विवादास्पद फिल्म के ट्रेलर से गाली-गलौज वाले दृश्य हटा दिए गए हैं, और जुर्माना लगाया गया है। सुप्रीम कोर्ट और बॉम्बे हाई कोर्ट दोनों ने फिल्म की रिलीज पर रोक लगा दी है और उसे निलंबित कर दिया है। पहले यह फिल्म 7 जून और फिर 14 जून को रिलीज होने वाली थी, लेकिन अब यह 21 जून को रिलीज हो रही है।
19 जून को बॉम्बे हाई कोर्ट ने विवादित फिल्म ‘हमारे बारह’ को 21 जून को थिएटर में रिलीज करने का रास्ता साफ कर दिया, हालांकि यह सुनिश्चित करने के बाद कि फिल्म निर्माता कुछ आपत्तिजनक अंशों को हटा दें।
19 जून को बॉम्बे हाई कोर्ट ने विवादित फिल्म ‘हमारे बारह’ को 21 जून को थिएटर में रिलीज करने का रास्ता साफ कर दिया, हालांकि यह सुनिश्चित करने के बाद कि फिल्म निर्माता कुछ आपत्तिजनक अंशों को हटा दें।
The Supreme Court of India heard several petitions related to women's participation and recruitment in the Indian military. For one of the petitions, the Court directed the petitioner to file a rejoinder within a week and listed the matter for further hearing on September 8th. For another petition regarding a stay, the Court issued an interim order allowing women candidates to take an upcoming examination subject to the Court's further orders. The Court also directed the Union Public Service Commission to publicize the interim orders widely. The Court listed several related matters regarding women's participation in Sainik Schools and the Rashtriya Indian Military College for hearing on September 8th as well.
1) The document is a court order from the Allahabad High Court regarding an anticipatory bail application filed by Prateek Jain who is accused in a criminal case of fraud and cheating.
2) The court notes that due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, the hearing is being conducted virtually. It also discusses the provisions around anticipatory bail in the CrPC and relevant case laws.
3) In its order, the court considers the arguments made by both sides and then discusses how it will exercise its discretion in light of the circumstances around the case as well as the current pandemic situation.
1) The document is a court order from the Allahabad High Court regarding an anticipatory bail application filed by Prateek Jain who is accused in a criminal case of fraud and cheating.
2) The court notes that due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, the hearing is being conducted virtually. It also discusses the provisions around anticipatory bail applications in the CrPC.
3) In its order, the court considers the arguments made by the defense and prosecution and ultimately decides to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant while imposing certain conditions.
The Supreme Court of India heard a petition challenging a High Court order that upheld a tribunal's modification of an employee's dismissal to compulsory retirement for misconduct. The Supreme Court issued a notice, staying the High Court order, as the High Court's reasoning in an 18-page judgment was incomprehensible. A serious charge of misconduct against the employee appeared to have been established based on the tribunal's findings.
1. The State Government is directed to provide copies of reports submitted by various District Collectors to the Amicus Curiae and counsel for the petitioner within one week.
2. The Amicus Curiae is requested to prepare a comprehensive summary based on these reports.
3. The State Government is directed to make arrangements to ensure that no prison inmate is denied vaccination due to inability to register on the COWIN portal, and alternate registration methods should be provided.
4. The Member Secretary of the Odisha State Legal Services Authority is directed to coordinate with the State Government to take timely steps regarding commutation and remission of sentences for eligible prisoners.
1) The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging defamatory news reports about his deceased daughter circulated by media and political parties.
2) The court notes that the dignity of an individual, even after death, must be protected under Article 21 of the constitution.
3) As an interim relief, the court directs the respondent media houses to not publish any unnecessary reports about the daughter's death or alleged relationship, and to follow the guidelines restricting prejudicial reports from the Nilesh Navlakha case.
19 जून को बॉम्बे हाई कोर्ट ने विवादित फिल्म ‘हमारे बारह’ को 21 जून को थिएटर में रिलीज करने का रास्ता साफ कर दिया, हालांकि यह सुनिश्चित करने के बाद कि फिल्म निर्माता कुछ आपत्तिजनक अंशों को हटा दें।
19 जून को बॉम्बे हाई कोर्ट ने विवादित फिल्म ‘हमारे बारह’ को 21 जून को थिएटर में रिलीज करने का रास्ता साफ कर दिया, हालांकि यह सुनिश्चित करने के बाद कि फिल्म निर्माता कुछ आपत्तिजनक अंशों को हटा दें।
The Supreme Court of India heard several petitions related to women's participation and recruitment in the Indian military. For one of the petitions, the Court directed the petitioner to file a rejoinder within a week and listed the matter for further hearing on September 8th. For another petition regarding a stay, the Court issued an interim order allowing women candidates to take an upcoming examination subject to the Court's further orders. The Court also directed the Union Public Service Commission to publicize the interim orders widely. The Court listed several related matters regarding women's participation in Sainik Schools and the Rashtriya Indian Military College for hearing on September 8th as well.
