Category:Pages with reference errors
A sodomy law is a law that defines certain sexual acts as crimes. The precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy are rarely spelled out in the law, but are typically understood by courts to include any sexual act deemed to be unnatural or immoral. Sodomy typically includes anal sex, oral sex, and bestiality. In practice, sodomy laws have rarely been enforced against heterosexual couples, and have mostly been used to target homosexuals. As of July 2020, 68 countries as well as five sub-national jurisdictions[a] have laws criminalizing homosexuality. In 2006 that number was 92. Among these 68 countries, 43 criminalize not only male homosexuality but also female homosexuality. In 11 of them, homosexuality is punished with the death penalty.
In 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed an LGBT rights resolution, which was followed up by a report published by the UN Human Rights Commissioner which included scrutiny of the mentioned codes. History
Colin Talley argues that the sodomy statutes in colonial America in the 17th century were largely unenforced. The reason he argues is that male-male eroticism did not threaten the social structure or challenge the gendered division of labor or the patriarchal ownership of wealth. There were gay men on General Washington's staff and among the leaders of the new republic, even though in Virginia there was a maximum penalty of death on Sodomy. In 1779, Thomas Jefferson tried to reduce the maximum punishment to castration. It was rejected by the Virginia legislature.
Prior to 1962, sodomy was a felony in every state, punished by a lengthy term of imprisonment and/or hard labor. In that year, the Model Penal Code (MPC) — developed by the American Law Institute to promote uniformity among the states as they modernized their statutes — struck a compromise that removed consensual sodomy from its criminal code while making it a crime to solicit for sodomy. In 1962 Illinois adopted the recommendations of the Model Penal Code and thus became the first state to remove criminal penalties for consensual sodomy from its criminal code, almost a decade before any other state. Over the years, many of the states that did not repeal their sodomy laws had enacted legislation reducing the penalty. At the time of the Lawrence decision in 2003, the penalty for violating a sodomy law varied very widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction among those states retaining their sodomy laws. The harshest penalties were in Idaho, where a person convicted of sodomy could earn a life sentence. Michigan followed, with a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment while repeat offenders got life
By 2002, 36 states had repealed their sodomy laws or their courts had overturned them. By the time of the 2003 Supreme Court decision, the laws in most states were no longer enforced or were enforced very selectively. The continued existence of these rarely enforced laws on the statute books, however, are often cited as justification for discrimination against gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals.
On June 26, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6–3 decision in Lawrence v. Texas struck down the Texas same-sex sodomy law, ruling that this private sexual conduct is protected by the liberty rights implicit in the due process clause of the United States Constitution. This decision invalidated all state sodomy laws insofar as they applied to noncommercial conduct in private between consenting civilians and reversed the Court's 1986 ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick that upheld Georgia's sodomy law.
Before that 2003 ruling, 27 states, the District of Columbia, and 4 territories had repealed their sodomy laws by legislative action, 9 states had had them overturned or invalidated by state court action, 4 states still had same-sex sodomy laws, and 10 states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. military had laws applying to all regardless of gender. In 2005 Puerto Rico repealed its sodomy law, and in 2006 Missouri repealed its law against "homosexual conduct". In 2013, Montana removed "sexual contact or sexual intercourse between two persons of the same sex" from its definition of deviate sexual conduct, Virginia repealed its lewd and lascivious cohabitation statute, and sodomy was legalized in the US armed forces.
In 2005, basing its decision on Lawrence, the Supreme Court of Virginia in Martin v. Ziherl invalidated § 18.2-344, the Virginia statute making fornication between unmarried persons a crime.
Louisiana's statutes still include "unnatural carnal copulation by a human being with another of the same sex" in their definition of "crimes against nature", punishable (in theory) by a fine of up to $2,000 or a prison sentence of up to five years, with or without hard labor; however, this section was further mooted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 2005 in light of the Lawrence decision. In State v. Whiteley (2005), the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that the crime against nature statute, N.C. G.S. § 14-177, is not unconstitutional on its face because it may properly be used to criminalize sexual conduct involving minors, non-consensual or coercive conduct, public conduct, and prostitution.
On January 31, 2013, the Senate of Virginia passed a bill repealing § 18.2-345, the lewd and lascivious cohabitation statute enacted in 1877. On February 20, 2013, the Virginia House of Delegates passed the bill by a vote of 62 to 25 votes. On March 20, 2013, Governor Bob McDonnell signed the repeal of the lewd and lascivious cohabitation statute from the Code of Virginia.
