ID stringlengths 4 7 | para_id int64 0 26 | newJudgement stringlengths 0 34.1k |
|---|---|---|
id_667 | 0 | Press Information Bureau https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseDetail.aspx?PRID=1712710. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, announces a liberalised and accelerated Phase 3 strategy of Covid-19 vaccination from 1 May. The government has been working hard for over a year to ensure that the maxim... |
id_668 | 0 | Petitioner: Sanskriti Ranjan. Respondent: Joint Seat Allocation Authority Through Organization Chairman JEE and Others. Counsel for Petitioner: In Person Honourable Dinesh Kumar Singh, J., Petitioner, Ms. Sanskriti Ranjan, appears in person., Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate has volunteered to assist the petitioner in... |
id_669 | 0 | Reserved on: 05.01.2024 Pronounced on: 08.01.2024 The petitioner is before the High Court of India calling in question a Notification dated 15-04-2021 issued by Government of India which imposes quality control on import of plastic into the shores of the nation to become effective from 05-01-2024., Shorn of unnecessary... |
id_669 | 1 | The Government may examine advantages or disadvantages of a policy at its own end; it may or may not achieve the desired objective. The Government is entitled to commit errors or achieve successes in policy matters as long as constitutional principles are not violated in the process. It is not the Supreme Court of Indi... |
id_67 | 0 | Writ petitions Nos. 21468/2016, 23622/2016, 16222/2017, 19386/2016, 16223/2017, 16697/2017, 16703/2017, 16862/2017, 28341/2017, 108010/2017, 108689/2017, 108690/2017, 22851/2018, 9147/2019 and 18042/2019 are filed in public interest or by individual persons in their personal interest. The facts of each writ petition ar... |
id_67 | 1 | On 23.10.2017 the Inspector of Police attached to the third respondent Anti-Corruption Bureau submitted a report showing 200 percent disproportionate assets. Based on that report, a First Information Report was registered in Crime No. 8/2017 under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption... |
id_67 | 2 | The petitioner has filed this writ petition in his personal interest for a writ of certiorari to quash the Government Order dated 14 March 2016 issued by the State Government constituting the Anti Corruption Bureau as well as the subsequent supporting Government notifications dated 19 March 2016, 30 March 2016 and 21 A... |
id_67 | 3 | In exercise of the said power, the State Government has framed the Karnataka Lokayukta (Cadre, Recruitment and Conditions of Service of the Officers and Employees) Rules, 1988. Rule 3 of the said Rules provides for strength and composition of the staff of Lokayukta. Rule 4 provides for recruitment and minimum qualifica... |
id_67 | 4 | He further contended that by virtue of the Government Order dated 14.03.2016, independence of Lokayukta and its effective functioning as a matter of utmost importance has been removed or diluted and people's faith in the working of public servants is shaken. He further contended that the dictums or decisions of Lokayuk... |
id_67 | 5 | Learned Advocate General further contended that the Supreme Court of India in the case of C. Rangaswamaiah at paragraph-6 observed that even after deputation, there could be a dual role on the part of the Police Officers in their functions, namely, functions under the Lokayukta and functions in discharge of the duties ... |
id_67 | 6 | In the absence of the Lokayukta, it is the State Government which has passed the impugned executive order, in exercise of the powers under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, mainly based on the recommendation made by the Director General and Inspector General, without independent application of mind. Thereby, th... |
id_67 | 7 | A public servant entrusted with duty and power to implement constitutional policy under Articles 14, 21 and 300 of the Constitution of India and all inter‑related directive principles of state policy under the Constitution should exhibit transparency in implementation and be accountable for due effectuation of constitu... |
id_67 | 8 | The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the offences or classes of offences which are to be investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment. Superintendence and administration of the Delhi Special Police Establishment. (1) The superintendence of the Delhi Special Police Estab... |
id_67 | 9 | In this context, the word 'consultation' used in Section 3(1) proviso (a) would require that consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Odisha is a must or a sine qua non. For such appointment, the Chief Justice of the High Court would be the best person for proposing and suggesting a person for being app... |