1) The document is a court order from the Allahabad High Court regarding an anticipatory bail application filed by Prateek Jain who is accused in a criminal case of fraud and cheating.
2) The court notes that due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, the hearing is being conducted virtually. It also discusses the provisions around anticipatory bail in the CrPC and relevant case laws.
3) In its order, the court considers the arguments made by both sides and then discusses how it will exercise its discretion in light of the circumstances around the case as well as the current pandemic situation.
1) The document is a court order from the Allahabad High Court regarding an anticipatory bail application filed by Prateek Jain who is accused in a criminal case of fraud and cheating.
2) The court notes that due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, the hearing is being conducted virtually. It also discusses the provisions around anticipatory bail applications in the CrPC.
3) In its order, the court considers the arguments made by the defense and prosecution and ultimately decides to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant while imposing certain conditions.
The Supreme Court of India heard a petition challenging a High Court order that upheld a tribunal's modification of an employee's dismissal to compulsory retirement for misconduct. The Supreme Court issued a notice, staying the High Court order, as the High Court's reasoning in an 18-page judgment was incomprehensible. A serious charge of misconduct against the employee appeared to have been established based on the tribunal's findings.
1. The State Government is directed to provide copies of reports submitted by various District Collectors to the Amicus Curiae and counsel for the petitioner within one week.
2. The Amicus Curiae is requested to prepare a comprehensive summary based on these reports.
3. The State Government is directed to make arrangements to ensure that no prison inmate is denied vaccination due to inability to register on the COWIN portal, and alternate registration methods should be provided.
4. The Member Secretary of the Odisha State Legal Services Authority is directed to coordinate with the State Government to take timely steps regarding commutation and remission of sentences for eligible prisoners.
1) The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging defamatory news reports about his deceased daughter circulated by media and political parties.
2) The court notes that the dignity of an individual, even after death, must be protected under Article 21 of the constitution.
3) As an interim relief, the court directs the respondent media houses to not publish any unnecessary reports about the daughter's death or alleged relationship, and to follow the guidelines restricting prejudicial reports from the Nilesh Navlakha case.
The court heard two bail applications together regarding the same FIR for offenses of murder and rioting. One eyewitness claimed to witness incidents in two different locations over 500 meters apart on the same day. The court directed the state to verify this, and the state reported the locations were actually 350 meters apart. While the veracity of allegations will be determined at trial, the court granted bail to the petitioners since one had been in custody for over a year and trial would take substantial time. Bail was granted on furnishing personal bonds of Rs. 20,000 with one surety each of the same amount.
The Supreme Court of India heard petitions related to interim bail orders granted to prisoners in Delhi due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court noted that the Delhi High Court had previously modified interim bail orders on October 20th, 2020. The Supreme Court stayed parts of that High Court order and has now directed that 2318 prisoners granted interim bail by trial courts and 356 granted by the High Court must surrender within 15 days. The Court also directed the Amicus Curiae to submit a report on prison overcrowding within 4 weeks and for replies to be filed within 4 weeks thereafter. The matters will be heard again on April 26th, 2021.
The Supreme Court of India heard a writ petition filed by Karuna Shankar against the State of Uttar Pradesh regarding her application for premature release that had been pending for over 3 years without justification. The Court directed the Director General of Prisons to ensure Shankar's application is considered and disposed of within a month and to file an affidavit of compliance. It warned of coercive action if further instances of authorities delaying such applications are found.
1. Gulfisha Fatima filed a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to direct the State to produce her and release her from what she claims is illegal custody.
2. She was arrested in connection with multiple FIRs including charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. Her bail applications were dismissed except for one case where she was granted bail.
3. The court dismissed the writ petition stating that her detention was not illegal as she was in judicial custody pursuant to court orders and the remedy lies in appealing those orders, not through a writ of habeas corpus.
Allah hc order mohd. faizan v. state of up sabrangsabrang
This document summarizes a court case in India challenging a show-cause notice issued to deposit damages for public property. The petitioner's counsel argued the notice violated Supreme Court guidelines requiring an independent claims commissioner to investigate liability. While the respondent cited a pending Supreme Court case, the court ruled the notice's authority was also being challenged in that case. It stayed the notice's effect until the Supreme Court makes a determination and the petitioner agreed to abide by the Supreme Court's final order.
The document summarizes a court order from the High Court of Judicature at Bombay granting temporary bail to Dr. P.V. Varavara Rao for 4 weeks. Key details include:
- Dr. Rao was seeking bail in a case registered in Gadchiroli for various offenses.
- He had been recently released on bail in another case by the Principal Seat of the court on medical grounds.
- Considering Dr. Rao's health condition, the court granted him temporary bail for 4 weeks on the same terms and conditions as the previous bail order.