On March 12, 2013, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit struck down § 18.2-361, the crimes against nature statute. On March 26, 2013, Attorney General of Virginia Ken Cuccinelli filed a petition to have the case reheard en banc, but the Court denied the request on April 10, 2013, with none of its 15 judges supporting the request. On June 25, Cuccinelli filed a petition for certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals decision, which was rejected on October 7.
On February 7, 2014, the Virginia Senate voted 40-0 in favor of revising the crimes against nature statue to remove the ban on same-sex sexual relationships. On March 6, 2014, the Virginia House of Delegates voted 100-0 in favor of the bill. On April 7, the Governor submitted slightly different version of the bill. It was enacted by the Legislature on April 23, 2014. The law took effect upon passage.
In April 2014, a proposed Louisiana bill sought to revise the state's crime against nature law, maintaining the existing prohibition against sodomy during the commission of rape and child sex abuse, and against sex with animals, but removing the unconstitutional prohibition against sex between consenting adults. The bill was defeated on April 15, 2014 by a vote of 66 to 27.
Utah voted to revise its sodomy laws to include only forcible sodomy and sodomy on children rather than any sexual relations between consenting adults on February 26, 2019. Governor Gary Herbert signed the bill into law on March 26, 2019.
On May 23, 2019, the Alabama House of Representatives passed, with 101 voting yea and 3 absent, Alabama Senate Bill 320, which repeals the ban on "deviate sexual intercourse". On May 28, 2019, the Alabama State Senate passed Alabama Senate Bill 320, with 32 yea and 3 absent. The bill took effect on September 1, 2019.
As of October 1, 2020, 15 states either have not yet formally repealed their laws against sexual activity among consenting adults or have not revised them to accurately reflect their true scope in the aftermath of Lawrence v. Texas. Often, the sodomy law was drafted to also encompass other forms of sexual conduct such as bestiality, and no attempt has subsequently succeeded in separating them. Eleven states' statutes purport to ban all forms of sodomy, some including oral intercourse, regardless of the participants' genders: Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma and South Carolina. Three states specifically target their statutes at same-sex relations only: Kansas, Kentucky, and Texas.
Maryland voted to repeal its sodomy law on March 18, 2020. The bill became law in May 2020 without the signature of Governor Larry Hogan. While the original text of the bill intended to repeal both the state's sodomy law and unnatural or perverted sexual practice law, amendments from the Maryland Senate urged to solely repeal the sodomy law.
Federal law Sodomy laws in the United States were largely a matter of state rather than federal jurisdiction, except for laws governing the District of Columbia and the U.S. Armed Forces.
District of Columbia In 1801, Congress enacted the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801 that continued all criminal laws of Maryland and Virginia in the now formally structured District, with those of Maryland applying to that portion of the District ceded from Maryland, and those of Virginia applying to that portion ceded from Virginia. At the time, Maryland had a sodomy law applicable only to free males with a punishment of "labour for any time, in their discretion, not exceeding seven years for the same crime, on the public roads of the said county, or in making, repairing or cleaning the streets or bason [sic] of Baltimore-town" and the death penalty for slaves committing sodomy, while Virginia had a penalty of 1–10 years for free persons committing sodomy, but had the death penalty for slaves committing sodomy. The law went into effect on February 27, 1801.
In 1831, Congress established penalties in the District of Columbia for a number of crimes, but not for sodomy. It specified that "every other felony, misdemeanor, or offence not provided for by this act, may and shall be punished as heretofore[.]" At the time, Maryland and Virginia had a penalty of 1–10 years for committing sodomy. It went into effect on March 2, 1831.
In 1892, Congress passed a law for the District of Columbia that states that "for the preservation of the public peace and the protection of property within the District of Columbia." Labeled in the law as vagrants were "all public prostitutes, and all such persons who lead a notoriously lewd or lascivious course of life[.]" All offenders had to post bond of up to $200 for good behavior for a period of six months. The law went into effect on July 29, 1892.
In 1898, Congress deleted the word "notoriously" from the provision concerning a lewd or lascivious course of life, thereby allowing prosecution of those without notoriety. The bond for good behavior was raised to $500, and the law was made clearly gender-neutral. The law went into effect on July 8, 1898.