id_670 | 0 | The petitioner is the second daughter of Subedar Ramesh Khandappa Police Patil. Subedar Police Patil joined the Indian Army on 25 June 1979 and was inducted into the Madras Engineering Group. In 2001, he was deployed in Operation Parakram at Gaziwala, Punjab, performing mine‑clearance duties with the Madras Engineering... |
id_670 | 1 | There can be no doubt about the principle that there is no right as such to compassionate appointment but only an entitlement, where a scheme or rules envisaging it exist, to be considered in accordance with the provisions., Madras High Court has proceeded on the basis that the recognition of legitimacy in Section 16 i... |
id_671 | 0 | M/s. ARG Outlier Media Pvt. Limited Applicant / Plaintiff Rayudu Vision Media Limited Respondent / Defendant Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande, Senior Advocate as well as Mr. Amit Jamsandekar, Mr. Prathmesh Kamat, Mr. Zoeb Cutlerywala and Mr. Vikram Kamat in behalf Phoenix Legal for Applicant / Plaintiff. Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Sen... |
id_671 | 1 | Similarly, the combination of red and white colour in the device mark can also not be termed as a distinctive or unique feature placing exclusivity on its use by the plaintiff. There is substance in the contention raised on behalf of the defendant with material on record that the device marks or logos of almost all new... |
id_672 | 0 | Writ Petition No. 16431 of 2021 S. Sridharan, Petitioner; Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Chief Minister's Office, Secretariat, Chennai 600009; The Secretary to Government Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai 600009; The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Cha... |
id_673 | 0 | The challenge in the present appeals is to an order passed by the Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court on 15 March 2022, dismissing the challenge to the Government Order dated 5 February 2022. Such Government Order directed the Government Schools in Karnataka to abide by the prescribed uniform, and the private school... |
id_673 | 1 | Whether a student‑citizen in the constitutional scheme is expected to surrender her fundamental rights under Articles 19, 21 and 25 as a pre‑condition for accessing education in a State institution? Whether in the constitutional scheme, the State is obligated to ensure reasonable accommodation to its citizens? Whether ... |
id_673 | 2 | Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practise and propagate religion. Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any l... |
id_673 | 3 | (Writ Petition No. 3038 of 2022), the petitioners have quoted Verse 26 Chapter 7, Verse 31 Chapter 24 and Verse 59 Chapter 33 of the Holy Quran indicating that wearing of headscarf is part of the religious identity and (2004) 12 Supreme Court Cases 770 (Acharya Jagadishwarananda Avadhuta-II) essential in Islamic faith.... |
id_673 | 4 | |
id_673 | 5 | It is indeed difficult to see on what principle we can refuse to give its plain natural meaning to the expression personal liberty as used in Article 21 and read it in a narrow and restricted sense so as to exclude those attributes of personal liberty which are specifically dealt with in Article 19. We do not think tha... |
id_673 | 6 | In K.S. Puttaswamy, the distinction between private and public spaces was drawn and it was stated that both must be free to the extent that there should be freedom to think, without any direct or indirect pressures on thought and belief. Thus, the schools must give students the privacy and the freedom to think about th... |
id_673 | 7 | The argument that the school is insisting on surrendering or curtailing the right to wear a headscarf as a pre‑condition to access education is not tenable, as the right to education is available but the only condition is that students should attend classes in the prescribed uniform. The Government Order cannot be said... |
id_673 | 8 | A religion undoubtedly has its basis in a system of beliefs or doctrines which are regarded by those who profess that religion as conducive to their spiritual well‑being, but it would not be correct to say that religion is nothing else but a doctrine of belief. A religion may not only lay down a code of ethical rules f... |
id_673 | 9 | The destruction by the State of a sanctified personal space whether of the body or of the mind is violative of the guarantee against arbitrary State action. Privacy of the body entitles an individual to the integrity of the physical aspects of personhood. The intersection between one's mental integrity and privacy enti... |
id_673 | 10 | The preamble to the Constitution secures to all its citizens liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship. It is the Preamble again which seeks to promote among them all fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation. The Government Order dated 5 February 2022, ... |