- The bail order lists several conditions for Dr. Rao including reporting to police every 2 weeks, not
1. Ram Kumar has filed a bail application in connection with FIR No. 156/2018 registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for attempted murder.
2. He claims to be innocent and falsely implicated. He owns a textile business and has no criminal record.
3. Ram Kumar promises to abide by any bail conditions and attend court on all hearing dates, and seeks bail citing his innocence, responsibility, and that keeping him in custody serves no purpose.
SC Interim Bail to Teesta Setalvad_Order_02-Sep-2022 (1).pdfsabrangsabrang
The Supreme Court of India granted interim bail to Teesta Setalvad who had been in judicial custody since June 2022 regarding charges related to fabricating evidence in the 2002 Gujarat riots cases. While not examining the merits of the case, the Court noted that Setalvad had been in custody for over 2 months, essential investigation was complete, and the offenses dated back to 2002. It directed that she be released on interim bail on furnishing a cash bond or surety until the High Court considers her regular bail application. The Court clarified this should not be seen as a reflection on the case merits.
SC Interim Bail to Teesta Setalvad_Order_02-Sep-2022.pdfsabrangsabrang
The Supreme Court of India granted interim bail to Teesta Setalvad, who had been in judicial custody since June 2022 regarding charges related to fabrication of evidence in a 2002 riot case. While not assessing the merits of the case, the Court noted that essential investigation was complete, her custody was not needed during the pending High Court proceedings, and interim bail was justified given she had been in custody for over 2 months as a female accused. However, conditions were imposed including surrendering her passport until the High Court considers the matter.
The court heard arguments from counsel for the petitioner Jenny Roweena and the two respondents, the State of Maharashtra and NIA, regarding the medical report of the petitioner's husband Dr. Hany Babu Tharayil. While the petitioner's counsel argued that the report suggested he still required critical care and should be allowed house arrest, the NIA objected stating the report said he was ready for discharge. The court then requested the hospital to further examine the patient and provide an updated report by June 14th. It also allowed the interim order to continue and permitted family visits as per hospital protocol until the next hearing date of June 15th.
This document is an urgent whistleblower application filed in an Indian court. It seeks to bring important information on record related to the administration of justice in judicial institutions. It references several pending applications filed by the whistleblower dating back to 2011 that remain undecided. These applications contain evidence of criminal conspiracy and involvement of public servants and judicial officers that the whistleblower seeks to present. The document requests that if the whistleblower's locus standi (standing) is questioned, the pending probate case determining this issue must be decided first before the applications can be heard. It urges the court to decide the various pending applications in sequence to allow the whistleblower to present pre-charge evidence in the matter.
This document is a court order from the High Court of Himachal Pradesh regarding a bail application. A 20-year-old man who was arrested for allegedly alluring and raping a 16-year-old girl has applied for bail. The court analyzed the facts of the case, relevant case law, and considered arguments from both sides. While the conduct of the victim indicates some consent, she could not legally consent given her age. However, considering the stage of investigation and time already served, the court granted bail to the petitioner subject to strict terms and conditions to ensure his appearance and prevent interference with the investigation.
The Supreme Court of India dismissed a writ petition seeking directions for the expeditious disposal of a criminal appeal pending in the High Court. The petitioner had been in jail for 21 years without remission while awaiting the outcome of the appeal. The Supreme Court gave the petitioner liberty to file a fresh bail application in the pending criminal appeal before the High Court. The Court observed that if a bail application is filed, the High Court shall consider it forthwith. The Court expected the High Court to decide any bail application within one month of filing.
The Supreme Court of India heard a special leave petition filed against an order of adjournment passed by the Delhi High Court in a pending case. While not entering into the merits of the case, the Supreme Court granted liberty to the petitioners' counsel to request the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court on Monday to take up the matter at an early date, given the urgency stated. The special leave petition was then disposed of with the observation that the High Court would appropriately consider the request for an early hearing of the pending case.
The petitioner, Irshad Ahmed, filed a bail application in the Delhi High Court for offenses related to rioting and arson. The prosecution opposed bail, stating that the petitioner was present with 100 others on the terrace of an accused's house, throwing petrol bombs. A witness identified the petitioner. However, the court noted there was no electronic evidence implicating the petitioner and the witnesses did not report the incident on the date it occurred. While not commenting on the merits, the court granted bail to the petitioner on furnishing a bond and surety, and transferred the order to the trial court.
1. The petitioner challenged an FIR filed against her regarding Facebook posts alleging violations of lockdown restrictions in certain areas of West Bengal.
2. The Calcutta High Court had directed the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer if summoned under Section 41A of the CrPC.