In 1901, Congress adopting a new code for the District of Columbia that expressly recognized common-law crimes, with a penalty for them of up to five years and/or a $1,000 fine. The law went into effect on March 3, 1901.
In 1935, Congress passed a law for the District of Columbia that made it a crime for "any person to invite, entice, persuade, or to address for the purpose of inviting, enticing, or persuading any person or persons...to accompany, to go with, to follow him or her to his or her residence, or to any other house or building, inclosure, or other place, for the purpose of prostitution, or any other immoral or lewd purpose." It imposed a fine of up to $100, up to 90 days in jail, and courts were permitted to "impose conditions" on anyone convicted under this law, including "medical and mental examination, diagnosis and treatment by proper public health and welfare authorities, and such other terms and conditions as the court may deem best for the protection of the community and the punishment, control, and rehabilitation of the defendant." The law went into effect on August 14, 1935. In 1941, Congress enacted a new solicitation law for the District of Columbia that labeled a "vagrant" any person who "engages in or commits acts of fornication or perversion for hire." The law went into effect on December 17, 1941.
In 1948, Congress enacted the first sodomy law in the District of Columbia, which established a penalty of up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $1,000 for sodomy. Also included with this sodomy law was a psychopathic offender law and a law "to provide for the treatment of sexual psychopaths in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes." The law went into effect on June 9, 1948.
In 1953, Congress changed the solicitation law in the District of Columbia so that the jail term of up to 90 days was retained, but the maximum fine was raised to $250, and the reference to the power of judges to "impose conditions" on the defendant was removed. The law went into effect on June 29, 1953. In 1981, after the District of Columbia regained home rule from Congress, it enacted a law that repealed the sodomy law, as well as other consensual acts, and made the sexual assault laws gender-neutral. However, the U.S. House exercised the power that it retained to veto laws passed by the District of Columbia Council. On October 1, 1981, the House voted 281-119 to disallow the new law. In 1983, one of the House vetoes by Congress was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, but the law was repealed by an act of Congress in a revision to the home-rule law required by the Supreme Court decision. Repeal
In 1993, the District of Columbia passed a law repealing the sodomy law, but this time Congress did not interfere and allowed the law to go into effect.
Main article: Section 839(a) of title 10 United States Code § 925 - Article 125. Although the U.S. military discharged soldiers for homosexual acts throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth century, U.S. military law did not expressly prohibit homosexuality or homosexual conduct until February 4, 1921. On March 1, 1917, the Articles of War of 1916 were implemented. This included a revision of the Articles of War of 1806, the new regulations detail statutes governing U.S. military discipline and justice. Under the category Miscellaneous Crimes and Offences, Article 93 states that any person subject to military law who commits "assault with intent to commit sodomy" shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. On June 4, 1920, Congress modified Article 93 of the Articles of War of 1916. It was changed to make the act of sodomy itself a crime, separate from the offense of assault with intent to commit sodomy. It went into effect on February 4, 1921. On May 5, 1950, the UCMJ was passed by Congress and was signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on May 31, 1951. Article 125 forbids sodomy among all military personnel, defining it as "any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offence. As for the U.S. Armed Forces, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has ruled that the Lawrence v. Texas decision applies to Article 125, severely narrowing the previous ban on sodomy. In both United States v. Stirewalt and United States v. Marcum, the court ruled that the "conduct [consensual sodomy] falls within the liberty interest identified by the Supreme Court," but went on to say that despite the application of Lawrence to the military, Article 125 can still be upheld in cases where there are "factors unique to the military environment" that would place the conduct "outside any protected liberty interest recognized in Lawrence." Examples of such factors include rape, fraternization, public sexual behavior, or any other factors that would adversely affect good order and discipline. Convictions for consensual sodomy have been overturned in military courts under Lawrence in both United States v. Meno and United States v. Bullock.
Pages in category "Pages with reference errors"
The following 200 pages are in this category, out of 1,724 total.(previous page) (next page)
- 5 Types of Adultery You Probably Didn
- 50. The President
- 50. What does the writ of Habeas Corpus mean?
- 51. The Chairman and members of State Public Service Commission are appointed by the
- 52. When a State Governor dies or resigns, who normally exercises his functions till a new Governor is appointed ?
