SPP Prasad - His voice is cracking. I just wanted to make sure if it's just at my end... Just give a moment I will just log in again.
Court allows.
You first want to make a story and then you go on looking for evidence to complete the story...so you go finding the James and Bond. You end up making baseless accusations. There is absolutely no material : Pais to Court
"Per se assertion of 23rd Dec is not illegal," he adds.
Pais says that assertions relating to protest, there is no criminalization as it's protected under Constitution.
"Meetings & whatsApp group are being given color of criminality. Even if I have been a part of those groups, there is nothing criminal in that, " says Pais
Pais next refers to 23rd Jan, 2020
"Chargesheet seeks to call it a secret meeting at a secret office. The allegation to call it a secret meeting is to give it the angle of criminality... Images are available on social media, how can it be secret meeting," says Pais
"I am constantly on radar. I am on bail. You are following me. A police officer has my number and can call me. Where is the questions of making this bare statement of I was planning a conspiracy? It doesn't make sense" :Pais
BREAKING: @RashmiDVS approaches Karnataka HC in ongoing #HijabRow case. Inter alia avers “alarmed at purported attempt to introduce symbols widely regarded as tending to promote discrimination & exclusion of women in state-run edu. institutions under garb of Freedom of Religion”
.@RashmiDVS tells Karnataka HC that she herself was once a student of PU College & recalls that she & peers adhered to a strict uniform code which they welcomed as it “fostered sense of sameness & community”, “fulcrum upon which entire student body united” #HijabRowInKarnataka
Despite views expressed by noted scholars & activists such as “Hijab is meant to keep muslim women oppressed” (Kerala Governor Arif Mohammed), “Veil not mandatory in Islam” (Indian muslims for secular democracy) etc, religious chauvinism being pushed: @RashmiDVS to #KarnatakaHC
#SupremeCourt holds condition imposing gender cap on Orchestra Bars in Maharashtra allowing them to keep only four women singers/artists and four male singers/artists on stage to be void.
A bench of Justices KM Joseph and S Ravindra Bhat held that the said restriction directly transgressed Article 15 (1) and Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.
"While the overall limit of performers in any given performance cannot exceed eight, the composition (i.e., all female, majority female or male, or vice versa) can be of any combination", held the bench.
Allahabad HC pushes for a "bio-social approach" while dealing with cases where charges under #POCSO Act get slapped even in matters of teenage affairs.
The court said, "Their decision could be impulsive, immature but certainly not sinful."
High Court was hearing a bail plea of a youth who was facing prosecution for various offences including rape and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act.
The man, who was himself a teenager at that time, had run away with a 14- year-old girl and got married. The couple now has a child too.
Granting bail to the man, the high court observed,
"The scheme of the POCSO Act clearly shows that it did not intend to bring within its scope or limits, the cases of the nature where the adolescents or teenagers involved in the dense romantic affair.”
Jst N Anand Venkatesh of #MadrasHighCourt commends Tamil Nadu Govt for being committed towards the cause of #LGBTQIA + community.
"Really happy that the Govt. has come forward to protect this community from harassment by police personnel and others," says Justice.
Records the court's "deep appreciation" to the State Govt for having brought out a glossary to address persons belonging to the #LGBTQIA+ community with dignity in the media and other fora.
Directs the media to henceforth use the words that are referred to in the glossary.
Judge reiterates confidence on the press and media and sincerely hopes that they would use the dignified expressions while addressing #LGBTQIA+ community and follow the court direction in letter and spirit.
The Advocate General has completed arguments from perspective of whether the Government has any say in deciding uniforms of PU Colleges. Now, they are rebutting submissions which claimed that Hijab will be an ERP & is a fundamental right. #HijabRow
“The method and manner in which GO is assailed must be taken note of, not challenged earlier,” advocate general adds #HijabRow
Advocate General: Article 25(2) speaks of power of state to restrict or regulate by way of order. Similarly, 19(1) right can be restricted by “law to be made by state”
A #KarnatakaHighCourt bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna Dixit & Justice JM Khazi to resume hearing in plea(s) by girl students challenging the alleged ban of wearing #Hijab in government pre-university colleges in Udupi district. #KarnatakaHijabRow
Yesterday, one of the intervenors, Dr. Vinod Kulkarni argued that “banning #Hijab is tantamount to banning Quran” & “that allowing sporting of hijab was paramount for preserving mental health of muslim students during Ramzan & on Fridays” lawbeat.in/top-stories/ba…
The day before, one of the petitioners lawyers drew corollaries between allowing girls to wear Hijabs to school/pre uni colleges as men in turbans are allowed in the army & bindi’s and the crucifix are common symbols in institutions #HijabRow