3. The Supreme Court granted an interim stay on the high court's order and allowed the investigating officer to question the petitioner via video conferencing, with 24 hours notice. The petitioner was also willing to cooperate and respond to queries.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of India case involving two appellants, Pravat Chandra Mohanty and Pratap Kumar Choudhury, who were convicted of assaulting and causing the death of Kasinath Naik. The Supreme Court heard arguments from counsel for the appellants, the state of Odisha, and the legal representatives of the deceased. The appellants deposited compensation in court and all parties agreed to compound the offense of conviction under Section 324 IPC. The Supreme Court considered converting the Section 324 conviction to Section 323 or substituting imprisonment with a fine, given the appellants' advanced age.
Ktaka hc order june 22 rape accused bailZahidManiyar
The petitioner, Rakesh B, sought anticipatory bail in relation to crimes registered against him under sections 376 (rape), 420 (cheating), 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC and section 66(B) of the IT Act. His earlier petition was rejected by a lower court.
The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, noting inconsistencies and lack of explanation in the complainant's version of events. The Court imposed strict conditions on the petitioner, including executing a personal bond, cooperating with investigation, not leaving the jurisdiction, and reporting regularly to police. Failure to abide by conditions could result in cancellation of bail.
SC order dated 11.05.2022- Sedition case.pdfsabrangsabrang
The Supreme Court heard petitions challenging the constitutionality of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with the offense of sedition. In its order, the Court noted the Union of India's agreement that the sedition law is not in tune with the current social climate. As such, the Court directed that the central and state governments refrain from using Section 124A while it is being reconsidered. The Court also kept pending sedition cases and trials in abeyance until further orders.
The court heard two bail applications together regarding the same FIR for offenses of murder and rioting. One eyewitness claimed to witness incidents in two different locations over 500 meters apart on the same day. The court directed the state to verify this, and the state reported the locations were actually 350 meters apart. While the veracity of allegations will be determined at trial, the court granted bail to the petitioners since one had been in custody for over a year and trial would take substantial time. Bail was granted on furnishing personal bonds of Rs. 20,000 with one surety each of the same amount.
The Supreme Court of India heard petitions related to interim bail orders granted to prisoners in Delhi due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court noted that the Delhi High Court had previously modified interim bail orders on October 20th, 2020. The Supreme Court stayed parts of that High Court order and has now directed that 2318 prisoners granted interim bail by trial courts and 356 granted by the High Court must surrender within 15 days. The Court also directed the Amicus Curiae to submit a report on prison overcrowding within 4 weeks and for replies to be filed within 4 weeks thereafter. The matters will be heard again on April 26th, 2021.
The Supreme Court of India heard a writ petition filed by Karuna Shankar against the State of Uttar Pradesh regarding her application for premature release that had been pending for over 3 years without justification. The Court directed the Director General of Prisons to ensure Shankar's application is considered and disposed of within a month and to file an affidavit of compliance. It warned of coercive action if further instances of authorities delaying such applications are found.
1. Gulfisha Fatima filed a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to direct the State to produce her and release her from what she claims is illegal custody.
2. She was arrested in connection with multiple FIRs including charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. Her bail applications were dismissed except for one case where she was granted bail.
3. The court dismissed the writ petition stating that her detention was not illegal as she was in judicial custody pursuant to court orders and the remedy lies in appealing those orders, not through a writ of habeas corpus.
Allah hc order mohd. faizan v. state of up sabrangsabrang
This document summarizes a court case in India challenging a show-cause notice issued to deposit damages for public property. The petitioner's counsel argued the notice violated Supreme Court guidelines requiring an independent claims commissioner to investigate liability. While the respondent cited a pending Supreme Court case, the court ruled the notice's authority was also being challenged in that case. It stayed the notice's effect until the Supreme Court makes a determination and the petitioner agreed to abide by the Supreme Court's final order.
The document summarizes a court order from the High Court of Judicature at Bombay granting temporary bail to Dr. P.V. Varavara Rao for 4 weeks. Key details include:
- Dr. Rao was seeking bail in a case registered in Gadchiroli for various offenses.
- He had been recently released on bail in another case by the Principal Seat of the court on medical grounds.
- Considering Dr. Rao's health condition, the court granted him temporary bail for 4 weeks on the same terms and conditions as the previous bail order.
- The bail order lists several conditions for Dr. Rao including reporting to police every 2 weeks, not
1. Ram Kumar has filed a bail application in connection with FIR No. 156/2018 registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for attempted murder.
2. He claims to be innocent and falsely implicated. He owns a textile business and has no criminal record.
3. Ram Kumar promises to abide by any bail conditions and attend court on all hearing dates, and seeks bail citing his innocence, responsibility, and that keeping him in custody serves no purpose.
SC Interim Bail to Teesta Setalvad_Order_02-Sep-2022 (1).pdfsabrangsabrang
The Supreme Court of India granted interim bail to Teesta Setalvad who had been in judicial custody since June 2022 regarding charges related to fabricating evidence in the 2002 Gujarat riots cases. While not examining the merits of the case, the Court noted that Setalvad had been in custody for over 2 months, essential investigation was complete, and the offenses dated back to 2002. It directed that she be released on interim bail on furnishing a cash bond or surety until the High Court considers her regular bail application. The Court clarified this should not be seen as a reflection on the case merits.