- A brief analysis of Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 of The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973
- A Brief Overview Of Life Imprisonment
- A Deviance from Stated Procedures
- A Elucidate Study on Issue and Challenge In Triple Talaq At Present Scenario And Global Perspective
- A New Education Policy for a New India
- A. HAMSAVENI V. STATE OF T.N (1994) INSC 411; 1994 (6) SCC 51; 1994 (4) JT 651; 1994 (3) SCALE 656 (3 August 1994)
- A.ABDUL KAFFAR V. STATE OF KERALA (2003) INSC 671 (18 December 2003)
- A.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS V. SARADA FERRO ALLOYS LTD. (1993) INSC 105; AIR 1993 SC 1521; 1993 (2) SCR 114; 1993 (2) SCC 425; 1993 Suppl.JT 37; 1993 (1) SCALE 712 (25 February 1993)
- A.S. SASTRY V. CHIEF COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX AND ORS (2007) INSC 306 (20 March 2007)
- Ab initio prep.
- ABBAS KHAN v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS (2009) INSC 66 (14 January 2009)
- Abducted Persons (Recovery And Restoration) Act, 1949
- ABDUL GHANI V. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR (1970) INSC 256; AIR 1971 SC 1217; 1971 (3) SCR 275; 1971 (3) SCC 225 (18 December 1970)
- ABDUL WAHAB K. v. THE STATE OF KERALA (2018) INSC 765 (13 September 2018)
- Abetment to Suicide an offence under Section 306 of Indian penal Code(IPC) 1860
- Abhiket anand
- Abhinav sharma
- Accept vs except
- Acceptance by Telephone
- Access To Justice
- Act, Omission
- Active judge
- ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX GUJARAT, AHMEDABAD V. SURAT ART SILK CLOTH MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, SURAT (1979) INSC 244; AIR 1980 SC 387; 1980 (2) SCR 77; 1980 (2) SCC 31 (19 November 1979)
- Additional Duties Of Excise (Textiles And Textile Articles) Act, 1978
- ADHYAATMAM BHAAMINI V. JAGDISH AMBALAL SHAH (1997) INSC 126 (5 February 1997)
- Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO)
- Administrators General (Amendment) Act, 2012
- Adoption-Legal and Welfare Perspectives
- Adversary proceeding
- Adverse Possession Boon or Curse
- Advocate To Be A Gentleman, Honest, Principled And Obedient To Safeguard The Reputation Of This Profession
- AFSPA and Human Right
- AGRAWAL TRADING CORPORATION AND ORS V. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND ORS (1972) INSC 14; AIR 1972 SC 648; 1972 (3) SCR 85; 1972 (1) SCC 553 (17 January 1972)
- Agricultural And Processed Food Products Export Cess Act, 1986
- AHMADASAHAB ABDUL MULLA (D) BY PROPOSED LRS v. BIBIJAN AND ORS (2008) INSC 664 (21 April 2008)
- AI CHAMPDAY INDUSTRIES LTD. v. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR AND ANR. (2009) INSC 368 (19 February 2009)
- AIR INDIA LTD. v. JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) LTD. AND ORS. (2009) INSC 1204 (14 July 2009)
- Airports Authority Of India (Manner Of Service Of Notice On Unauthorized Occupant) Rules, 2004
- Airports Authority Of India Act, 1994
- AIZAZ AND ORS. v. STATE OF U.P. (2008) INSC 1347 (12 August 2008)
- AJIT DODAGOUDA PATIL v. SUNDERAM FINANCE LTD. (2008) INSC 1324 (7 August 2008)
- AJIT SINGH AND ORS V. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS (1999) INSC 345 (16 September 1999)
- AJITH K. v. ANEESH K.S. (2019) INSC 857 (21 August 2019)
- AKMAL AHMAD V. STATE OF DELHI (1999) INSC 99 (24 March 1999)
- All about CSR and its implications
- ALL BENGAL EXCISE LICENSEES ASSOCIATION V. RAGHABENDRA SINGH AND ORS (2007) INSC 264 (9 March 2007)
- All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968
- All India Services, (Provident Fund) Rules, 1955
