Post

More from @LiveLawIndia

Live Law

@LiveLawIndia

Jul 16

Worst things the wives can do to write to the employer about their husband in a matrimonial litigation causing them to lose job. What maintenance amount can you see afterwards? - Justice BV Nagarathna remarks while hearing a transfer petition in a matrimonial case
#SupremeCourt

Counsel for wife: I am already in multiple litigations in Ghaziabad with my husband. My husband is close friend and colleagues file this shoot against me at the behest of my husband.

J Nagarathna: what is the defamation?

Counsel: it is related to representation I made against my husband to the authorities concerned in Delhi - Airforce headquarters. My husband doesn't Air Force officer running independent business out of the air force which is not permitted.

Read 9 tweets

Live Law

@LiveLawIndia

Jul 15

#SupremeCourt hears the SCBA v. BD Kaushik matter pertaining to electoral reforms in SCBA

Bench: CJI Surya Kant, J Joymalya Bagchi and J V Mohana

Sr Adv Vikas Singh: We have nominated Election Committee...Mr. Jaideep Gupta is the Chairman

A sr counsel: Mr. Vikas Singh did not inform this court earlier that voter list had been finalized. Every time attempt is to extent tenure

Adv Nedumpara: These are affairs of a society. Being hijacked by petitions...where is the jurisdiction of this court?

A counsel: Your lordships have put some conditions. A misc. application has been filed...50 appearances should be reduced to 25

Nedumpara: Every member should be allowed to vote

A sr counsel: idea was to weed out people who don't regularly practice here...this is a 3rd bite at the cherry...all these points were argued

CJI: Seems nobody is opposing the reforms. One idea appears to be reforms should be implemented from this year only

Nedumpara: Every member should be able to vote and contest.

CJI: Reforms have 2 parts - one pertains to right to vote. The other is right to contest. Majority's suggestion is right to vote should be deferred to next year?

Vikas Singh: Let it be 60 proximity card entries and 20 appearances

CJI: Can we constitute the Election Committee?

Vikas Singh: The EC has already taken charge.

A counsel: Members who were there in last 10 elections should not be Election Commissioner

Sr Adv Jaideep Gupta (EC Chairman) joins proceedings.

(Clarification: Matter being heard by a bench of CJI Kant and J KV Viswanathan.)

#SupremeCourt #Elections #SCBA

Read 4 tweets

Live Law

@LiveLawIndia

Jul 15

#BREAKING Calcutta High Court is hearing a plea by TMC MP Mahua Moitra @MahuaMoitra seeking action against an alleged ‘mob attack’ on her when she had gone to attend a political event.

Counsel: she was served notices for questioning after she protested against the egg-pelters and asked them to face her directly.

#CalcuttaHighCourt

Counsel: that statement was extrapolated

Court: who is appearing for the state?

Counsel: we have served notice. Even last time this happened. I have a very limited point.

Court: nobody is appearing for state? Have you served upon the GP?

Court: this is a petition by a lady MP who was subjected to egg pelting. Where is the service upon the GP?

GP: I checked but there was no service

Court: you have to serve it to the GP as well or the service is incomplete

Come back on Monday

Read 4 tweets

Live Law

@LiveLawIndia

Jul 15

#BREAKING Calcutta High Court is hearing a plea by Mamata Banerjee-led TMC seeking to hold their annual Martyr’s Day rally on 21st July.

They were reportedly denied police permission to hold their rally after Ritabrata Banerjee-led rebel faction and Congress secured the permission.

@MamataOfficial @AITCofficial

Sr Adv Kalyan Bandopadhyay appearing for TMC: Notices under section 163(2) have been made in two police stations

60 days notice is to prevent in rallies or demonstrations in Kolkata.

Court: this is only to curb disturbance, nothing else

Court: we have passed orders permitting rallies and other things.

Bandopadhyay: this 163(2) has been imposed to prevent rallies. Main prayer is to grant permission to observe Shahid divas on 21st July. Since 1993 we have been observing.

Read 46 tweets

Live Law

@LiveLawIndia

Jul 14

#SupremeCourt hears pleas challenging CBSE circulars that imposed mandatory learning of two languages native to India as part of the 3-language formula in class VI

CJI Surya Kant: Just verify if they have issued a clarification?

Sr Adv Anand Grover: Circulars are without authority of law. Only NCERT has authority, not CBSE. They are imposing languages without giving options. No teachers, no books available if I want to learn Punjabi (instead of Sanskrit). As a child, I must have opportunity to learn language which will give me employment

Sr Adv Gopal S: Two different batches here. we are appearing in fresh matters. For senior classes, there has been dilution. They have taken a 300 yr old language and treated English as non-native language

J Bagchi: We don't understand this word 'native' language.

J Joymalya Bagchi: What the authorities intended to do...under Constitution, it's a constitutional goal that Indian languages will take over...encouragement is made...nomenclature may require some relook...how do we use 'native Indian language'...but the spirit is clear. Can India consider English as an indigenous Indian language? Parsi at one time was official language of the court.

Gopal S: Choice is left to the states

Sr Adv Shyam Divan: Despite dilution, there is a problem

CJI: Despite this circular of 29 June 2026, issues still survive?

#SupremeCourt #CBSE

Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi: Yes. A student of class 9 who is studying French till date is told to take up a 3rd language and give exam in April! Unless you get a pass in internal, you can't...how can anyone in 9th be told to start learning, say Tamil? Which school in Delhi can give you a teacher who can teach...?

Divan: Idea was to introduce in 2030. They have advanced it to this year

CJI: We are fixing for arguments and issuing notice in fresh matters

Gopal S: In the interim, let them not give effect to this. Teachers can be dismissed.

CJI: If dismissed, we can re-instate.

Read 4 tweets

Live Law

@LiveLawIndia

Jul 14

#SupremeCourt to shortly hear PIL challenging the 84th and 87th Constitutional Amendments, which deal with #delimitation of Parliamentary and State Assembly constituencies

Petitioner further challenges Article 55, 81, 82, 170, 330 and 332 of the Constitution, insofar as they permit reliance on population figures of 1971 and/or 2001

He also challenges the recent Special Intensive Revision (#SIR) exercise for being conducted without prior delimitation based on latest census

Bench: CJI Surya Kant, J Joymalya Bagchi and J V Mohana

Hearing begins

Petitioner: I have challenged constitutional validity...India is a representative democracy...representation has to be based on latest population census. Parliament has excluded 70% Indian citizens...they were born after 1971! We are not considered for representation purposes. Noida, Gurugram, Mohali did not used to exist/had low populations...see now!

CJI: Why do you say they will not be considered? We appreciate that if 70% is excluded, then what kind of delimitation? But what is the basis? Right to vote has nothing to do with delimitation. Kaunsa village hai?

Petitioner: Jhajjar

CJI: Whether your village goes to [...] or [...] constituency, it cannot deprive you of right to vote.

J Bagchi: From any constituency, even if you are not domicile

CJI: You can contest also, not only vote

Petitioner: Value of my vote has been reduced. Population has increased

J Bagchi: Vote may be diluted against entire population. But value is not diluted vis-a-vis the states. There was asymmetrical balance...but since value of vote has been on par with all states, there is not an asymmetrical approach to democracy or federalism.

CJI: Your interest and knowledge - you should continue with that. Your question probably is not really arising for consideration. Issues might require a kind of police or legislative intervention, authorities may consider

Petitioner: It can only be done by Constitutional amendment. 2/3rd majority required.

Read 4 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Live Law

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @LiveLawIndia

Live Law

Live Law

Live Law

Live Law

Live Law

Live Law

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!