“A bench of the Supreme Court had noted that Prashant Bhushan regularly insults the judges and the court casts aspersions on them whenever he failed to get any relief.” OpIndia calling Bhushan’s contempt cases a purposive one.
https://t.co/MPCHFiAB2E
#LandmarkJudgements
In light of the Shaheen Bagh protest the SC said, “We cannot accept the plea of the applicants that an indeterminable number of people can assemble whenever they choose to protest”
#LandmarkJudgements@LANDMARK_2021@thinkindiaorg@scconline
https://t.co/g3glm9rHRo
“Several contempt of court cases have been filed against Prashant Bhushan for his slanderous comments, and while many of them are still in the courts, he had apologised in a few of them.”: OpIndia
https://t.co/MPCHFiAB2E
#LandmarkJudgements@LANDMARK_2021@thinkindiaorg
True freedom requires the rule of law and justice, and a judicial system in which the rights of some are not secured by the denial of rights to others. To Register: https://t.co/bhZ9yUiIGG.
#LandmarkJudgements@LANDMARK_2021@thinkindiaorg@scconline
In light of the Shaheen Bagh protest the SC said “We have, no hesitation in concluding that such kind of occupation of public ways....protests is not acceptable and the administration ought to take action to keep the areas clear of obstructions”
#LandmarkJudgements
The Court in the Babri Masjid Demolition case held that the CBI didn’t bring any substantial proof against the 32 accused that they had planned to demolish the structure.
#LandmarkJudgements@LANDMARK_2021@thinkindiaorg@scconline
https://t.co/g3glm9rHRo
“The apex court has disapproved of the way in which the Shaheen Bagh protests took place and ruled that such agitations must be in designated areas alone and public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely”:India Legal
https://t.co/MPCHFiAB2E
#LandmarkJudgements@thinkindiaorg
In response to Prashant Bhushan’s contemptuous tweets, the SC held that “If an attack is made to shake the confidence that the public at large has in the institution of judiciary, such an attack has to be dealt with firmly.”
#LandmarkJudgements@LANDMARK_2021@thinkindiaorg
The SC in the Permanent Commission case said that “To deny the grant of PCs to women officers on the ground that this would upset the “peculiar dynamics” in a unit casts an undue burden on women officers which has been claimed as a ground for excluding women”
#LandmarkJudgement
In February 2003, BabitaPuniya, an advocate instituted a Writ Petition in the nature of a PIL before the Delhi High Court for the grant of Permanent Commission to women Short Service Commission officers in the Army.
#LandmarkJudgements@LANDMARK_2021
https://t.co/g3glm9rHRo
Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950 led to the dispute in the permanent Commission for Women case which states the ‘Ineligibility of females for enrolment or employment’
#LandmarkJudgements@LANDMARK_2021@thinkindiaorg@scconline
https://t.co/g3glm9rHRo
In the Permanent Commission for Women case, women sought parity with their male counterparts in obtaining Permanent Commission while engaging in Short Service Commission earlier.
#LandmarkJudgements@LANDMARK_2021@thinkindiaorg@scconline
https://t.co/g3glm9rHRo
“A quest for equality of opportunity for women seeking Permanent Commissions in the Indian Army” formed the basis of appeal in the Permanent Commission for Women, case.
#LandmarkJudgements@LANDMARK_2021@thinkindiaorg@scconline
https://t.co/g3glm9rHRo
Today, our team of Think India Himachal Pradesh headed by our state convenor Shivom Vashishth in lieu of disproportionate fee being charged by the Himachal Pradesh National Law University administration
handed over the memorandum to the education minister of Himachal Pradesh.