Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tweaker

Supreme court rulings

Recommended Posts

25 Significant Judgments delivered by Supreme Court of India last year

 

1. NJAC held unconstitutional 
2. Yakub Memon midnight hearing
3. Section 66A IT Act struck down 
4. No compromise in Rape cases 
5. Unwed mother can become sole guardian of a child 
6.Uphaar Verdict 
7. Award Compensation to the victim of crime 
8. Section 364A IPC awarding death penalty not unconstitutional 
9. States cannot unilaterally grant remission 
10. Minimum Edu Qualification rule for Panchayat elections upheld 
11. Women can be manager of a Joint Family 
12. Complete Departmental inquiries within six months 
13. RBI also under RTI 
14. Acid Attack Victims in disability list 
15. Writ petitions maintainable against ‘deemed Universities’. 
16. No politician photos in Govt Ads 
17. Age determination of rape victim clarified 
18. Amendment in complaint can be done 
19. Obscene language cannot be allowed against ‘Historically respected personalities’. 
20. Appointment of Archakas to be made in accordance with Agamas 
21. Father of deceased victim has right to appeal 
22. Jat reservation unconstitutional 
23. Concealing pending criminal cases by elected representative illegal 
24. Writs against Judicial actions by judiciary not maintainable 
25. Law giving equal right to daughters prospective 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tweaker said:

25 Significant Judgments delivered by Supreme Court of India last year

 

1. NJAC held unconstitutional 
2. Yakub Memon midnight hearing
3. Section 66A IT Act struck down 
4. No compromise in Rape cases 
5. Unwed mother can become sole guardian of a child 
6.Uphaar Verdict 
7. Award Compensation to the victim of crime 
8. Section 364A IPC awarding death penalty not unconstitutional 
9. States cannot unilaterally grant remission 
10. Minimum Edu Qualification rule for Panchayat elections upheld 
11. Women can be manager of a Joint Family 
12. Complete Departmental inquiries within six months 
13. RBI also under RTI 
14. Acid Attack Victims in disability list 
15. Writ petitions maintainable against ‘deemed Universities’. 
16. No politician photos in Govt Ads 
17. Age determination of rape victim clarified 
18. Amendment in complaint can be done 
19. Obscene language cannot be allowed against ‘Historically respected personalities’. 
20. Appointment of Archakas to be made in accordance with Agamas 
21. Father of deceased victim has right to appeal 
22. Jat reservation unconstitutional 
23. Concealing pending criminal cases by elected representative illegal 
24. Writs against Judicial actions by judiciary not maintainable 
25. Law giving equal right to daughters prospective 

Must say most of those verdicts-in fact 90% of those are very good 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If banning religious symbols of Sikhs in the army is stupid now, then it was already stupid in 2004 when this occurred:

http://www.sikhtimes.com/news_011904a.html

Quote

India's military has instructed its personnel not to sport bracelets, birthstone rings, vermillion streaks or sacred threads in an effort to maintain a strict dress code and a secular image, a report said yesterday. The orders were issued after senior officers found that more and more personnel of India's million strong Army were indulging in such practices, The Indian Express said. These instructions are in addition to the standing dress regulations issued in 1962, the paper said. It did not specify whether the ban on the 'religious' symbols had any link to rising Hindu fanaticism in India. The ban also appeared limited to symbols visible outside the uniform. 

The new instructions are specially strict for the 75 women officers in the force, who are not allowed to wear bangles, ear studs, lipstick or nail polish. A vermillion streak or dot on the forehead - worn usually by a married woman - is permitted but only if hidden by a beret. Men may wear a signet ring on their left hands. 

The Army top brass has, however, been more liberal with its Sikh officers and soldiers. They may continue to wear their traditional steel bracelet - one of the essential symbols of Sikhism. There is also no bar on Sikhs wearing a turban.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gattaca said:

Ridiculous. UK allows sikhs to grow beard. But India which has been birth place for Sikhism doesn't think so. 

Sikhs are allowed to grow facial hair but it has to be well groomed and maintained.

Free flowing beards  are not allowed.

Most Sikhs in the armed forces are extremely well groomed.

 

Navy allows facial hair with permission and it has to be well groomed.It is allowed more due to scarcity of water on ships  rather than religious reasons.

 

I have never seen a Hindu soldier with a bodi(the long tuft of hair at the back of the head)...except the Army pandits. I have seen Maulavis with long beards. Training establishments sometimes have temples,Gurudwaras,churches and Masjids (very often together or close by ) in the Army .They try to keep a secular environment when it comes to religion.

