Delhi HC refuses urgent hearing on PIL by retired judge against cash-based schemes by political parties
The Delhi High Court on Monday declined to grant an urgent hearing on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a retired judge.
The Delhi High Court on Monday declined to grant an urgent hearing on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a retired judge.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Delhi High Court, highlighting the alarming situation in the public domain since the notification for the Delhi state legislative assembly elections.
The Supreme Court on Monday remarked that the issue of admission of Rohingya refugee children in state-run schools would require its consideration.
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed the regular bail plea of Neeraj Sehrawat alias Neeraj Bawania in Jail Van double murder case.
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Abhimanyu Sharma, a Mandir Pujari, which sought directions to restrict the sale of tobacco products near temples.
The Joint Registrar listed the matter for April 17 for further directions before the bench which had passed the interim order. A single-bench judge of Justice Yashwant Varma was dealing with the case seeking interim relief.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had recently also registered an FIR in the NSE Co-Location Case over the allegations of phone tapping.
PMCARES Trust while opposed to the present petitions stated that such a prayer is not only unheard of but is legally not maintainable.
The court observation came in an order, passed in a petition seeking direction to the Central Government to constitute a Regulatory Authority/censor board to censor/review the non-film songs, their lyrics and videos which are made available to the general public through various media platforms like Television, YouTube, etc. and make it mandatory for composers of non-film songs to receive certification before such songs are made available in the public domain.
The Court after going through the affidavit/statement of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare finds it a bit incongruous that two or more physiotherapists can form a society/trust which can own/control /manage a clinical establishment but a single physiotherapist cannot own/control/manage a clinical establishment in his/her own name.
