized the right of the state to deprive a person of his life in accordance with just, fair and reasonable procedure established by valid law. It was further held that the death penalty for the offense of murder awarded under section of I.
C did not violate the basic feature of the constitution. If anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has right to have recourse to Art. The following are some of the well-known cases on the environment under Article In M.
(Marathi) Constitution of India and All Articles with Amendments
Union of India [lxii] , the Supreme Court ordered the closure of tanneries that were polluting water. Union of India [lxiii] , the Supreme Court issued several guidelines and directions for the protection of the Taj Mahal, an ancient monument, from environmental degradation.
In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India [lxiv] , the Court took cognizance of the environmental problems being caused by tanneries that were polluting the water resources, rivers, canals, underground water, and agricultural land.
The Court issued several directions to deal with the problem. It includes the right to freedom from stray cattle and animals in urban areas. Union of India [lxvi] , the Court held that the blatant and large-scale misuse of residential premises for commercial use in Delhi violated the right to salubrious sand decent environment.
Taking note of the problem the Court issued directives to the Government on the same. Deora v. Union of India [lxvii] , the persons not indulging in smoking cannot be compelled to or subjected to passive smoking on account of the act of smokers.
Right to Life under Article 21 is affected as a non-smoker may become a victim of someone smoking in a public place. Right Against Noise Pollution In Re: Noise Pollution [lxviii] , the case was regarding noise pollution caused by obnoxious levels of noise due to bursting of crackers during Diwali.
bhartiya samvidhan in marathi pdf free download
It guarantees the right of persons to life with human dignity. The human life has its charm and there is no reason why life should not be enjoyed along with all permissible pleasures. Anyone who wishes to live in peace, comfort, and quiet within his house has a right to prevent the noise as pollutant reaching him. Names of the Union Territories and their extent. Second Schedule Provisions relating to the emoluments, allowances, privileges and so on of: 1. The President of India 2.
The Governors of States 3. The Judges of the Supreme Court 8.
The Judges of the High Courts 9. The Union ministers 2.
The candidates for election to the Parliament 3. The members of Parliament 4. The judges of the Supreme Court 5. The Comptroller and Auditor-General of India 6. The state ministers 7. The candidates for election to the state legislature 8. The members of the state legislature 9. Sixth Schedule Provisions relating to the administration of tribal areas in the states of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram.In Bodhisattwa Gautam v.
The police officer shall inform the arrested person when he is brought to the police station of this right. C did not violate the basic feature of the constitution. In the case of Babu Singh v. The learned judge explained that the right to life and dignity of a person and status without means were cosmetic rights. In Prem Shankar v. Ministry of Law and Justice India. P [lviii] , the Supreme Court had held that the death penalty was not violative of Articles 14, 19 and The amendment was introduced and passed in the Lok Sabha on August 7, and again introduced and passed in the Rajya Sabha on August 8,