[COVID Vaccine Deaths] Supreme Court to continue hearing a PIL which has stated that vaccines are being administered to public without testing its safety and that adequate data is not being disclosed to the public.
In November last year, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had told a bench of Justices L Nageshwar Rao and BR Gavai that any attempt by groups with vested interest which will result in vaccine hesitancy may be avoided.
The plea has been filed through Advocate Prashant Bhushan and seeks disclosure of data related to vaccine trials and restraining coercive action on not taking the vaccine. #COVID19 #CovidVaccine
Hearing commences.
Adv Prashant Bhushan begins with his submissions.
Justice Rao: It is not possible for us to decide all these issues relating to the vaccine mandate, which we cannot handle.
The Supreme cannot handle all this, the specifications can be dealt by the high courts
Justice Rao asks all concerned parties how much time they will take to make their submissions.
Justice Rao: We see so many people appearing on the screen, who are all these?
SG Mehta informs court that few states have been made parties by way of IAs
Adv Bhushan makes submissions.
He says that there is overwhelming evidence to show that 90% people in the country have had the virus.
He adds that once you have had the infection, you will be more safe from the virus, in comparison to someone who has taken the vaccine.
SG Mehta interrupts.
Court asks him not to interrupt Bhushan.
Court: You make your submissions Mr Mehta, but he is entitled to say whatever he wants to say.
SG Mehta: These are general propositions, some doctor has said something somewhere...
Court: We do not want this matter to go on for long. We will give you a date.
Court tells Adv Bhushan to restrict his arguments to his writ petition.
Court: We will decide on a date and the court master will intimate the parties.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Delhi High Court to continue hearing plea against marital rape exception in IPC.
@karunanundy for RIT Foundation: The last proposition of Independent Thought that is binding upon the present decision is that marriage is not institutional but personal.
Justice C Hari Shankar: Ms. Nundy is this your understanding of how the inversion test is applied according to Nevada.
#SupremeCourt to continue hearing the plea by a woman judge seeking reinstatement on the grounds that she was forced to resign as she was transferred for raising sexual harassment allegations. SGI to make submissions
SG:She substantiates her resignation on basis of 3 grounds.
Justice Gavai: After her transfer her representations were rejected. She had no other alternated.
SG: A mere incident of transfer based on rejection of representation is not enough to say its coercion
SG: She seeks the #SupremeCourt to declared that High Court connived together with others to enable her resignation. Findings of the committee were not challenged, so far as the transfer is concerned the committee says its irregular. This merely is no reason to say she was tormen
Kerala High Court recently dismissed a woman's appeal against #divorce decree noting that the #husband had been able to prove that he was treated with such cruelty that he had feared for his life.
The woman had alleged that she had been forced to leave her marital home, however, the husband had contended that on the contrary, she had deserted him as she had mental issues and used to exhibit excessive anger since the inception of marriage.
The husband had also alleged that she even used to threaten to kill him during his sleep. He had said that when he asked her to take treatment for her mental issues, she always denied pursuing proper medication.
The couple's daughters had also testified against their mother.
Salve: The petition is filed in the following circumstances of desperation. @RBI has come up with a scheme in 2020 for those who were hit by #Covid_19 . We entered into an agreement , it required certain payments. Assets had to be sold. We could not do so
#AllahabadHighCourt declines to handover the custody of minor girl child from her father to her mother in a habeas corpus writ petition.
Court said that in such matters, writ of habeas corpus will be entertainable only if the child has been detained illegally/without authority.
The couple had already filed for divorce. Taking this fact into account, court said that in such matters, the remedy would lie under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 or Guardians, and Wards Act, 1890 GWA, as the case may be and, accordingly, rejected woman's plea.
Marriage between child's parents had taken place in 2014 and she was born in 2016.
In 2020, following matrimonial disputes, her mother was allegedly kicked out of the house and since then she was seeking her child's custody.
#SupremeCourt will today hear the bail plea of #Punjab MLA Samarjit Singh Bains, a bailable warrant was issued against him after he failed to appear in a case pertaining to the violation of #Covid_19 norms.