@xzx_slipknot Not even half good as Kohli. Only he played attacking innings at World Cup 2023 final. The aggression in his eyes could be clearly seen then. He is eager to shout at Travis Head and Aussies be scared , very scared of this guy.
Whether Bail is matter of right for the Accused arrested under the provision of NDPS Act?
The principle that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception" is a cornerstone of Indian criminal jurisprudence, deeply rooted in the … https://t.co/dmc3XECUHu
A lone elephant is always on edge. Omkar is confused, stressed, and trying to survive alone. Instead of giving him space, people are poking and provoking him. It’s heartbreaking because with the right environment, he could actually calm down and feel safe again. Vantara is the right place for him
The Vanashakti judgment authored by Justice Abhay Oka was one of the Supreme Court’s most progressive and well-balanced decisions on environmental protection. Its recall by a larger bench reeks of malice. As I had first pointed out in my column for @frontline_india, Chief Justice B.R. Gavai was hearing the review applications, led by CREDAI—the largest association of Real Estate Developers, against this judgment WITHOUT including Justice Ujjal Bhuyan. Bhuyan J. had been part of Justice Oka’s original bench and a review ought to lie before a bench he is part of. Couple of days after the piece was published, Justice Bhuyan was added to the CJI-led bench. Now comes this recall. How could the Court permit such environmental destruction? The logic by the majority, including Justice Vinod Chandran is astonishing. A company may begin a project, cut down trees that are hundreds of years old, damage the surrounding ecology, and then simply PAY the government later to get the clearance. The Chief Justice in his judgment expresses concern for projects that had already begun and were awaiting clearance and uses this, along with other things, as the basis for recalling the judgment. But if that was truly the concern, he could easily have cleared only those projects “in larger public interest,” as he repeatedly claims. Justice Bhuyan’s dissent, therefore, rightly calls this abhorrent majority judgment “a step in retrogression.” The Supreme Court took one step forward, only to take two steps back shortly after the original original judge retired. There is simply no finality when it comes to Supreme Court cases. Corporates with deep pockets can keep filing applications against a judgment until it lands before the "right" judge!
Archives | Kashmir Times and Ms. Anuradha Bhasin personally have attracted the ire of the authorities because she showed the gumption to challenge in the Supreme Court the circumstances- in particular closure of the internet and curfews, both of which made journalism impossible- that flowed from the deeply troubling decision taken by the Government of India on August 5 last year.
Read the entire notice here: https://t.co/8IklABhRJy
The Kolhapur bench of the Bombay High Court has permitted the capture and temporary relocation of Omkar, a wild elephant roaming Sindhudurg and Kolhapur districts, to the Radha Krishna Temple Elephant Welfare Trust (Vantara) in Gujarat where authorities will oversee | cont.