Justice Ashok Bhushan led bench to shortly hear an urgent application moved seeking clarification on the aspect of facilities for isolation rooms at CLAT exam centres to enable the applicant, who is infected with #COVID19, to write the exam.
The matter was item 4. But it is being taken up first. #CLAT2020
Bench assembles.
Advocate Garima Prashad for applicants: we want the COVID19 infected students be allowed to appear in isolation rooms
SC: we are not giving general orders. we are only permitting your client to appear in isolation room. take a print out of the order
Adv Sumit Chander: There are many students. Not only one.
SC: We are not permitting others. were are only permitting the applicant. this cannot be done at the last moment. as a special bench we are passing the order otherwise this issue is not before the court
SC: Time is short. we have to dictate the order, it needs to be uploaded. (tells Garima Prashad): take a print of the order and appear in the #CLAT exam
Adv Parameshwar for Consortium states isolation room at every exam centre
SC permits the applicant to appear for CLAT exam at an isolation centre. the applicant to provide a copy of the SC order to the exam authorities.
This order is only for the applicant and not a blanket forder for other #COVID19 infected students
Supreme Court allows COVID-19 positive CLAT aspirant to take exam at isolation centre today, order to apply only to applicant #COVIDー19#CLAT2020#SupremeCourtOfIndia
#SupremeCourt hears plea by BRS President and former Chief Minister K Chandrashekar Rao challenging the Telangana High Court's decision to dismiss his petition against a commission formed by the state government
Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi: Plain case of political vendetta. Every time the government changes there is a case against the former chief minister
CJI DY Chandrachud: we will clarify that by calling it judicial enquiry they cannot take it outside the scope of the commission @TSwithKCR
Rohatgi: you cannot fix responsibility in a fact finding commission. This was for approval of tariff ..there was a power crisis and thus state bought power from state of chhatisgarh and thus the PPA needed approval from Chhattisgarh state commission and Telangana state commission.
Supreme Court DISMISSES plea by Deputy CM of Karantaka DK Shivakumar to quash CBI's disproportionate assets case against him under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
A bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the matter.
Trivedi J: How High Can stay the sanction order granted by government? This is unheard of.
Senior Adv Rohatagi (for Shivakumar): That is withdrawn already.
Trivedi J to State: That is different thing but how High Court can grant such order?
Senior Adv Rohatagi (for Shivakumar): We are on a new question, the ground is this court has held that if the predicate offence is only conspiracy, it cannot be a stand alone offence and it has to be added by some other offence as well. I am questioning the FIR lodged by CBI which is completely illegal. I am not on any part by ED. I am on the FIR dated 3.10.20 under PC Act by CBI. Section 17A which has come in 2018 requirement has not been fulfilled (referring to split verdict of Justice Trivedi and Justice Bopanna)
Trivedi J: We cannot quash the case on the basis of split verdict by this court.
Senior Adv Rohatagi: But one judge has ruled in our favor.
Trivedi J: So what, that cannot be the basis of quashing. No quashing at all.
Kejriwal was granted bail by the trial court on Thursday (June 20). The High Court put an interim stay on his bail the next day, after ED challenged the order.
On the same day, Justice Jain reserved his verdict on ED's stay application.
Delhi High Court orders removal of tweets by Congress leaders Ragini Nayak, Jairam Ramesh, and Pawan Khera alleging that journalist Rajat Sharma abused Nayak on live-television.
High Court holds that Congress leaders over-sensationalised the incident and did not remain truthful.
"It cannot be denied that the citizens have a right to freedom of Speech and expression but there was also a corresponding duty to remain truthful to the incident. The X posts berating the plaintiff are nothing but an oversensationalization and depiction of facts which are patently false," the court said.