Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tweaker

Supreme court rulings

Recommended Posts

Supreme Court orders NIA to probe Kerala ‘love jihad’ case

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/supreme-court-asks-nia-to-probe-kerala-love-jihad-case/

 

Excellent move. Love jihad is real and is a big time national security issue. More common in Kerala and coastal Karnataka, spearheaded by radical Islamic outfits like PFI, SDPI, KFD etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a landmark verdict that runs into nearly 550 pages, the Supreme Court has ruled that privacy is a fundamental right.

 

A nine judge bench of the apex court overruled two previous judgements- one by an eight-judge bench and the other by a six-judge bench- both of which had ruled that privacy is not a fundamental right. Today, the Supreme Court ruled that privacy is the constitutional core or human dignity and must be protected.

Share this post


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

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear on September 4 a plea against the deportation of illegal Rohingya Muslim immigrants to Myanmar on several grounds, including violation of international human rights 

Really scared now, hope SC doesn't eff it up as usual. Rohingyas must be kicked out of India ASAP. 40,000 already here breeding like pigs and unsurprisingly 10000 of them are in Jammu presumably to change the demographics of the region. Pretty sure we will have communal riots after we deport them but better now than wait and watch till their population hits 1 lakh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gollum said:

Really scared now, hope SC doesn't eff it up as usual. Rohingyas must be kicked out of India ASAP. 40,000 already here breeding like pigs and unsurprisingly 10000 of them are in Jammu presumably to change the demographics of the region. Pretty sure we will have communal riots after we deport them but better now than wait and watch till their population hits 1 lakh. 

That ex-AAP lawyer Prashant Bhusan is moving the SC to halt deportation. :facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court has stayed the National Company Law Tribunal's order initiating insolvency proceedings against Noida-based Jaypee Infratech.

 

The decision comes as a relief to over 30,000 homebuyers whose position became ambiguous after the August 9 NCLT order as their status was unclear under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy code. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Acting on a public interest litigation (PIL), the Supreme Court on Wednesday, September 6, took the centre to task for not disclosing action taken against politicians whose assets have jumped manifold between two elections.


 
The apex court has given the centre seven days’ time to submit the necessary information before it.

 

 

The PIL was filed filed by Lucknow-based NGO Lok Prahari, that wants amendment in election law to make it necessary for a candidate to disclose his and his family’s sources of income at the time of filing nomination form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A six-month waiting period for Hindu couples seeking divorce is not mandatory, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday. It laid down directions for lower courts to speed up separation if both spouses agree to the terms. This decision will bring significant respite for couples who seek separation through “mutual consent”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court (SC) today asked all high courts to register a suo motu petition to identify kin of prisoners who admittedly died an unnatural death after 2012 and award suitable compensation to them.

 

Passing a slew of directions on prison reforms, the apex court directed all state governments to appoint counsellors and support persons for counselling prisoners, particularly first-time offenders.

 

It also directed all states to study the availability of medical assistance to prisoners and take remedial steps wherever necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't want to start another thread, this is Gujarat HC ruling.

2002 Godhra train burning case: Gujarat high court commutes death for 11 convicts to life in prison

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/2002-godhra-burning-case-gujarat-high-court-commutes-death-for-11-convicts-to-life-in-prison/articleshow/61001808.cms

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whistle for Public Interest (WHIP), a group of law students and young lawyers working for the promotion of transparency and accountability in the affairs of public authorities, has sent a Representation to the Chief Justice of India, Dipak Mishra requesting him to ensure that the mic system installed in all courts be mandatorily used.

 

 

As per the information obtained by WHIP under RTI Act, 2005, it is revealed that the Supreme Court has spent Rs. 91,95,859 on Replacement of (unused) mic system.

The Supreme Court of India, admits the mic system is an inherent part of the courtroom infrastructure, in the same RTI response. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court on 30 October adjourned the hearing of the plea challenging Article 35A of the Constitution by three months.


 
Article 35A gives the Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) Legislature a carte blanche(complete freedom) to decide who are “permanent residents” of the state and confer on them special rights and privileges in public sector jobs, acquisition of property in J&K, scholarships, and other public aid and welfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/gujarat-high-court-extends-relief-from-arrest-to-teesta-till-june-13/articleshow/64353573.cms

Teesta gets a helping hand from the courts, again. Again, this is a low level footsoldier for the gungandeens. And you people think they will allow incarceration of mother/son duo? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supreme Court cant give any ruling in Ram Janma Bhoomi case.(Politics on wishes Congress)

 

It does not have time to discuss article 35A , which whole of India is impatiently waiting (Politics on wishes of Congress).

 

But MoFos want stolen document contents of which were published in libtard and Rahuls mouthpiece The Hindu to be discussed in case of Rafale (Politics on wishes of Congress till elections only).

 

In my lifetime, I have never seen Supreme Court and its judges to be doing blatant politics. Judges needs to do some introspection.  The damage they are doing to institution by blatantly playing politics is also borderline antinational activity.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also want to know, For a case to be heard by Supreme Court, Is it mandatory requirement that Applicant have to pay either Prashant Bhushan, Kapil Sibbal, Jailey, Indira JaiSingh.

 

Specially Bhushan and Sibbal. Is there direct line of kick back between some  Mofo judges and these two advocates?

Do honourale Supreme Court judges publish their Asset before they become judge vs after they become judge?

 

 

 

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.

×