Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/11718/22164
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Pathak, Akhileshwar | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-06-04T22:21:44Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2019-06-04T22:21:44Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2017-09-26 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11718/22164 | - |
dc.description.abstract | A person can approach the High Court directly under Article 226 for a violation of a Fundamental Right. The Fundamental Rights, however, are available only against the bodies which are ‘state’ within Article 12 of the Constitution. The judgement of the Supreme Court in Dr. Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University extends the ambit of Article 226 to all bodies, whether governmental or private, which are performing ‘public function’ or ‘public duty’. Imparting education is taken to be a public function. The judgement opens new dimensions of constitutional law. | en_US |
dc.publisher | Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad | en_US |
dc.relation.ispartofseries | BP0413; | - |
dc.subject | Fundamental Rights | en_US |
dc.subject | Article 226 | en_US |
dc.subject | Public Function | en_US |
dc.title | Dr. Janel Jeyapaul v. SRM University: Private Organisations and Public Rights | en_US |
dc.type | Cases and Notes | en_US |
Appears in Collections: | Cases and Notes |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in IIMA Institutional Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.