The Supreme Court of India took suo moto cognizance of inadequacies and deficiencies in criminal trials in India. It constituted a committee of amici curiae to examine the issues and submit a report with proposed amendments to rules. The committee submitted its report. The Supreme Court noted that only 5 of 24 High Courts submitted responses and directed the remaining High Courts to submit substantive responses within 2 weeks or have their Registrar Generals appear before the Court. It also constituted a new committee to examine suggestions for digitizing records and facilitating timely filing of appeals by convicts to reduce delays, and directed High Courts to submit responses to this committee within 2 weeks. The matter was listed for further hearing after 4 weeks.
Witness protection order sc in legislator casesZahidManiyar
This document is the record of proceedings from the Supreme Court of India regarding a writ petition. It summarizes the discussion during the hearing. The amicus curiae presented a report analyzing information provided by various High Courts on pending criminal cases against elected representatives. Key issues highlighted include the need for improved video conferencing infrastructure to record witness testimony, exempting witnesses from applying for protection under the witness protection scheme, appointing nodal prosecution officers to ensure cases progress swiftly, having judicial officers handle such cases for at least 2 years for continuity, and addressing specific issues faced by High Courts of Kerala and Calcutta where police are reluctant to take action against legislators. The Court will consider the suggestions to rationalize the process for expeditious disposal
The Supreme Court of India heard several matters related to implementation of its previous orders on police reforms. It directed the Union of India to make necessary budgetary allocations for six agencies within one month to implement the orders. These agencies must then implement the orders in full within six months of receiving funds. The Court also reviewed progress in some states but noted no progress in Andaman & Nicobar Islands, directing its Principal Secretary to allocate funds within a month or implement the orders in full within six months of funding. It thanked the Amicus Curiae for assistance and scheduled review on a future date.
The Supreme Court of India heard several matters related to the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam. It ordered that the process for receiving claims and objections to entries in the final NRC draft published on July 30, 2018 would begin on September 25, 2018, tentatively remaining open for 60 days. Claimants can rely on 10 types of documents dated up to March 24, 1971 as evidence, including land records, residential certificates, passports, insurance policies, licenses, employment records, and bank accounts.
SC directs issuance of Aadhar card tosex workers.pdfsabrangsabrang
This document summarizes the proceedings of the Supreme Court of India regarding a panel established to address issues related to sex workers and their rehabilitation and living conditions. The panel submitted recommendations in 2016, which the government considered but did not enact as legislation. To address this gap, the Supreme Court is exercising its constitutional powers to issue interim directions on rehabilitation measures and related issues until the government enacts legislation based on the panel's recommendations. The key directions protect sex workers' equal rights and access to legal protection, assistance for victims of crimes, and prohibit penalizing or harassing sex workers during police raids on brothels.
SC directs issuance of Aadhaar card to sex workers.pdfsabrangsabrang
This document summarizes the proceedings of the Supreme Court of India regarding a panel established to address issues related to sex workers and their rehabilitation and living conditions. The panel submitted recommendations in 2016, which the government considered but did not pass legislation for. To address this gap, the Supreme Court is exercising its constitutional powers to issue interim directions on rehabilitation measures and ensuring sex workers' rights until legislation is passed. These directions relate to equal protection under the law, access to support for victims of crimes, and not penalizing or harassing sex workers during police raids.
पिछले साल मई में न्यायमूर्ति एल नागेश्वर राव (सेवानिवृत्त) की अध्यक्षता वाली पीठ ने कहा था कि संरक्षण गृहों में उनकी इच्छा के विरुद्ध हिरासत में ली गई वयस्क महिलाओं को छोड़ने की अनुमति दी जानी चाहिए
This document is the record of proceedings from the Supreme Court of India regarding various applications and reports submitted related to pollution control and thermal power plants. It lists the counsel present for various parties and respondents. The matter was heard by a bench of three Honorable Justices.
This document is the record of proceedings from the Supreme Court of India regarding a petition for special leave to appeal. It lists the parties involved, their legal counsel, and the orders from the court. The court issued a notice on IA No. 6140/2021, making it returnable in 4 weeks. A reply affidavit may be filed in the meantime by the respondent, and the applicant is permitted to file a rejoinder affidavit.
