#SupremeCourt to hear Tamil Nadu govt's plea against division bench of high court directing state police to allow Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) route marches without conditions imposed by a single bench.
Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi (for TN govt): Not everything can be banned, and not everything can be allowed...there cannot be a blanket mandamus on all route marches.
"There is no absolute right to hold a procession. It is subject to various restrictions in Part III of the Constitution. How can there be direction that marches can be held wherever desired? Some balance!"
Rohatgi: Can this court say that RSS can hold processions wherever? Somewhere has to be indoors...
Sr Adv Mahesh Jethmalani (for RSS): Processions meant to make a public statement...not for the organisation itself. Right to peaceably assemble at stake here.
Jethmalani: Popular Front of India was the one creating law and order issues...with impunity...Either they can't control or don't want to control it...After PFI was banned by centre, these stopped. No complaints against RSS...
Sr Adv Maneka Guruswamy (for RSS): At the heart of this issue is question of what is reasonable restriction & public order...We as a country pay some importance to Article 19 because this is a country that was imagined & conceived by those who marched.
Guruswamy (for RSS): In this free country, 70 years on, can public order & reasonable restrictions be reduced to this sort of status report? (takes court through report)
...They say RSS processions can be permitted only in an enclosed ground...
Guruswamy (for RSS): Not the way in which right to peaceably assemble, to march, to occupy public space, can be curtailed...Constitution demands more, an application of mind that speaks to well-founded fear...not what they have cited.
Supreme Court to hear a petition filed by gangster and Samajwadi Party leader Atiq Ahmed raising apprehensions of danger to life on being shifted to Uttar Pradesh jail in connection with the Umesh Pal murder case.
Adv: The threat to my life, direct and open threat. Your Lordships have to protect me.
SC: This is not a matter for this court. Go to the High Court.
Adv: In the meanwhile, some protection be given...Let there be an interrogation, investigation. Anything.
SC: You are in custody at the moment?
Adv: Yes
SC: The State machinery will take care of you.
Adv: If your Lordships are not protecting me....I'm in judicial custody right now. I'm not avoiding interrogation.
The Kerala High Court is set to continue its hearing on the bail application moved by the CM's former Principal Secretary, M. Sivasankar, who had been arrested by ED in connection with money laundering related to the LIFE Mission case. #KeralaHC#MoneyLaundering#LIFEMissionCase
During the previous hearing, Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta had appeared on behalf of Sivasankar, and had taken the Court through the facts of the case. He made his pleadings on behalf of the petitioner. #KeralaHC#MoneyLaundering#LIFEMissionCase
#SupremeCourt to hear plea filed by former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt seeking to adduce additional evidence in the criminal appeal filed by him in the Gujarat High Court challenging his conviction in a 1990 custodial death case
Matter taken.
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat for Bhatt tells the bench that the State has not filed it counter affidavit despite seeking adjournment on several occassions.
#SupremeCourt to hear today the petition filed by #AtiqAhmed raising apprehensions of danger to life on being shifted to Uttar Pradesh jail in connection with the #UmeshPalCase.
Delhi High Court to pronounce today judgment in Delhi police’s plea against discharge of Sharjeel Imam, Safoora Zargar, Asif Iqbal Tanha and eight others in the 2019 Jamia violence case.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma will pronounce the verdict at 10:30 AM. Order was reserved on March 23 last week after a detailed hearing of more than two hours.
Any Attempt To Restrain Lawyers From Appearing Before Court Will Lead To Prosecution For Wrongful Restraint: Madhya Pradesh High Court Initiates Contempt Case Against State Bar Council #Strikelivelaw.in/news-updates/m…
Any attempt by any person in restraining a counsel to appear before the Court shall also render them liable to be tried for an offence under Section 341 of IPC: Justice Atul Sreedharan
The strike called by the Chairman and the elected members of the State Bar Council is in brazen defiance of the order passed by the Division Bench hich inter alia required lawyers to resume their work: High Court #MadhyaPradesh