Daljit Singh v. Canada
Display in UN document template Original: ENGLISH 28 April 2006 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Non-refoulement - Refoulement - Right to life | Countries: Canada - India |
National Human Rights Commission vs State Of Arunachal Pradesh & Anr
We are a country governed by the Rule of Law. Our Constitution confers contains rights on every humanbeing and certain other rights on citizens. Every person is entitled to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. So also, no person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Thus the State is bound to protect the life and liberty of every human-being, be he a citizen or otherwise, and it cannot permit any body or group of persons, e.g., the AAPSU, to threaten the Chakmas to leave the State, failing which they would be forced to do so. 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. Those giving such threats would be liable to be dealt with in accordance with law. The State Government must act impartially and carry out its legal obligations to safeguard the life, health and well-being of Chakmas residing in the State without being inhibited by local politics. Besides, by refusing to forward their applications, the Chakmas are denied rights, Constitutional and statutory, to be considered for being registered as citizens of India. 9 January 1996 | Judicial Body: India: Supreme Court | Topic(s): Chakma - Citizenship / Nationality law - Constitutional law - Right to life - Rights of non-citizens - State protection | Countries: Bangladesh - India |
Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration
On appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal. 4 April 1985 | Judicial Body: Canada: Supreme Court | Topic(s): Criminal justice - Decision on admissibility - Effective remedy - Right to liberty and security - Right to life | Countries: Canada |
Singh c. Ministre de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration
On appeal from the Federal Court of Appeal. 4 April 1985 | Judicial Body: Canada: Supreme Court | Topic(s): Criminal justice - Decision on admissibility - Effective remedy - Right to liberty and security - Right to life | Countries: Canada |