- ALPIC FINANCE LTD. V. P. SADASIVAN AND ANR (2001) INSC 87 (16 February 2001)
- Alternate juror
- Alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
- AMALESH CHANDRA CHAKRABORTY AND ORS V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS (1995) INSC 279; AIR 1996 SC 612; 1995 (3) Suppl.SCC 105; 1995 (3) SCALE 595 (10 May 1995)
- AMAR SINGH AND ANR V. ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS (1988) INSC 234; AIR 1988 SC 2020; 1988 (2) Suppl.SCR 524; 1988 (4) SCC 143; 1988 (3) JT 638; 1988 (2) SCALE 365 (19 August 1988)
- AMARJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA V. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS (1974) INSC 280; AIR 1975 SC 984; 1975 (3) SCR 82; 1975 (3) SCC 503 (20 December 1974)
- AMBA LAL V. THE UNION OF INDIA
- AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISESLTD.AND ORS V. PRAKASH CHANDRA ARYA (1996) INSC 1634 (18 December 1996)
- AMBIKA SAVAARIA AND ORS. v. SANJAY SHARMA AND ORS. (2016) INSC 560 (9 August 2016)
- Ambit of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946
- Amendment masquerades as law
- Amendment, Revision and Modification of Treaties
- Amicus curiae
- AMIT KUMAR AND ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB (2010) INSC 624 (12 August 2010)
- AMITABHA DASGUPTA v. UNITED BANK OF INDIA (2021) INSC 97 (19 February 2021)
- AMIYA BALA PAUL V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SHILLONG (2003) INSC 282 (7 July 2003)
- Amritsar Oil Works (Acquisition And Transfer Of Undertakings) Rules, 1984
- An Outlook Of Vivad Se Vishwas Bill
- An Overview on Anti-Hijacking Act
- Analysis of K Naina Mohammed v/s AM Vasudevan Chettiar
- ANAND KUMAR V. SRI KATTALI BHASKARAN AND ORS (1988) INSC 16; 1988 (2) SCR 728; 1988 (2) SCC 50; 1988 (1) JT 154; 1988 (1) SCALE 120 (19 January 1988)
- ANDERSON WRIGHT LTD. V. MORAN AND COMPANY (1951) INSC 50; AIR 1955 SC 53; 1955 (1) SCR 862 (1 November 1951)
- ANDHRA BANK AND ANR. v. N.V.CHOUDARY (2011) INSC 791 (29 August 2011)
- Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Jagirdars Debt Settlement Act, 1952
- Andhra Pradesh Children Act, 1979
- Andhra Pradesh Forest Offences (Compounding And Prosecution) Rules, 1969
- Andhra Pradesh Municipal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001
- Andhra Pradesh Mutually Aided Co-Operative Societies Act, 1995
- Andhra Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1985
- Andhra Pradesh State Reorganisation Act, 2014- Section 29. Amendment of Scheduled Tribes Order
- ANIL KUMAR GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. (2016) INSC 473 (5 July 2016)
- ANIRUDH KUMAR v. MUNICIPAL CORP. OF DELHI AND ORS. (2015) INSC 234 (20 March 2015)
- ANUKUL CHANDRA PRADHAN V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS (1996) INSC 1254 (7 October 1996)
- ANUPAL SINGH v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT (2019) INSC 1018 (30 September 2019)
- APM TERMINALS B.V. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. (2011) INSC 492 (11 May 2011)
- APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL V. A.K. CHOPRA (1999) INSC 7 (20 January 1999)
- Appellate Tribunal For Forfeited Property (Procedure) Rules, 1989
- Apples (Grading And Marking) Rules, 1984
- Applying Victimology to Covid-19 Lockdown
- Apprenticeship Rules, 1991
- Appropriation (No. 2) Act, 2008
- APS FOREX SERVICES PVT LTD v. SHAKTI INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS (2020) INSC 163 (14 February 2020)
- Arbitration and IPR Disputes
- Arbitration Service 1981 AC 424 464
- Are Virtual Courts Here To Stay?
- Are we moving towards Modern Slavery?