id_674 | 0 | Reserved on: 16.08.2021 Delivered on: 08.09.2021 Applicant: Kamlesh Yadav and another Opposite Party: State of Uttar Pradesh Counsel for Applicant: Aditya Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party: G. A. Honourable Samit Gopal, J., The present bail application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code purports to... |
id_675 | 0 | Endst. No.HHC/ Admn.6(20)/77-XX-part-2457-BI Copy forwarded for information to: Pursuant to adoption of the Notification No.GAD-A(F)10-9/2022, dated 21 January 2024 of the State Government of Himachal Pradesh, the Honourable High Court of Himachal Pradesh has been pleased to declare 22 January 2024 (Monday) as public h... |
id_677 | 0 | Gulfasha @ Alisha Mehraj Shaikh Applicant versus State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. Aniket Vagal, Advocate for Applicant. Smt. A. A. Takalkar, appellant for the State/Respondent. (Through video conferencing) This praecipe is moved in disturbing circumstances. It is mentioned in the praecipe thus; the circulation is so... |
id_678 | 0 | Writ Petition Nos. 29039, 29323, 29076, 29312, 29255, 29464, 29373, 29326, 29771, 29776, 29778, 29762, 29905 and 29906 of 2023 and Writ Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 28957, 28626, 28935, 28865, 29081, 29004, 28961, 29198, 29203, 293373, 29377 and 29529 of 2023. In Writ Petition No. 29039 of 2023, S. Raja Desingu is the p... |
id_679 | 0 | This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is preferred by the accused/appellant, who is aggrieved by the judgment dated 13 December 2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Umaria, in S.T. No. 59 of 2017 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Manoj Sahu), whereby the appellant was convicted for commissio... |
id_68 | 0 | Reportable Moturu Nalini Kanth Appellant Versus Gainedi Kaliprasad (deceased, through legal representatives) Respondents., Moturu Nalini Kanth, then a minor, claimed absolute right and title over the properties of late Venkubayamma under a registered Will Deed dated 03.05.1982. It was also claimed that he was adopted b... |
id_68 | 1 | However, in Apoline D Souza vs. John D Souza, the Supreme Court of India noted that Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act provides for the mode and manner through which execution of a will is to be proved and held that proof of attestation of a will is a mandatory requirement. Referring to the earlier judgment in Nares... |
id_681 | 0 | Reportable Civil Appeal No 5308 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 7772 of 2021) Deepika Singh Appellant versus Central Administrative Tribunal and Others Respondents. Dr Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. Leave granted., This appeal arises from a judgment dated 16 March 2021 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab ... |
id_681 | 1 | The grant of maternity leave under Rules of 1972 is intended to facilitate the continuance of women in the workplace. It is a harsh reality that but for such provisions, many women would be compelled by social circumstances to give up work on the birth of a child, if they are not granted leave and other facilitative me... |
id_682 | 0 | Will the Minister of Law and Justice be pleased to state: (a) the number of vacancies in High Courts and the Supreme Court, and the number of proposals recommended against the said vacancies; (b) the duration of time since the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the said proposals; (c) whether the Government is aware o... |
id_684 | 0 | Date of decision: 19th April, 2023. Through: Miss Smita Maan, present in person, versus Through: Mister Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mister Sunil, Mister Giriraj Shrama and Mister Prince Roshan, Advocates with Mister Abhishek Khari, Advocate. Prathiba M. Singh, Judge (Oral)., This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.,... |
id_684 | 1 | By virtue of the divorce decree, only the relation as wife and husband severs. The divorce decree does not result in severance of the relation between the child and the parent, unless the parent has legally disowned the child., Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the divorce on the basis of a settlement... |
id_685 | 0 | Vacancies in Supreme Court and High Courts. Will the Minister of Law and Justice be pleased to state: the number of Judges appointed in Supreme Court and various High Courts in 2021; the number of collegium proposals pending with Government as of now; the number of collegium proposals returned by Government; and if so,... |
id_686 | 0 | Jyoti Jagtap, Daughter of Raghobha Shankar Jagtap, Indian inhabitant, aged 34 years, presently lodged at Byculla District Jail (Women), Class I, Byculla, Mumbai 400008; otherwise resident of Pulacha Mala, Belsar, Tehsil Purandar, Pune. Appellant (originally Accused No. 15) versus National Investigation Agency (FIR No. ... |
