#SupremeCourt to hear PIL seeking direction to priorities disabled person for vaccination who are at a higher risk of getting #COVID19 infection. #Vaccination
ASG Aishwarya Bhati: if you could look at our affidavit dated 13.1.22. All the guidelines are met.
SC: Let us look at it.
Bhati: It might be filed on 15th, it's dated 13th.
SC: We will take this matter tomorrow. You've given the affidavits no?
ASG: Your lordship might take 21 (Evara) and 22(DCPCR) together tomorrow.
Adv Nilesh Ojha: Our suggestion is not taken.
SC: We'll take it tomorrow.
ASG: Yes, my lord. The affidavits are filed in both cases.
Thank you
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Follow this thread for live updates from @Vidhi_India's online roundtable discussion titled 'From PDP Bill, 2019 to Data Protection Bill, 2021 and Beyond’ which will begin shortly. 👇🏽
The roundtable will feature @matthan, @VrindaBhandari, Matthias Goetz, Malvika Raghavan, Supratim Chakraborty, Professor Subhashis Banerjee, Vyom Upadhyay, and @TrisheeGoyal.
A bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and C Hari Shankar will hear the arguments of Sr Advocate Rebecca John.
Hearing is likely to start at 3 pm. #DelhiHighCourt#MaritalRape
The #SupremeCourt continues hearing the matter of reservation in Maharashtra local bodies election. #Maharashtra govt had urged the SC to recall order renotifying 27% OBC seats as those of general category.
Sr Adv Vikas Singh: Your lordship's first judgment was 4/3/21. The point here was that the statute had provided for reservation so like the constitution bench judgment in K Krishnamurthy, you read down the statute saying it's only enabling
Singh: The question arose why provide reservation on backwardness when we are numerically large. Your lordship held that it is for service purpose.
Sr Adv Mahesh Jethmalani presents a rejoinder in the case of suspension of Ashish Shelar and 11 other BJP MLAs from the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. #SupremeCourt
Sr Adv Mahesh Jethmalani: The power of the house to suspend is not under question. Mr Sundaram's argument is the period of suspension can be determined at the will and pleasure of the House. He seeks to buttress this proposition by Raja Rampal.
Jethmalani: The proposition of laws by the majority in para 431, only ground is ground of judicial review and nothing else and he gives no reason why the same should be ignored.
This was the sum of arguments of State of Maharashtra
#DelhiHighCourt will start hearing a batch of petitions demanding criminalisation of #MaritalRape
On Monday, Centre had said that it will frame a 'considered and consultative view' on the issue very soon. barandbench.com/news/marital-r…
A bench of Justices Rajiv Shakdher and C Hari Shankar will hear the matter.
Sr Advocate and Amicus Curiae Rajshekhar Rao will continue with his arguments today. #DelhiHighCourt#MaritalRape
The #SupremeCourt bench led by Justice Khanwilkar to hear pleas by #BJP MLAs led by Ashish Shelar challenging Maharashtra Legislative Assembly’s resolution of suspending them for a period of 1 year.
Sr Adv Aryama Sundaram: How far would the scope of judicial review apply for punishment?
SC: It will be a like a case of interpretative process. It's not about judicial review.
Sundaram: What your lordship feel is in 190(4) limits have to be applied.
Sundaram: The power of legislature to punish for privileges etc does not have any limitations either in scope of the power or period for which it can be exercised.
How far does this power go?
SC: If legislature makes rules or act, would there not be on the parliamentary act?