SC Interim Bail to Teesta Setalvad_Order_02-Sep-2022.pdfsabrangsabrang
The Supreme Court of India granted interim bail to Teesta Setalvad, who had been in judicial custody since June 2022 regarding charges related to fabrication of evidence in a 2002 riot case. While not assessing the merits of the case, the Court noted that essential investigation was complete, her custody was not needed during the pending High Court proceedings, and interim bail was justified given she had been in custody for over 2 months as a female accused. However, conditions were imposed including surrendering her passport until the High Court considers the matter.
The court heard arguments from counsel for the petitioner Jenny Roweena and the two respondents, the State of Maharashtra and NIA, regarding the medical report of the petitioner's husband Dr. Hany Babu Tharayil. While the petitioner's counsel argued that the report suggested he still required critical care and should be allowed house arrest, the NIA objected stating the report said he was ready for discharge. The court then requested the hospital to further examine the patient and provide an updated report by June 14th. It also allowed the interim order to continue and permitted family visits as per hospital protocol until the next hearing date of June 15th.
This document is an urgent whistleblower application filed in an Indian court. It seeks to bring important information on record related to the administration of justice in judicial institutions. It references several pending applications filed by the whistleblower dating back to 2011 that remain undecided. These applications contain evidence of criminal conspiracy and involvement of public servants and judicial officers that the whistleblower seeks to present. The document requests that if the whistleblower's locus standi (standing) is questioned, the pending probate case determining this issue must be decided first before the applications can be heard. It urges the court to decide the various pending applications in sequence to allow the whistleblower to present pre-charge evidence in the matter.
This document is a court order from the High Court of Himachal Pradesh regarding a bail application. A 20-year-old man who was arrested for allegedly alluring and raping a 16-year-old girl has applied for bail. The court analyzed the facts of the case, relevant case law, and considered arguments from both sides. While the conduct of the victim indicates some consent, she could not legally consent given her age. However, considering the stage of investigation and time already served, the court granted bail to the petitioner subject to strict terms and conditions to ensure his appearance and prevent interference with the investigation.
The Supreme Court of India dismissed a writ petition seeking directions for the expeditious disposal of a criminal appeal pending in the High Court. The petitioner had been in jail for 21 years without remission while awaiting the outcome of the appeal. The Supreme Court gave the petitioner liberty to file a fresh bail application in the pending criminal appeal before the High Court. The Court observed that if a bail application is filed, the High Court shall consider it forthwith. The Court expected the High Court to decide any bail application within one month of filing.
The Supreme Court of India heard a special leave petition filed against an order of adjournment passed by the Delhi High Court in a pending case. While not entering into the merits of the case, the Supreme Court granted liberty to the petitioners' counsel to request the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court on Monday to take up the matter at an early date, given the urgency stated. The special leave petition was then disposed of with the observation that the High Court would appropriately consider the request for an early hearing of the pending case.
The petitioner, Irshad Ahmed, filed a bail application in the Delhi High Court for offenses related to rioting and arson. The prosecution opposed bail, stating that the petitioner was present with 100 others on the terrace of an accused's house, throwing petrol bombs. A witness identified the petitioner. However, the court noted there was no electronic evidence implicating the petitioner and the witnesses did not report the incident on the date it occurred. While not commenting on the merits, the court granted bail to the petitioner on furnishing a bond and surety, and transferred the order to the trial court.
1. The petitioner challenged an FIR filed against her regarding Facebook posts alleging violations of lockdown restrictions in certain areas of West Bengal.
2. The Calcutta High Court had directed the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer if summoned under Section 41A of the CrPC.
3. The Supreme Court granted an interim stay on the high court's order and allowed the investigating officer to question the petitioner via video conferencing, with 24 hours notice. The petitioner was also willing to cooperate and respond to queries.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of India case involving two appellants, Pravat Chandra Mohanty and Pratap Kumar Choudhury, who were convicted of assaulting and causing the death of Kasinath Naik. The Supreme Court heard arguments from counsel for the appellants, the state of Odisha, and the legal representatives of the deceased. The appellants deposited compensation in court and all parties agreed to compound the offense of conviction under Section 324 IPC. The Supreme Court considered converting the Section 324 conviction to Section 323 or substituting imprisonment with a fine, given the appellants' advanced age.
Ktaka hc order june 22 rape accused bailZahidManiyar
The petitioner, Rakesh B, sought anticipatory bail in relation to crimes registered against him under sections 376 (rape), 420 (cheating), 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC and section 66(B) of the IT Act. His earlier petition was rejected by a lower court.