id_686 | 1 | We find it useful to reproduce paragraph No.17 and 18 for reference which read thus: When the word \prima facie\ is coupled with the word \true\, it implies that the court has to undertake an exercise of cross‑checking the truthfulness of the allegations made in the complaint, on the basis of the materials on record. I... |
id_686 | 2 | Admittedly, all the aforesaid documents form part of the chargesheet and no objection is raised by the Appellant. In respect of the larger conspiracy and design of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) to infiltrate and carry out its objectives through KKM and activists like the Appellant, we also deem it fit to repro... |
id_687 | 0 | Cr. M.P . No. 4241 of 2018 I.A. No. 4948/2019 Rahul Gandhi Petitioner - Versus The State of Jharkhand and Navin Jha Opposite Parties. For the Petitioner: M/s. Kaushik Sarkhel, Advocate; M/s. Ajit Kumar, Senior Advocate; M/s. V. K. Sahu, Advocate; M/s. Kumar Harsh, Advocate; M/s. Abhishek Abhi, Advocate; M/s. Surya Prak... |
id_690 | 0 | January 18, 2021 The following modifications are effected to the Standard Operating Procedure dated 18th September 2020 with effect from 27th January 2021 in respect of the High Court of Karnataka, Principal seat at Bengaluru and Benches at Dharwad and Kalaburagi:, The Silver Jubilee Gate (facing Vidhana Soudha) at Ben... |
id_693 | 0 | Writ Petition No. 1764 of 2020, Writ Petition Nos. 18721, 18725 and 18730 of 2020, and Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 23251, 23249, 23254, 23255, 23262 to 23264 of 2020 are before this Court. The petitioners are J. Jayaniithaa in Writ Petition No. 18721, J. Suhanya in Writ Petition No. 18725, and J. J. Harath Kumar in Wri... |
id_694 | 0 | Date of decision: 22nd May, 2023 Writ Petition (Civil) 6986/2023 & Civil Miscellaneous Application 27185-86/2023 Through: Mr. Harshvardhan Pandey, Mr. Shashank Agrawal & Mr. Rohish Arora, Advocates (Mobile - 9953134789) versus Through: Ms. Rosemarry Raju, Advocate Prathiba M. Singh, Judge (Oral)., This hearing has been... |
id_695 | 0 | (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 4364 of 2011) Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 2007. This Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India has been constituted to consider whether the declaration made by a Constitution Bench of this Court, in the case of Subramanian Swamy versus Director, Central Bureau... |
id_695 | 1 | Even though the FIR was registered only under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the respondent alone, but still the Central Bureau of Investigation conducted investigation regarding possessing assets disproportionate to known sources of income not only against the respondent but also his wife,... |
id_695 | 2 | The first being that the Supreme Court of India which recorded the conviction had been conferred jurisdiction much after the offence had taken place and at the time of the offence the forum was different. The other issue raised with regard to Article 20(1) of the Constitution was that although the offence had been comm... |
id_695 | 3 | Besides there could not be any question of an existing law being void ab initio on account of the inconsistency with Article 13(1), as they were passed by competent legislatures at the time when they were enacted. Therefore, it was pointed out that the effect of Article 13(1) with respect to existing laws insofar as th... |
id_696 | 0 | Applicant: Salman Khurshid. Opposite Party: State of Uttar Pradesh and Another. Counsel for Applicant: Syed Mohd. Fazal, Sri S.G. Hasnain (Senior Advocate). Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A. Honourable Dinesh Kumar Singh, J., Heard Sri S.G. Hasnain, Senior Advocate, assisted by Senior Sri Syed Mohd. Fazal and Ajay Kumar... |
id_698 | 0 | Date of Decision: 19th October 2022. The matter was argued by Mr. Prithvi Singh, Mr. Prithvi Gulati and Mr. Krishna Gambhir, Advocates for the plaintiff, and by Mr. Rakesh Kumar and Mr. Birender Bhatt, Advocates for Defendant 2. The hearing was conducted in hybrid mode before Judge Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)., The pr... |
id_699 | 0 | It is reported that the case sought to be transferred by way of Transfer Petition No. 967 of 2020 has already been transferred to the Bombay High Court. Therefore, this Transfer Petition has become infructuous and is dismissed as such., Transfer Petition No. 968-971 of 2020 was filed for transfer of the following consu... |
id_7 | 0 | This appeal coming on for orders this day, Justice Vinay Saraf passed the following: The appellant, husband, has preferred the present appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), challenging the judgment and decree dated 3 November 2014 passed by the Fourteenth Addition... |