Witness protection order sc in legislator casesZahidManiyar
This document is the record of proceedings from the Supreme Court of India regarding a writ petition. It summarizes the discussion during the hearing. The amicus curiae presented a report analyzing information provided by various High Courts on pending criminal cases against elected representatives. Key issues highlighted include the need for improved video conferencing infrastructure to record witness testimony, exempting witnesses from applying for protection under the witness protection scheme, appointing nodal prosecution officers to ensure cases progress swiftly, having judicial officers handle such cases for at least 2 years for continuity, and addressing specific issues faced by High Courts of Kerala and Calcutta where police are reluctant to take action against legislators. The Court will consider the suggestions to rationalize the process for expeditious disposal
The Supreme Court of India heard several matters related to implementation of its previous orders on police reforms. It directed the Union of India to make necessary budgetary allocations for six agencies within one month to implement the orders. These agencies must then implement the orders in full within six months of receiving funds. The Court also reviewed progress in some states but noted no progress in Andaman & Nicobar Islands, directing its Principal Secretary to allocate funds within a month or implement the orders in full within six months of funding. It thanked the Amicus Curiae for assistance and scheduled review on a future date.
The Supreme Court of India heard several matters related to the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam. It ordered that the process for receiving claims and objections to entries in the final NRC draft published on July 30, 2018 would begin on September 25, 2018, tentatively remaining open for 60 days. Claimants can rely on 10 types of documents dated up to March 24, 1971 as evidence, including land records, residential certificates, passports, insurance policies, licenses, employment records, and bank accounts.
SC directs issuance of Aadhar card tosex workers.pdfsabrangsabrang
This document summarizes the proceedings of the Supreme Court of India regarding a panel established to address issues related to sex workers and their rehabilitation and living conditions. The panel submitted recommendations in 2016, which the government considered but did not enact as legislation. To address this gap, the Supreme Court is exercising its constitutional powers to issue interim directions on rehabilitation measures and related issues until the government enacts legislation based on the panel's recommendations. The key directions protect sex workers' equal rights and access to legal protection, assistance for victims of crimes, and prohibit penalizing or harassing sex workers during police raids on brothels.
SC directs issuance of Aadhaar card to sex workers.pdfsabrangsabrang
This document summarizes the proceedings of the Supreme Court of India regarding a panel established to address issues related to sex workers and their rehabilitation and living conditions. The panel submitted recommendations in 2016, which the government considered but did not pass legislation for. To address this gap, the Supreme Court is exercising its constitutional powers to issue interim directions on rehabilitation measures and ensuring sex workers' rights until legislation is passed. These directions relate to equal protection under the law, access to support for victims of crimes, and not penalizing or harassing sex workers during police raids.
पिछले साल मई में न्यायमूर्ति एल नागेश्वर राव (सेवानिवृत्त) की अध्यक्षता वाली पीठ ने कहा था कि संरक्षण गृहों में उनकी इच्छा के विरुद्ध हिरासत में ली गई वयस्क महिलाओं को छोड़ने की अनुमति दी जानी चाहिए
This document is the record of proceedings from the Supreme Court of India regarding various applications and reports submitted related to pollution control and thermal power plants. It lists the counsel present for various parties and respondents. The matter was heard by a bench of three Honorable Justices.
This document is the record of proceedings from the Supreme Court of India regarding a petition for special leave to appeal. It lists the parties involved, their legal counsel, and the orders from the court. The court issued a notice on IA No. 6140/2021, making it returnable in 4 weeks. A reply affidavit may be filed in the meantime by the respondent, and the applicant is permitted to file a rejoinder affidavit.
This document summarizes the proceedings of a Supreme Court of India hearing regarding the implementation of orders to install CCTV cameras in police stations across several states. The Court directs the states of Haryana, Telangana, Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh to allocate funds for CCTV installation within 4 weeks. These states must then complete installation within 5 months. For Uttar Pradesh, budget allocation is to be completed within 3 months and installation within 9 months, given its large size. The Court finds that timelines provided by states have been too long and its orders have not been fully complied with.
2023 (और उससे पहले 2022) में सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा नफरत फैलाने वाले भाषण पर अंकुश लगाने के लिए जारी किए गए कई दिशानिर्देशों के बावजूद हेट स्पीच की घटनाएं सामने आती रहती हैं। नागरिक नफरत मुक्त 2024 कैसे सुनिश्चित कर सकते हैं?
1. The Supreme Court of India heard an application (IA) regarding providing relief such as monthly dry rations and cash transfers to sex workers without requiring proof of identity.
2. The Court directed the applicant's counsel to serve the respondent states a copy of the application and the registry to email it to all states immediately.
3. The Court directed the Additional Solicitor General and state government counsels to obtain instructions on modalities for distributing relief to sex workers without identity proof and listed the matter for further hearing on September 29th.
This document contains the record of proceedings from the Supreme Court of India regarding a petition for special leave to appeal. It lists the advocates appearing for the petitioner and respondent and notes from the High Courts of Rajasthan, Delhi, Meghalaya, and Tripura. The court heard submissions from counsel and ordered that written submissions from the petitioner be taken on record. The matter was listed for hearing after three weeks and states yet to file affidavits on status were ordered to do so in the meantime.