The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, noting inconsistencies and lack of explanation in the complainant's version of events. The Court imposed strict conditions on the petitioner, including executing a personal bond, cooperating with investigation, not leaving the jurisdiction, and reporting regularly to police. Failure to abide by conditions could result in cancellation of bail.
SC order dated 11.05.2022- Sedition case.pdfsabrangsabrang
The Supreme Court heard petitions challenging the constitutionality of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with the offense of sedition. In its order, the Court noted the Union of India's agreement that the sedition law is not in tune with the current social climate. As such, the Court directed that the central and state governments refrain from using Section 124A while it is being reconsidered. The Court also kept pending sedition cases and trials in abeyance until further orders.
Similar to bombay-hc-hamare-baraah-film-June-6.pdfde (20)
यूजीसी-नेट और NEET परीक्षा (कई अन्य के अलावा, 2018 तक सीबीएसई द्वारा आयोजित की जाती थी, जो भारत में सार्वजनिक और निजी स्कूलों के लिए एक राष्ट्रीय शिक्षा बोर्ड था (और है), जिसे भारत सरकार द्वारा नियंत्रित और प्रबंधित किया जाता था।
मद्रास उच्च न्यायालय के सेवानिवृत्त न्यायाधीश और केंद्र और राज्य सरकार के नौकरशाहों सहित आठ अन्य लोगों की अध्यक्षता वाली एक उच्च स्तरीय समिति ने 2021 में NEET परीक्षा को खत्म करने की सिफारिश की थी। महत्वपूर्ण बात यह है कि रिपोर्ट में 2010-11 में ग्रामीण पृष्ठभूमि से तमिल छात्रों की संख्या में 61.5% की भारी गिरावट को दर्शाया गया है। इसके बजाय मेट्रो छात्रों में वृद्धि दर्ज की गई है।
केरल उच्च न्यायालय ने 11 जून, 2024 को मंडला पूजा में भाग लेने की अनुमति मांगने वाली 10 वर्षीय लड़की की रिट याचिका को खारिज कर दिया, जिसमें सर्वोच्च न्यायालय की एक बड़ी पीठ के समक्ष इस मुद्दे की लंबित प्रकृति पर जोर दिया गया। यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति अनिल के. नरेंद्रन और न्यायमूर्ति हरिशंकर वी. मेनन की खंडपीठ द्वारा पारित किया गया
सामूहिक हस्ताक्षर अभियान जो चल रहा है, उसे इंडिया अलायंस के अन्य दलों के नेताओं को भी सूचित किया जाएगा। पत्र याचिका में प्रस्तावित, दूरगामी संशोधनों पर गंभीर संसदीय बहस, कानूनी विशेषज्ञों के साथ परामर्श और संयुक्त संसदीय समिति (जेपीसी) द्वारा जांच का आग्रह किया गया है।
ग्रेटर मुंबई के नगर आयुक्त को एक खुले पत्र में याचिका दायर कर 540 से अधिक मुंबईकरों ने सभी अवैध और अस्थिर होर्डिंग्स, साइनबोर्ड और इलेक्ट्रिक साइनेज को तत्काल हटाने और 13 मई, 2024 की शाम को घाटकोपर में अवैध होर्डिंग के गिरने की विनाशकारी घटना के बाद अपराधियों के खिलाफ सख्त कार्रवाई की मांग की है, जिसमें 17 लोगों की जान चली गई और कई निर्दोष लोग गंभीर रूप से घायल हो गए।
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
10 जून, 2024 को देर शाम ईमेल और रजिस्टर्ड पोस्ट के ज़रिए शिवसेना (यूबीटी) के उम्मीदवार अमोल कीर्तिकर ने मुंबई के उत्तर पश्चिम निर्वाचन क्षेत्र से ईसीआई द्वारा घोषित चुनाव परिणामों को चुनौती दी है
10 जून, 2024 को देर शाम ईमेल और रजिस्टर्ड पोस्ट के ज़रिए शिवसेना (यूबीटी) के उम्मीदवार अमोल कीर्तिकर ने मुंबई के उत्तर पश्चिम निर्वाचन क्षेत्र से ईसीआई द्वारा घोषित चुनाव परिणामों को चुनौती दी है
‘वोटर्स विल मस्ट प्रीवेल’ (मतदाताओं को जीतना होगा) अभियान द्वारा जारी हेल्पलाइन नंबर, 4 जून को सुबह 7 बजे से दोपहर 12 बजे तक मतगणना प्रक्रिया में कहीं भी किसी भी तरह के उल्लंघन की रिपोर्ट करने के लिए खुला रहेगा।
हम आग्रह करते हैं कि जो भी सत्ता में आए, वह संविधान का पालन करे, उसकी रक्षा करे और उसे बनाए रखे।" प्रस्ताव में कुल तीन प्रमुख हस्तक्षेप और उनके तंत्र भी प्रस्तुत किए गए। पहला हस्तक्षेप स्वतंत्र मीडिया को प्रोत्साहित करके, वास्तविकता पर आधारित काउंटर नैरेटिव का निर्माण करके और सत्तारूढ़ सरकार द्वारा नियोजित मनोवैज्ञानिक हेरफेर की रणनीति का मुकाबला करके लोगों द्वारा निर्धारित कथा को बनाए रखना और उस पर कार्यकरना था।
पिछले दो सप्ताहों में, बेंगलुरु और दिल्ली में, दो राष्ट्रीय स्तर की बैठकों ने भारत के वर्तमान चुनाव आयोग (ईसीआई) की स्वतंत्र कार्यप्रणाली में विश्वास में कमी के कारण मतगणना की निगरानी करने के अपने इरादे की घोषणा की है। #VotersWillMustPrevail एक सामूहिक आंदोलन है जो अगले कुछ हफ्तों में और तेज होगा जो लोकतंत्र के लिए महत्वपूर्ण है। जन संगठन, किसान और श्रमिक समूह के अलावा सार्वजनिक बुद्धिजीवी इस प्रयास का हिस्सा हैं जो अगले कुछ हफ्तों में अपने काम को तेज करेगा।