id_70 | 0 | Supreme Court of India (Video Conferencing) Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 45/2022 Date: 11-02-2022. The petition was called on for hearing today. For the petitioner: Ms. Anu Gupta, Advocate on Record Mr. Sanjay Mani Tripathi. For the respondent(s):, Application for exemption from filing original Vakalatnama or other doc... |
id_702 | 0 | Manoranjan Santosh Roy, age 48 years, occupation: Tax Volunteer, Indian inhabitant of Mumbai, residing at Room No. 115, Rui Park, Mora Village, J. R. Mhatre Road, Juhu, Mumbai 400049, is the petitioner. The Union of India through the Finance Minister, address: Chief Secretary, North Block, New Delhi 110001, is a respon... |
id_704 | 0 | Case: WRIT - C No. 22016 of 2023. Petitioner: Ms X. Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh and four others. Counsel for Petitioner: Raghav Arora. Counsel for Respondents: Chief Standing Counsel. Hon'ble Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Allahabad High Court. Hon'ble Justice Prashant Kumar, Allahabad High Court. Learned coun... |
id_707 | 0 | Saurav Das (Petitioner) versus Union of India & Ors. (Respondents). By way of this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for appropriate directions/orders directing the respondents, the States, to enable free public access to chargesheets and final reports filed as per Section... |
id_709 | 0 | Date: 14-02-2024. This petition was called on for hearing today. For the petitioner: Mister S.V. Raju, Additional Solicitor General; Mister Annam Venkatesh, Advocate; Mister Zoheb Hussain, Advocate; Miss Swati Ghildiyal, Advocate; Miss Munisha Anand, Advocate; Mister Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocate on Record. For the re... |
id_710 | 0 | Date of decision: 04.01.2023 Sarjeet Singh and others Petitioners versus State of Haryana Respondent. Present: Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate, for the petitioners., Through this petition, the petitioners seek anticipatory bail in case bearing First Information Report No. 974 dated 28.09.2022, registered at Police Station ... |
id_713 | 0 | These petitions concern the general elections of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short the BBMP) which is a Municipal Corporation constituted in accordance with Sections 6 and 7 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short the said Act of 1976). The BBMP is a Municipality within the meaning ... |
id_713 | 1 | On 22nd September 2020, when the said writ petition was listed, the following order was passed by the Karnataka High Court: The Learned Advocate General appeared before the court and confirmed the following facts which are already placed on record by the memo dated 16th September 2020 filed by the petitioner: Final not... |
id_714 | 0 | Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) No. 58 of 2020, Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) No. 97 of 2019, Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) No. 50 of 2020, Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) No. 51 of 2020, Writ Petition (Public Interest Litigation) No. 67 of 2020, Writ Petition (Public Int... |
id_714 | 1 | In case we were to consider the balance of convenience, whether the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the Char Dham Devasthanam Board, which is consistently demanding that the Char Dham Yatra should be opened, or it tilts in favour of the public at large, whose lives may be jeopardised, and whose families may b... |
id_716 | 0 | S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4176/1998 Ashish Arora son of Late Shri Brij Ballabh Arora, aged about 20 years, resident of M-28, Ram Nagar, Sodala, Jaipur. Petitioner versus Rajasthan State Electricity Board, through its Chairman, Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. Respondent connected with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.... |
id_717 | 0 | Applicant: Gufran\nOpposite Party: State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary Home, Lucknow\nCounsel for Applicant: Prashansa Singh, Suresh Kumar Mishra\nCounsel for Opposite Party: G. A., Rajbaksh Singh, Ram Baksh Singh, Hon'ble Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan, Justice, Shri Rajbaksh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the com... |
id_718 | 0 | Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8785 of 2020, Century Business Private Limited, a company incorporated under the laws of India having its registered office at 108, Emarat Firdaus, Exhibition Road, Patna‑800001, through its director Shashi Kumar Chaudhary, son of Sri Banwari Lal Chaudhary, petitioner, versus the Chief ... |
