After a former standing counsel alleged that Maharashtra AG Ashutosh Kumbhakoni was responsible for Supreme Court verdict against #Marathareservation, the AG has cleared the air, saying that it was the erstwhile BJP government that did not want him to argue the case.
Soon after the #MarathaReservation verdict, the state’s former standing counsel Nishant Katneshwarkar claimed that AG Kumbhakoni had not argued for the state even once in either the Bombay High Court or the Supreme Court.
The hearing in the Bombay HC started in February 2019. In January 2019, the Maratha group of people had a meeting in Sholapur where a decision was taken that former Advocate General VA Thorat should appear in the case. #MarathaReservation#Maratha_Reservation
CASTE - Thorat a Maratha while Kumbhakoni was not!
Sources close to the meeting that was held in Sholapur confirmed to Bar & Bench that such a decision was indeed taken, as Thorat was a Maratha by caste and AG Kumbhakoni was not.
Supreme Court to hear suo motu case in connection with the rape and murder case in which a 31-year-old resident doctor was found dead at the State-run RG Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata, West Bengal.
Supreme Court to hear suo motu case in connection with the rape and murder case in which a 31-year-old resident doctor was found dead at the State-run RG Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata, West Bengal.
#MadrasHighCourt while hearing petition challenging detention of YouTuber #SavukkuShankar under #GoondasAct asks Tamil Nadu authorities:
"How many people are telling lies in TV channels and media? All the similar cases, where some information is provided on corruption or something, have you arrested? How many persons?"
Justice SM Subramaniam: Is it possible for government to run behind all such persons spreading false news? Only if it affects public order (you can invoke preventive detention) … How it (Savukku Shankar’s comments) affected public order?
#MadrasHighCourt #SavakkuShankar
Justice Subramaniam: It is the person who views YouTube – it his basic right (choose what to see). Can you stop your thought process?
YouTube may have good and bad videos, a person has a right to choose what to watch, Judge adds.
#SupremeCourt 7- judge constitution bench to deliver judgment shortly on petitions involving questions on the legality of sub-classifying reserved category groups, viz. the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Union of India had strongly defended reservation for downtrodden classes in India before the #SupremeCourt, while informing that it is also in favour of having sub-classifications among Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Scheduled Castes (SCs)
CJI DY Chandrachud during the hearing had observed that there was a distinction between the "sub-classification" and "sub-categorisation" of communities.
The CJI had added that States may have to sub-categorise reserved category communities to ensure that reservation benefits reach more backward groups #SupremeCourtOfIndia