 

The Navy and the Airforce have a more non religious secular image.

 

My father often tells us about how there was a time soldiers were given extra allowance to keep big well groomed mustaches.....specially in the Military police.(helped with projecting an intimidating personality)

 

The armed forces are a secular  force and  taking the issue to court based on religious rights will  be frowned upon.I agree with the SC here...keep religion in your houses ...like the rest of the people in the armed forces do.Keep religion/caste  card out of the forces.

Edited by radhika

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Hindu son can divorce his wife for the cruelty of trying to pry him away from his “pious obligation” to live with his aged parents and provide shelter to them, the Supreme Court has held.

 

A woman becomes a part of the husband’s family and cannot seek to separate him from his parents for the sole reason that she wants to entirely enjoy his income, a Bench of Justices Anil R. Dave and L. Nageshwara Rao observed in a judgment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court (SC) on Friday decided to examine all aspects of demonetisation. The apex court drafted nine questions and referred them to a five-judge Constitution bench. It also stayed the hearing of all petitions related to demonetisation filed in various high courts, saying the SC alone will hear the petitions to avoid multiplicity of decisions. 

 

However, the bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur declined to grant any immediate relief to the depositors on withdrawal of their money in the banks after demonetisation. It did not extend the dates for the use of old currency in various sectors nor did it relax the rules, as it did not want to interfere in the fiscal policy of the government.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tweaker said:

In a historic verdict, a seven-judge panel of the Supreme Court ruled that politicians who use religion, caste, creed or language to gain votes will be immediately disqualified. 

How does that work?

 

Would a candidate saying that he will work for lifting for a particular community will be disqualified?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2016 at 4:57 AM, tweaker said:

A Hindu son can divorce his wife for the cruelty of trying to pry him away from his “pious obligation” to live with his aged parents and provide shelter to them, the Supreme Court has held.

 

A woman becomes a part of the husband’s family and cannot seek to separate him from his parents for the sole reason that she wants to entirely enjoy his income, a Bench of Justices Anil R. Dave and L. Nageshwara Rao observed in a judgment.

I have personally gone through this.  Although not in India.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supreme Court rejects Jallikattu plea for early order, protests erupt in Tamil Nadu

A leading Jallikattu organiser told The Indian Express that they have decided to organise the sport this year even if it meant going against the apex court ruling.

 

Kamalhassan has asked to ban Biriyani as well if SPCA/Peta is against this tradition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supreme Court rejects Jallikattu plea for early order, protests erupt in Tamil Nadu

A leading Jallikattu organiser told The Indian Express that they have decided to organise the sport this year even if it meant going against the apex court ruling.

 

Kamalhassan has asked to ban Biriyani as well if SPCA/Peta is against this tradition. 

Enough of these bans from SC.Ban Dahi Handi.Ban Firecrackers.Ban Jallikattu.But Bakr id and self mutiliation during Muharram is fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court held on Tuesday that stray dogs too have a right to live and said these could be eliminated only if they became a menace to the society.

A bench of Justices Dipak Misra and R Banumathi dismissed a plea that all stray dogs should be killed in view rising cases of dog bites over the years, even causing death of people.


The bench called for a balanced approach on the issue. It said compassion should be shown towards stray dogs but at the same time, these animals could not be allowed to become a menace to the society.


The court was hearing a bunch of pleas filed by animal rights activists as well as a group of people seeking culling of stray dogs. The activists have challenged the order passed by various civic bodies for culling of stray dogs in Kerala and Mumbai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF.  This supreme court is quickly turning into those old has-been out of touch uncles who have nothing better to do but to talk trash and issue orders.  Unfortunately these uncles' words carry weight.  

 

In a system of checks and balances, what is the mechanism of keeping the judiciary in check?  If the appointees are for life, by definition, these guys should be forward-thinking but conservative in their decisions - can't be going bonkers over things like Cricket administration and stray dogs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the  plea to abort  26-week-old foetus which, reports show, suffers from ‘Down Syndrome’ and may be born with physical and mental abnormalities. Despite sympathising with the mother, the SC said that a pregnancy cannot be terminated after it crosses the 20-week mark, citing the 46-year-old Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supreme Court has sent a notice to Centre, and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on a plea that alleges that the public is not being allowed to deposit demonetised currency notes till March 31, 2017 as had been promised by them. PM Narendra Modi and the RBI had announced that the public will be allowed to exchange their banned Rs 500 and Rs 1000 currency notes without any hindrance till March 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×