Another eyewitness and a close aide of Talib Hussain has alleged that he was brutally beaten on August 5. ‘There is a huge bump in his skull. Blood is visible through the bandaged head. However, there are no records in the hospital.’ Talib’s aide further alleged that none of his relatives are allowed to visit Talib Hussain in the jail.
The notification comes days before the anniversary of Jaising’s ‘Gown Wapsi’ movement. On August 15 of last year, she shed her senior counsel gown to symbolise the discrimination inherent in the senior advocate designation process. The eligibility criterion for designation is a minimum of 10 years combined standing as an advocate or a District Judge, or as a Judicial Member of any Tribunal whose qualification for eligibility isn't less than that prescribed for a District judge.
While requesting the Court to stay the Order, KK Venugopal, Attorney General of India submitted that, ‘The insensivity of the Court towards social justice cause and judicial dilution of a stringent protective social justice legislation by resorting to judicial excess in total disregard to the legislative intent has been committed in passing of the directions.’
Jaising has specified in her written submissions that the M Nagaraj case erred in law to hold that Article 16(4-A) and (4-B) flow from Article 16(4). She insisted that such provisions draw source from Article 14 and 16 (1) instead of Article 16(4). She has next expressed her concern that the phrases "controlling factors" and "compelling reasons" as laid down in the M Nagaraj case have not been prescribed by the Constitutional language.
The Brazilian Supreme Court is holding a two-day public hearing about the decriminalisation of abortion, and Senior Advocate Anand Grover was selected through an open application to speak on the subject from India. At the hearing, which took place on August 3 and is taking place today, August 6, about 50 speakers can be heard, including health, law and social science experts, as well as feminist and international human rights organizations, and religious representatives.
The Supreme Court’s Collegium consisting of the Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Kurian Joseph and Jutsice A K Sikri, had reiterated his name for the appointment as judge of the Supreme Court on July 16, 2018 after Centre government had returned his name for reconsideration in April 2018.
Senior advocate Jaising presented that rights of the deity are restricted for to matters, limited to maintenance of properties and the taxation related issues. Jaising held that this principle has been consistently maintained in the Indian legal jurisprudence since the time of Privy Council and the Judicial Committee decisions, so must apply in Sabarimala as well, and shouldn’t infringe upon fundamental rights of women as citizens.
The MoS Law and Justice P P Chaudhary skirted the reply to the question which specially sought to know steps taken by the government to facilitate removal of Justice Shukla, therefore, making it appear that the government has not taken any initiative to remove the tainted judge.
Ajit Nayak was the president and an active campaigner of the Kali Bachao Andolan, a movement to rejuvenate Kali river, that protested against the damming of the river, industries polluting the river and rampant sand-mining on the beds of the river. His murder is not a rare occurrence but a continuum in the line of attacks on human rights lawyers and Right to Information activists witnessed across the country.
Provisions that permit personal data processing without express consent are clearly overbroad in comparison to comparable frameworks such as General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) brought forth by the European Union (EU). The non requirement of necessity and proportionality with respect to personal data processing by the State prima facie seems regressive and violative of the tests laid down by the Puttaswamy verdict.
The Government’s tearing hurry and avoidance of the Standing Committee shows absolute disregard for democratic processes and parliamentary procedures. It also shows that the Government is not confident of its contents and is afraid that closer examination will expose the pompous claims and rhetoric that has surrounded the Bill.