Litt
Try Litt Free
Kho Jabing v Attorney-General [2016] SGCA 37
Quek Hock Lye v Public Prosecutor [2015] SGCA 7
Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Ali v Attorney-General [2015] SGCA 53
Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor [2015] SGCA 11
Lim Meng Suang and another v Attorney-General and another appeal and another matter [2014] SGCA 53
Vellama d/o Marie Muthu v Attorney-General [2013] SGCA 39
Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General [2012] SGCA 45
Quek Hock Lye v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGCA 25
Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGCA 23
Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General [2012] SGCA 2
Chan Heng Kong and another v Public Prosecutor [2012] SGCA 18
Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-General [2011] SGCA 9
Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor and another matter [2010] SGCA 20
Eng Foong Ho and Others v Attorney-General [2009] SGCA 1
Tan Chor Jin v Public Prosecutor [2008] SGCA 32
Tee Soon Kay v Attorney-General [2007] SGCA 27
Nguyen Tuong Van v Public Prosecutor [2004] SGCA 47
Thiruselvam s/o Nagaratnam v Public Prosecutor [2001] SGCA 13
Implications of Overturning Roe v Wade: Precedent to Prejudice
The overturning of Roe v. Wade has set a dangerous precedent, stripping women of reproductive rights and blurring the line between law and religious ideology. This decision threatens judicial stability, endangers lives, and undermines the core principles of liberty.
How does compelled speech in India navigate the intersection of media law and constitutional freedoms?
Compelled speech in India challenges the balance between freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) and state-imposed mandates. Courts cautiously limit such mandates to public interest under Article 19(2).