id_72 | 0 | Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 12925/2023 Vikas Kumar, son of Shri Indraj Singh, resident of Village Kisari, Post Bahadurwas, Police Station Mandawa, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan (currently confined at Central Jail Jaipur, District Jaipur) Petitioner versus State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecuto... |
id_720 | 0 | Uday S. Jagtap and Kondiba Shankar Nikam (deceased through Legal Representatives) are the appellant. Balasaheb Kisan Bhosale and others are the respondents. Mr. Nikhil Wadikar in behalf of Mr. Nandu Pawar appears for the appellant. Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad appears for respondent number one. Mr. Kiran Patil appears for respo... |
id_722 | 0 | Date of decision: 03 July 2023. Through: Petitioner in person versus Respondent through Mr. Chetan Sharma, Additional Solicitor General, with Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Chief Government Solicitor, Mr. Amit Gupta and Mr. Ojaswa Pathak, Advocates. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been f... |
id_723 | 0 | Petitioner: Kavita Gupta (corpus). Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh and three others. Counsel for petitioner: Mithilesh Kumar Gupta. Counsel for respondent: G. A. Ashish Kumar Mishra. Honourable Rahul Chaturvedi, Judge. Shri Ashish Kumar Mishra, learned Advocate, has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of Ashok Kumar Gup... |
id_724 | 0 | Wednesday, the 24th day of May 2023 (3rd Jyaishta, 1945). The writ petition (civil) prays that, in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed along with the writ petition, the Kerala High Court be pleased to issue an interim direction to the fourth respondent to give permission for conducting vacation classes in t... |
id_725 | 0 | Arising out of the final order dated 5 May 2021 in Original Application No. 880/2020 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench. Dated this the 15th day of March 2022. The final verdict rendered by the Division Bench of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram Bench on 5 M... |
id_725 | 1 | The petition fails and accordingly, the Original Petition will stand dismissed. |
id_726 | 0 | Supplementary affidavit filed in the Allahabad High Court today is taken on record., This application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings including the summoning order of Case No. 16331 of 2023 (State Versus Akhilesh Yadav and others), arising out of Case ... |
id_728 | 0 | Writ Miscellaneous Petition No. 31112 of 2023 and Writ Petition No. 7284 of 2021. This petition has been filed by the impleaded 27th respondent for a direction to respondents 10 to 28 to issue suitable orders to recognize the “Deed of Familial Association”, recognizing the civil union entered into between LGBTQIA+ part... |
id_73 | 0 | Present: Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner (in COCP-1121-2017). Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Advocate for the petitioner (in COCP-1121-2017). Mr. Jaivir S. Chandel, Additional Standing Counsel and Ms. Irvanneet Kaur, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate for respondent/Municipal Corporatio... |
id_730 | 0 | Suresh @ Pintya Kashinath Kamble Appellant versus the State of Maharashtra Respondent. Mister Drupad Patil, Amicus Curiae appointed in the matter. Mister Yogesh Y. Dabke, Advocate for the Respondent-State., The matter is placed before me by an administrative order. Criminal Appeal No.272/2017 is already disposed of by ... |
id_731 | 0 | Civil Appeal No. 1629 of 2022 Sushil Raghav (Appellant) versus Union of India and Others (Respondents). The appellant instituted Original Application No. 68 of 2021 before the National Green Tribunal for the purpose of seeking remedial action to prevent untreated sewage and effluent being discharged in the storm water ... |
id_735 | 0 | F.NO. 31/Judl./2022 DATED: 6th January 2022\n\nIt is hereby notified for information of Members of the Bar, parties in person and all concerned that the Competent Authority, keeping in view the sudden upsurge of Covid-19 cases, has been pleased to direct as follows: with effect from 07 January 2022 (Friday), all matter... |
id_736 | 0 | The petitioners have instituted proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of the Electoral Bond Scheme which introduced anonymous financial contributions to political parties. The petitioners have also challenged the provisions of the Finance Act 2017 which, among other th... |
id_736 | 1 | The application shall be rejected if the application is not KYC compliant or if the application does not meet the requirements of the scheme. The bond issued is non‑refundable. The information furnished by the buyer is to be treated as confidential by the authorized bank. It shall be disclosed only when demanded by a c... |
