Question
The Supreme Court in which case directed all the States
and Union Territories to consider the ‘plight of acid attack victims and take appropriate steps regarding inclusion of their names under the disability list:Solution
The Supreme Court of India, in its landmark judgment in Parivartan Kendra v. Union of India (2016), directed all the States and Union Territories to consider the plight of acid attack victims and take appropriate steps regarding inclusion of their names under the disability list. The judgment was passed by a bench of Justices M.Y. Eqbal and C. Nagappan on March 10, 2016. The Court directed the States and Union Territories to provide medical and rehabilitation facilities to the acid attack victims, and to ensure that they are given adequate compensation. The Court also directed the States and Union Territories to frame schemes for providing free treatment, including surgeries, to the acid attack victims, and to take steps to prevent such attacks in the future. The Devidas v. State of Maharashtra case is related to the use of offensive language against historical figures in literary works. The case involved a writer who had used vulgar and obscene language against Mahatma Gandhi in his book. The author argued that his work was a work of fiction and that he had the right to artistic freedom. However, the Supreme Court of India, in its landmark judgment, held that the use of vulgar and obscene language against historical figures, especially those who are universally respected, cannot be justified in the name of artistic freedom. The Court held that such works may be considered offensive and may hurt the sentiments of a large section of the society. The judgment is popularly known as the "Gandhi Judgement" and has significant implications for the use of offensive language against historical figures in literary works. PUCL v. Union of India is a landmark case related to the right to privacy in India. The case was filed by the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and other civil rights organizations challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar card scheme, which was introduced by the government of India in 2009 to provide a unique identification number to every Indian resident. In its judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar scheme, but struck down several provisions that violated the right to privacy of citizens. The Court held that the collection of personal information under the Aadhaar scheme should be voluntary, and that citizens could not be denied services or benefits for lack of an Aadhaar card.
- The mean proportional of 18 and 2 is _____.
The price of sugar is increased by 15%. If the expenditure is not allowed to increase, the ratio between the reduction in consumption and the original c...
The ratio of number of boys to number of girls of a class was 2:5. If 4 girls were absent, the ratio becomes 3:7. Find total number of students in the c...
In a collection of coins consisting of 20-paise, 25-paise, and 50-paise denominations, the coins are present in a ratio of 45:32:14. The combined value ...
In a company with 800 employees, the average age of male employees is 42 years and that of female employees is 41 years. If the average age of all the e...
The ratio of the incomes of Vineet and Vidya is 10:7 respectively. Vineet saves 30% of his income while Vidya saves 20% of his income. The sum of their ...
Mahika distributed 800 chocolates among A, B and C. A got 50% more chocolates than B and 60% less chocolates than C. How many chocolates did C receive? ...
The mean proportion of 289 and 144 is:
In a college the ratio of boys and girls are in the ratio 3:4. 40% girls and 20% boys were absent. Find the girls present if the total number of student...
In a class of 355 students, 255 are girls and remaining are boys. Among boys, the ratio of number of boys who are wearing caps to those who are not wear...