The Supreme Court of India heard several matters related to citizenship in Assam. It granted the Attorney General of India 4 weeks to file a reply on one matter and granted the State of Assam 4 weeks to file replies on other matters related to interlocutory applications. The Attorney General stated that children of parents given citizenship will not be separated from parents and sent to detention centers pending the application's decision.
This document is the record of proceedings from the Supreme Court of India regarding a writ petition filed by Firoz Iqbal Khan against the Union of India and others. It summarizes the hearing held on September 23, 2020. During the hearing, the Solicitor General requested deferring the hearing to allow the central government time to issue a notice to Sudarshan News and take action. The court agreed to defer the hearing to October 5, 2020 and ordered the notice's proceedings and any actions to be subject to the outcome of this case. The interim order from September 15, 2020 will remain in effect until further orders.
Criminal Justice Society v. UOI And Ors.pdfsabrangsabrang
This document is the record of proceedings from the Supreme Court of India regarding a writ petition filed by the Criminal Justice Society of India against the Union of India. It notes that many advocates were present on both sides and that the Additional Solicitor General stated that substantial developments have occurred since the previous affidavit was filed. The court then ordered the ASG to file an updated affidavit within 3 weeks and scheduled the next hearing for November 10, 2022.
The Supreme Court of India pronounced its judgment in a case related to eco-sensitive zones (ESZs) around protected forests. The Court directed that each protected forest must have a minimum 1 km wide ESZ, within which activities will be regulated according to guidelines. For areas where the existing ESZ is already wider than 1 km, the wider ESZ will apply. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Home Secretary of each State/UT will be responsible for compliance with the guidelines within ESZs of protected forests in their respective regions.
In re contagion of covid in protection homesZahidManiyar
The Supreme Court of India heard a case regarding the protection of children affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly those who have become orphans. It directed district authorities to upload information on orphaned children to a government portal and immediately attend to their basic needs. The Court will receive updated information on identification and support of orphaned children from the central and state governments at a further hearing.
This document is the record of proceedings from the Supreme Court of India regarding the suo moto writ petition on the distribution of essential supplies and services during the COVID-19 pandemic. It lists the advocates present and notes that the Court directed the Union of India to file an affidavit addressing specific issues related to vaccination data, including the percentage of the population vaccinated with one and both doses in rural and urban areas, and data on the central government's vaccine purchases.
This document is the record of proceedings from the Supreme Court of India regarding several writ petitions and interim applications. It summarizes that the Court, after hearing from lawyers representing various parties, ordered the inter-cadre transfer of Mr. Prateek Hajela, the State Coordinator for the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, to the state of Madhya Pradesh on deputation for the maximum period allowed under relevant rules. The notification for this transfer must be issued within 7 days. All other issues in the case will be heard again by the Court on November 26, 2019.
1. The Supreme Court of India heard an application regarding the contagion of COVID-19 in child protection homes.
2. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) filed an affidavit stating that as of now there are 9346 children who have been abandoned, lost one parent, or lost both parents.
3. The Court extended the deadline for district authorities to upload information on affected children to the NCPCR portal to June 5th and directed NCPCR to file an affidavit with the collated information by June 6th.
This document is the record of proceedings from the Supreme Court of India regarding several writ petitions related to the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam. It notes that the Court heard from the Attorney General of India and the State Coordinator of the NRC on the status of the NRC update work. The Court observed that no specific difficulties had been brought to its attention requiring further orders. It then directed the State Coordinator to continue the NRC upgrade work to meet the July 31st, 2019 deadline set by the Court, and that the deadline would not be extended under any circumstances. The Court will review the matter again on April 10th, when the State Coordinator will submit a report on work done so far.
Farmers protests order dated 12-01-2021 by Supreme Court of IndiaOm Prakash Poddar
This document summarizes the proceedings of the Supreme Court of India regarding several petitions challenging the validity of three farm laws recently passed by the Indian parliament. It notes that negotiations between the government and farmers' organizations have not yielded any results. The court proposes constituting an expert committee to negotiate between the parties and issuing an interim stay of implementation of the farm laws. While the Attorney General opposed a stay, some farmers' representatives agreed to participate in committee negotiations and supported a stay. The court adjourned the matter for further hearing.
This document summarizes the proceedings of the Supreme Court of India regarding several petitions challenging the validity of three farm laws passed by the Indian parliament. The Court heard arguments from lawyers representing petitioners against the laws as well as the government. The Court proposed forming an expert committee to negotiate between farmers' groups and the government to resolve the issue, and staying implementation of the laws until negotiations are complete. However, the government opposed staying the laws, arguing the Court should not interfere with laws passed by Parliament without specific provisions being shown as harmful.
