A bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol held that the Kerala High Court erred in holding that the criminal proceedings were barred due to Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
As Sibal said air pollution was “getting out of control” and courts be allowed to function online, Chief Justice Khanna said, “We have told all judges here, wherever possible, to allow virtual (hearing).”
In its decision, the Supreme Court bench highlighted the eight-year delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR) as a key reason for granting bail.
The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) raising concerns about the privacy, integrity, and security of communications through messaging services WhatsApp and Telegram.
This statement of John Stuart Mill brings to light a remarkable phenomenon, though uncommon, called ‘dissent’, i.e., ‘to differ in opinion or feelings’ or ‘to disagree.’ The Constitution of India realizing the essence and significance of dissent made this right available not only to our citizens but to our judges [Article 145].
The PIL petition - the Hindu Sena Samiti. – has sought directions for action by the central government against those making provocative speeches.
Earlier, the petitioner had approached the Kerala High Court seeking directions to the central government to ban WhatsApp if it does not comply with the orders issued by government authorities.
The apex court judgment in the UP bulldozer case lays down the law to be followed by all governments, says Sanjeev Sirohi
India's Supreme Court recently unveiled a new statue of Lad’ Justice, an iconic symbol of the judiciary, marking a significant departure from traditional representations rooted in colonial heritage.
It termed the practice "unconstitutional, arbitrary, high-handed and violative of the rule of law, and abuse of power by the executive authorities and violative of fundamental right to life and shelter guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution".