- AREGISTRAR OF FIRMS, SOCIETIES AND CHITS, UTIAR PRADESH V. SECURED INVESTMENT COMPANY, LUCKNOW AND ANR (1987) INSC 382; AIR 1988 SC 492; 1988 (2) SCR 456; 1988 Suppl.SCC 248; 1987 (2) SCALE 1423 (17 December 1987)
- Armed Forces (Jammu And Kashmir) Special Powers Act, 1990
- Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act
- Armed Forces Punjab And Chandigarh) Special Powers Act, 1983
- Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019
- Article 142 to the Rescue
- ARTICLE 20
- Article 23 -Forced Labour
- ARTICLE 245 ( The Constitution of India )
- Article 263 (The Indian Constitution)
- Article 315
- Article 321 Power to extend functions of Public Service Commissions
- Article 339(2)
- ARTICLE 351: DIRECTIVE FOR DEVOLPMENT OF HINDI AS NSTIONAL LANGUAGE
- Article 63 of Constitution of India
- ARTICLE 97 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
- Article III judge
- Article on Evaluation of Epidemic Diseases Act,1897
- ARUMUGAM v. STATE REP.BY INSP.OF POLICE (2012) INSC 394 (24 July 2012)
- Arun Bhakta @ Thulu vs State Of West Bengal on 5 December, 2008
- ARUN CHANDRA DAS MAZUMDAR v. ABDUL NOOR BARBHUIYA (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS (2008) INSC 292 (26 February 2008)
- ARUN KUMAR NAYAK V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS (2006) INSC 600 (20 September 2006)
- ASHARFI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2017) INSC 998 (8 December 2017)
- ASHISH SARAF v. BHUVAN MADAN (2021) INSC 507 (27 September 2021)
- ASHOK KUMAR ALIAS GOLU V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS (1991) INSC 146; 1991 (2) SCR 858; 1991 (3) SCC 498; 1991 (3) JT 46; 1991 (2) SCALE 17 (10 July 1991)
- ASHOK KUMAR DAS AND ORS. v. UNIVERSITY OF BURDWAN AND ORS. (2010) INSC 190 (16 March 2010)
- ASHOK NAGAR WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANR V. R.K. SHARMA AND ORS (2001) INSC 655 (14 December 2001)
- ASHOK SHANKAR GUHA v. AIR INDIA LTD (2008) INSC 410 (11 March 2008)
- ASHOKA KUMAR THAKUR V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS (2007) INSC 334 (29 March 2007)
- ASHWANI KUMAR @ ASHU AND ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB (2015) INSC 325 (16 April 2015)
- ASLAM MOHD. MERCHANT v. COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. (2008) INSC 1052 (8 July 2008)
- ASSAM PUBLIC WORKS v. UNION OF INDIA (2019) INSC 822 (13 August 2019)
- Assam Speakers Salaries And Allowances (Amendment) Act, 2014
- Assistant Conservator Of Forests In The Gujarat Forest Service, Class-Ii, Recruitment Rules, 2007
- ATHERTON WEST AND CO. LTD. V. SUTI MILL MAZDOOR UNION AND ORS (1953) INSC 22; AIR 1953 SC 241; 1953 SCR 789 (16 March 1953)
- ATMARAM AND ORS. v. STATE OF M.P. (2012) INSC 303 (10 May 2012)
- Atomic Energy (Arbitration Procedure) Rules, 1984
- Attendance of Persons Confined or Detained In Prisons under CRPC
- Authentication (Orders And Other Instruments) Rules, 2002
- Authority For Advance Rulings (Group A And Group B) Recruitment Rules, 2000
- Automatic stay
- AUTOMOTIVE TYRE MANUFACTURERES ASSN. v. THE DESIGNATED AUTHORITY AND ORS. (2011) INSC 20 (7 January 2011)
- AVTAR SINGH AND ORS V. STATE OF PUNJAB (2002) INSC 396 (18 September 2002)
- AYODHYA SINGH V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (1972) INSC 172; AIR 1972 SC 2501; 1973 (1) SCR 880; 1972 (3) SCC 885 (16 August 1972)
- AZIMUNISSA AND ORS V. THE DEPUTY CUSTODIAN, EVACUEE PROPERTIES (1960) INSC 179; AIR 1961 SC 365; 1961 (2) SCR 91 (26 October 1960)