id_736 | 2 | The petitioners submitted that the presumption of constitutionality does not apply since the scheme deals with the electoral process. The premise of the argument is that the presumption of constitutionality is based on the principle that the elected body must be trusted to make decisions and that principle should not b... |
id_736 | 3 | Justice M B Shah, writing for the majority, noted that the decision of the three‑Judge Bench in Association for Democratic Reforms (supra) tracing the right to know the antecedents of candidates contesting elections had attained finality and Section 33‑B was unconstitutional because it had the effect of rendering the j... |
id_736 | 4 | The total number of seats allotted to each State in Parliament should be such that the ratio between the number of seats and the population of the State is the same for all States. Second, the Constitution ensures that socio‑economic inequality does not perpetuate political inequality by mandating reservation of seats ... |
id_736 | 5 | For example, according to the Annual Report of the Prudent Electoral Trust for the financial year 2021-22, the Trust received contributions of a total of Rupees 4,64,83,00,116 from seventy contributors including individuals and companies. The contributions were unequally distributed to the Aam Aadmi Party, All India Co... |
id_736 | 6 | At the necessity stage, the Supreme Court of India would determine if non-disclosure is the least restrictive means to give effect to the right to privacy. At the balancing stage, the Supreme Court of India would determine if non-disclosure has a disproportionate effect on the right holder. In this analysis, the necess... |
id_736 | 7 | In E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court of India expanded the ambit of Article 14 by laying down non‑arbitrariness as a limiting principle in the context of executive actions. Justice P.N. Bhagwati, speaking for the Bench, observed that equality is a dynamic concept with many aspects and dimensions wh... |
id_736 | 8 | The doctrine of manifest arbitrariness can be used to strike down a provision where the legislature fails to make a classification by recognizing the degrees of harm and the purpose is not in consonance with constitutional values., One of the reasons for which companies may contribute to political parties could be to s... |
id_736 | 9 | Notwithstanding anything contained in sub‑section (1), the contribution under this section shall not be made except by an account payee cheque drawn on a bank or an account payee bank draft or use of electronic clearing system through a bank account: Provided that a company may make contribution through any instrument,... |
id_736 | 10 | The State has contested the writ petitions primarily on three grounds. First, donors of a political party often apprehend retribution from other political parties or actors and thus their identities should remain anonymous. The electoral bonds uphold the right to privacy of donors by providing confidentiality. Further,... |
id_736 | 11 | The Election Commission of India issued guidelines dated 06.06.2014 whereby the trusts were required to specify and give full particulars to the Election Commission of India of the depositors with the trust and the amounts subsequently transferred as a contribution to the political party. The guidelines were issued by ... |
id_736 | 12 | This jurisprudential clash is visible in the various forms and structures of adoptions of proportionality. Generally, two models can be differentiated from works of jurists. Model I: Firstly, the traditional two stages of the means‑end comparison is applied. After having ascertained the legitimate purpose of the law, t... |
id_737 | 0 | Chief Justice's Court Petitioner: In Re Respondent: Zila Adhivakta Sangh Allahabad. Counsel for Petitioner: Ajay Singh, Anshu Singh, Arun Kumar, Devesh Kumar Shukla, Dharmesh Kumar Shukla, Dinesh Kumar Misra, Hare Krishna Mishra, Mir Sayed, Nitin Gupta, Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, Pranshu Kumar. Counsel for Respondent: A.K. ... |
id_739 | 0 | Re: Appointment of Mister Justice N. V. Anjaria, Judge, High Court of Gujarat as Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka. A vacancy in the office of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka would arise consequent upon the retirement of Mister Justice P. S. Dinesh Kumar on 24 February 2024. Therefore, appoi... |
id_74 | 0 | Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 620/2021 Date: 24-06-2021. This matter was called on for hearing today., For Petitioner: Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Advocate on Record; Mr. Ravibhushan P. Adgaonkar, Advocate; Mr. Gagandeep Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Rana Sandeep Bussa, Advocate; Ms. Ruchi Rathi, Advocate. For Respondent... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.