LiveLaw is introducing a new feature —'Breaking News Alerts' — designed to keep our readers instantly updated on the most important judicial developments. With real-time coverage of urgent pronouncements and orders from the Supreme Court and High Courts, this feature ensures that critical updates reach you the moment they happen. Whether it's a landmark ruling or an urgent interim...
LiveLaw is introducing a new feature —'Breaking News Alerts' — designed to keep our readers instantly updated on the most important judicial developments. With real-time coverage of urgent pronouncements and orders from the Supreme Court and High Courts, this feature ensures that critical updates reach you the moment they happen. Whether it's a landmark ruling or an urgent interim order, LiveLaw's Breaking News Alerts will deliver concise, authoritative updates right on the website, making sure you never miss a moment in India's fast-moving legal landscape.
Follow Today's Breaking News Alerts Here
Calcutta High Court pulls up state lawyer for opposing Court’s view to give police protection to TMC leader allegedly facing threats while returning to home.
Court: please apply mind before opposing…otherwise the other side of the administration will be revealed…
Court: you should know where you are oppose and where you should not oppose…think about on what ground on you are opposing
State: your lordship is giving police protection for his return?
Court: yes I have passed at least 50 orders in presence of your seniors. Don’t oppose in this fashion, it will send a bad message to the court
Court: if anyone wants to come back to their residence, can it be opposed? There is a requirement for police protection based on antecedents
State: kindly direct us
Supreme Court Questions Jharkhand DGP Appointment Rule, Asks Amicus To Examine Validity Of Other States' Rules
Supreme Court Mulls Dedicated Corpus For Financial Assistance To Spinal Muscular Atrophy Patients
Delhi Women Safety | Supreme Court Orders To Step Up Police Patrol, Verify Cab-Bus Drivers & Close Unauthorised Liquor Outlets
'Because Of Supreme Court's Forgiving Nature, Country Facing Crimes' : Justice Datta On Death Penalty Commutations
While hearing the NIA appeal against bail given to controversial cop Sachin Waze, Bombay High Court expressed surprise over the officer owning five high end cars and travelling in a Mercedes even to his office, the office of Commissioner of Police and even Chief Minister's residence - Varsha Bungalow.
While ASG Anil Singh was reading out statements of a witness, the bench noted that the said witness consistently spoke about Waze travelling in a Mercedes car.
J Kulkarni: Whose Mercedes is it? We are yet to hear that the API is riding a Mercedes... Who owns it?
ASG Singh: It is Waze's car Milords.
#CMJosephVijay's election case
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan (appearing for the CM) says non disclosure of assets cannot be placed on same footing as non disclosure of criminal antecedents
Sankaranarayanan: The voter knows that my client is wealthy. If he's wealthy, the que is additional worth, can we equate that to criminalisation of politics? For whom would it make difference?
Sankaranarayanan: There may be some voter who might think they'll not vote for Vijay if he has more than 650 crore assets. Then the election petitioner has to show that these are the voters who were affected (by non disclosure)
Counsel for voter says the moment assets are not disclosed, it constitutes offence under S. 123 of RP Act. Any direct or indirect non-disclosure is an offence, he adds
Voter: Non-disclosure of assets cannot be put in a different pedestal than non-disclosure of criminal antecedents. If any substantial property is left out, it will also come under undue influence.
Delhi High Court agrees to hear tomorrow Indian Youth Congress’ plea against denial of permission to protest against CEC Gyanesh Kumar at Jantar Mantar.
Petition filed in #SupremeCourt seeking writ of quo warranto against CEC Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi, and challenging all of their appointments.
The petitioner contends that their appointments violated the procedure given under the 2023 CEC & ECs Act.
The petitioner refers to the Supreme Court's March 2024 order which noted that the Search Committee had shortlisted 6 names out of 200 names within one day.
Petitioner argues that as per Section 6 of the Act, panel of 5 names ought to have been made for each vacancy, which was not done.
Petitioner also contends that none of the officers had previously handled election-related assignments, and argues that they did not meet the eligibility criteria under Section 5.
If Breakup Ends Up With Suicide, It Cannot Always Be Termed Abetment To Suicide : Supreme Court