विरोध प्रदर्शन के माध्यम से, महिला, दलित, किसान, अल्पसंख्यक, पिछड़े समुदाय, लैंगिक अल्पसंख्यक, वैज्ञानिक आंदोलन, छात्र और युवा आंदोलन से संबंधित संगठन हसन शहर में विरोध प्रदर्शन करेंगे और रेवन्ना का पासपोर्ट रद्द करने, पीड़ितों की गरिमा की रक्षा की मांग करेंगे।
आईसीडब्ल्यूआई (इंडियन सिविल वॉचलिस्ट) और Ekō की एक हालिया रिपोर्ट से पता चला है कि भारत के लोकसभा चुनावों से पहले सतर्क रहने का वादा करने के बावजूद, मेटा अपने प्लेटफार्मों पर एआई द्वारा उत्पन्न घृणा सामग्री को मंच दे रहा है।
La defensa del expresidente Juan Orlando Hernández, declarado culpable por narcotráfico en EE. UU., solicitó este viernes al juez Kevin Castel que imponga una condena mínima de 40 años de prisión.
La defensa del expresidente Juan Orlando Hernández, declarado culpable por narcotráfico en EE. UU., solicitó este viernes al juez Kevin Castel que imponga una condena mínima de 40 años de prisión.
Breaking Points – Five Symptoms of Constructive Agonism Turning into Destruct...Axel Bruns
Paper by Katharina Esau, Samantha Vilkins, Axel Bruns, Sebastian Svegaard,
Tariq Choucair, Carly Lubicz, and Kate O'Connor, presented by Katharina Esau at the P³: Power, Propaganda, Polarisation ICA 2024 postconference, Brisbane, 26 June 2024.
THE MODERN CAPITALIST ECONOMY OF PERMANENT WAR.pdfFaga1939
This article aims to demonstrate the connection between capitalism and the war economy existing in the great capitalist powers that materialized throughout history from the 1st Industrial Revolution in the 18th century. Nowadays, the connection between capitalism and the war economy practiced by the great capitalist powers is increasingly evident as indispensable for understanding the games of interests that influence the dynamics of the world capitalist system. The war economy that was adopted only in times of armed conflict has become permanent. The great beneficiaries of current war capitalism are, in addition to the war industry, due to the increase in demand for weapons and ammunition, also the financial system. The great powers act as financiers and consumers of armaments production. To this end, it will look to private rentier capital for huge credits to be spent on weapons, which contributes to the growth of parasitic capital and, consequently, to its appreciation. Furthermore, war is an inexorable means for the maintenance and expansion of power by great powers. The large military complex disconnected from society required a "permanent war economy". This new economy of death is manifested in the fact that the 20th century has been, throughout history, the century of wars, contributing to 187 million deaths. Of the 10 largest arms manufacturers in the world, six are North American, five of which are leaders in the global arms industry. The United States was the one with the highest military expenditure in the world (39% of the total) in 2021. It is no coincidence that the United States is one of the countries most economically benefited from armed clashes, as the largest arms exporters in the world are North American. In addition to the sale of ammunition and weapons, the United States also monetizes with security contracts and military training, which means that many members of the US Congress understand wars as a machine for generating jobs internally and making money. Peace, for the United States, could cost it dearly. In the 21st century, preparation for war has become more central to the world capitalist system than ever before. It is evident that, as long as there is a weapons industry in the world, wars will continue to proliferate across the planet. Peace in the world will only happen when there is a cessation of weapons manufacturing in the world, the end of the arms industry and the disarmament of all countries.
25062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
21062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
22062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
24062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
1. 501-ASWP-8071-2024F.DOC
Ashwini
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8071 OF 2024
Azhar Basha Tamboli …Petitioner
Versus
Ravi S Gupta & Ors …Respondents
Mr Mayur Khandeparkar, with Aneesa Cheema, i/b Rekha Musale,
for the Petitioner.