- AZIZIA BEE @ SHAIK MUJEEB (D)THR.LRS. v. GOVT.OF A.P.. (2017) INSC 641 (16 August 2017)
- B. G. GOSWAMI V. DELHI ADMINISTRATION (1973) INSC 118; AIR 1973 SC 1457; 1974 (1) SCR 222; 1973 (3) SCC 85 (4 May 1973)
- B.GOPE v. ALDOR WELDING LTD. (2016) INSC 310 (12 April 2016)
- B.K. INDUSTRIES AND ORS V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS (1993) INSC 218; AIR 1993 SC 2123; 1993 (3) SCR 51; 1993 (3) Suppl.SCC 621; 1993 (2) JT 709; 1993 (2) SCALE 541 (13 April 1993)
- B.V.NAGESH AND ANR. v. H.V.SREENIVASA MURTHY (2010) INSC 775 (24 September 2010)
- BABU KUTTAN R.PILLAI AND ANR V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (2000) INSC 673 (15 December 2000)
- BABURAO SHANTARAM MORE V. THE BOMBAY HOUSING BOARD AND ANR (1953) INSC 89; AIR 1954 SC 153; 1954 SCR 572 (18 December 1953)
- BAKHTIYAR HUSSAIN (DEAD) THR. LRS V. HAFIZ KHAN AND ORS (2007) INSC 969 (24 September 2007)
- BALBIR SINGH BEDI v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. (2013) INSC 231 (11 February 2013)
- BALKRISHNA PANDEY V. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS (1995) INSC 840; AIR 1996 SC 888; 1996 (2) SCC 282; 1995 (9) JT 566; 1996 (1) SCALE 7 (14 December 1995)
- BALRAJ V. STATE OF U.P (1994) INSC 233; AIR 1995 SC 1935; 1994 (4) SCC 29; 1994 (3) JT 649; 1994 (2) SCALE 518 (12 April 1994)
- BALURAM v. P.CHELLATHANGAM AND ORS. (2014) INSC 885 (10 December 2014)
- BALWANT SINGH AND ORS V. ANAND KUMAR SHARMA AND ORS (2003) INSC 682 (28 December 2003)
- BANARAS ICE FACTORY LIMITED V. ITS WORKMEN (1956) INSC 77; AIR 1957 SC 168; 1957 SCR 143 (28 November 1956)
- BANGALORE WATER-SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, V. R. RAJAPPA AND ORS (1978) INSC 44; AIR 1978 SC 548; 1978 (3) SCR 207; 1978 (2) SCC 213 (21 February 1978)
- Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 1995
- Banking Regulation (Companies) Rules, 1949
- Bankruptcy administrator
- Bankruptcy code
- Bankruptcy estate
- Bankruptcy judge
- Bankruptcy petition
- Bankruptcy trustee
- BANWARI LAL V. TIRLOK CHAND AND ORS (AND VICE VERSA) (1979) INSC 218; AIR 1980 SC 419; 1980 (1) SCR 998; 1980 (1) SCC 349 (23 October 1979)
- BASAPPA @ BASAVARAJ v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (2011) INSC 858 (1 March 2011)
- Battered woman syndrome
- BEJOY GOPAL MUKHERJI V. PRATUL CHANDRA GHOSE (1953) INSC 4; AIR 1953 SC 153; 1953 SCR 930 (28 January 1953)
- Bench trial
- BENNY JOSEPH V. VARGHESE KURIEN & ORS.
- BHAGIRATH KANORIA AND ORS V. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS (1984) INSC 157; AIR 1984 SC 1688; 1985 (1) SCR 626; 1984 (4) SCC 222; 1984 (2) SCALE 218 (24 August 1984)
- BHAGWATI DEVELOPERS V. PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO. AND ORS (2005) INSC 404 (9 August 2005)
- BHAKUADAS AND ORS. v. NANKIBAI AND ANR. (2009) INSC 549 (18 March 2009)
- BHANWAR LAL AND ANR v. RAJASTHAN BOARD OF MUSLIM WAKF AND ORS (2013) INSC 840 (9 September 2013)
- BHARAT ALUMINIUM CO. v. KAISER ALUMINIUM TECHNICAL SERVICES.INC. (28 January 2016)
- BHASKAR RAMAPPA MADAR AND ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (2009) INSC 656 (31 March 2009)
- BHAVEN CONSTRUCTION v. EXE ENGINEER SARDAR SAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM (2021) INSC 9 (6 January 2021)
- BHEEMRAYA v. SUNEETHA (2013) INSC 910 (23 September 2013)
- BHIKAJI KESHAO JOSHI AND ANR V. BRIJLAL NANDLAL BIYANI AND ORS (1955) INSC 35; AIR 1955 SC 610; 1955 (2) SCR 428 (2 May 1955)
Media in category "Pages with reference errors"
This category contains only the following file.
- 376647705.jpg 640 × 640; 55 KB