Mr Rahul Narichania, Senior Advocate, with Siddharth T, Niyati
M, i/b Kirit Hakani, for Respondents Nos. 1 to 6.
Mr Advait Sethna, with P Roychoudhary, for Respondents Nos. 7, 8
and 14.
Ms Kavita N Solunke, AGP, for the Respondent-State.
CORAM Kamal Khata &
Rajesh S Patil, JJ.
DATED: 6th June 2024
PC:-
1. As predicted we are faced with a second round in this matter.
Aggrieved by order passed yesterday i.e. 5th June 2024 by Division
Bench (NR Borkar and Kamal Khata, JJ) whereby the said Division
Bench injuncted Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 exhibiting the film
(Hamare Baarah) in any manner to the general public the producers
(Respondents Nos. 1 to 6) have come to Court.
2. This matter is re-heard since the Bench has changed.
3. We have heard learned Senior Advocate Mr Narichania on
behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 to 6, Mr Sethna for Respondents Nos.
7, 8 and 14 and also Mr Khandeparkar for the Petitioner.
Page 1 of 4
6th June 2024
ASHWINI
H
GAJAKOSH
Digitally signed by
ASHWINI H
GAJAKOSH
Date: 2024.06.06
19:30:10 +0530
::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2024 12:16:34 :::
2. 501-ASWP-8071-2024F.DOC
4. Having considered all the rival submissions as well as keeping
in mind the findings of our order dated 5th June 2024 we have
permitted mentioning of this matter on a praecipe.
5. The injunction order passed exparte if continued would cause
the producers severe financial loss as the film release is scheduled
for tomorrow submits Mr Narichania.
6. Only with a view to balance the equities and in view of our
finding in paragraph 8 of our order that “a prima facie case is made
out” and “the film may also be required to be viewed to draw any
conclusion with regard to the rival contentions” we deem it fit to
direct the Respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 14 to form a panel of three
individuals including at least one member from the Muslim
community to view the movie in the course of the day today.
7. It is a case of the Petitioner that the trailer (teaser as
contended by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6) exhibits the theme of
entire film which is objectionable. Mr Narichania opposes this. He
submits that at least three of the dialogues mentioned at page 17 of
the Petition have been removed and the other dialogues are views
that have been countered amongst the hero and villain characters in
the film. He submits that the film is released only after certification
and reviewed by two committees. Moreover the film was exhibited
at Cannes festival on 18th May 2024. Mr Narichania submits on
instructions that there have been substantial number of tickets
already sold by theatres all over India. Whether it is a teaser
Page 2 of 4
6th June 2024
::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2024 12:16:34 :::
3. 501-ASWP-8071-2024F.DOC
according to Mr Narichania or trailer according to Mr
Khandeparkar is an argument for another day.
8. We direct the panel would give their comments on the theme
of the movie and more particularly on the averments in the Petition
only.
9. We recall the injunction on the release of the film and the film
is allowed to be released until further orders of the Court.
10. The objections, if any, by the Petitioner would be considered
by this Court by tomorrow, i.e. on 7th June at around 9.00 am
keeping in mind that the first show is scheduled at 10.00 am and this
we believe would balance the equities amongst both the parties.
11. In any event if the Court finds after hearing the parties that
the further exhibition of the film is to be injuncted the same will be
considered tomorrow, i.e. 7th June 2024. It is clarified that the
release of the film is now allowed, and shall be subject to further
orders of this Court.
12. So far as the link of the teaser and/or trailer displayed on
platforms such as YouTube, Book My Show etc is concerned we
direct that the same shall be disabled by Respondents Nos. 1 to 6
and removed from circulation/exhibition on social media platforms
by all the concerned parties until further orders of the Court.
Page 3 of 4
6th June 2024
::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2024 12:16:34 :::
4. 501-ASWP-8071-2024F.DOC
13. The certified film that is intended to be exhibited will be made
available to the panel at the earliest convenience by the Respondent
Nos 1 to 6.
14. In view of the paucity of time, the Respondents are permitted
to give the said film for the viewing by the committee in the MP4
format.
15. We further clarify that rival contentions of both sides are
expressly kept open and we have not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case.
16. The findings of the committee would be communicated or
served on all concerned parties by Respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 14 as
early as possible and in any event before 8.00 am tomorrow i.e 7th
June 2024.
17. We clarify that this order is passed in the facts and
circumstances of this case and shall not be treated as a precedent.
18. List the matter on 7th June 2024 at 9.00 am.
19. All parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
(Rajesh S Patil, J) (Kamal Khata, J)
Page 4 of 4
6th June 2024
::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2024 12:16:34 :::
雅虎竞拍
煤炉代买
paypay商城
乐天二手
日本亚马逊
乐天新品
ZOZOTOWN