The Supreme Court of India heard a writ petition filed by Romila Thapar and others against the Union of India and others. The Court issued a notice to the respondents and ordered them to file a counter affidavit by September 5, 2018. As an interim measure, the Court ordered that if Varavara Rao, Arun Ferreira and Vernon Gonsalves are arrested, they must be kept under house arrest at their own homes, extending the existing house arrest orders for Gautam Navalakha and Sudha Bharadwaj passed by the High Court. The matter was listed for further hearing on September 6, 2018.
Prominent Indians from across the political spectrum, historian Romila Thapar, academic Devaki Jain, left economist, professor Prabhat Patnaik, professor of s0ciology Satish Deshpande and human rights lawyer, Maja Daruwala have approached the SC urging that the highest court intervenes and seeks an explanation from the Maharashtra government on the recent spate of arrests of lawyers, academics and activists.
Sc sedition plea dismissed order 09-feb-2021sabrangsabrang
The Supreme Court of India heard a writ petition filed by Aditya Ranjan and others against the Union of India and others. After hearing arguments from both sides, the court dismissed the writ petition. All pending interlocutory applications related to the writ petition were also disposed of.
SC ORDER FEB 03 2023 ISSUES NOTICE IN ANTI CONVERSION LAWS.pdfsabrangsabrang
The Supreme Court of India heard several matters related to citizens' rights and issued notices to state governments to file counters to the petitions within 3 weeks. The court also allowed the withdrawal of an additional affidavit in one case and scheduled for further hearing of the matters on March 17, 2023. The document provides details of the cases heard and orders issued by the Supreme Court of India.
The Supreme Court of India heard a miscellaneous application regarding the non-consideration of cases for remission or premature release of 50 convicts in Uttar Pradesh, despite previous court orders. The Court ordered the Director General of Uttar Pradesh to file an affidavit within 3 weeks providing details of steps taken to consider such cases in line with a previous Supreme Court judgment, the number of eligible and considered cases district-wise, and the time period for considering remaining cases. The Court also issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority and requested their assistance as panel counsel to ensure the purpose of previous directions is fulfilled. The matter was listed for further hearing on February 6, 2023.
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentationseri bangash
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
The Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdfveteranlegal
https://veteranlegal.in/defense-lawyer-in-india/ | Criminal defense Lawyer in India has always been a vital aspect of the country's legal system. As defenders of justice, criminal Defense Lawyer play a critical role in ensuring that individuals accused of crimes receive a fair trial and that their constitutional rights are protected. As India evolves socially, economically, and technologically, the role and future of criminal Defense Lawyer are also undergoing significant changes. This comprehensive blog explores the current landscape, challenges, technological advancements, and prospects for criminal Defense Lawyer in India.
This document summarizes the proceedings of a Supreme Court of India hearing regarding the implementation of orders to install CCTV cameras in police stations across several states. The Court directs the states of Haryana, Telangana, Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh to allocate funds for CCTV installation within 4 weeks. These states must then complete installation within 5 months. For Uttar Pradesh, budget allocation is to be completed within 3 months and installation within 9 months, given its large size. The Court finds that timelines provided by states have been too long and its orders have not been fully complied with.
2023 (और उससे पहले 2022) में सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा नफरत फैलाने वाले भाषण पर अंकुश लगाने के लिए जारी किए गए कई दिशानिर्देशों के बावजूद हेट स्पीच की घटनाएं सामने आती रहती हैं। नागरिक नफरत मुक्त 2024 कैसे सुनिश्चित कर सकते हैं?
1. The Supreme Court of India heard an application (IA) regarding providing relief such as monthly dry rations and cash transfers to sex workers without requiring proof of identity.
2. The Court directed the applicant's counsel to serve the respondent states a copy of the application and the registry to email it to all states immediately.
3. The Court directed the Additional Solicitor General and state government counsels to obtain instructions on modalities for distributing relief to sex workers without identity proof and listed the matter for further hearing on September 29th.
This document contains the record of proceedings from the Supreme Court of India regarding a petition for special leave to appeal. It lists the advocates appearing for the petitioner and respondent and notes from the High Courts of Rajasthan, Delhi, Meghalaya, and Tripura. The court heard submissions from counsel and ordered that written submissions from the petitioner be taken on record. The matter was listed for hearing after three weeks and states yet to file affidavits on status were ordered to do so in the meantime.
The Supreme Court of India heard several matters related to citizenship in Assam. It granted the Attorney General of India 4 weeks to file a reply on one matter and granted the State of Assam 4 weeks to file replies on other matters related to interlocutory applications. The Attorney General stated that children of parents given citizenship will not be separated from parents and sent to detention centers pending the application's decision.
This document is the record of proceedings from the Supreme Court of India regarding a writ petition filed by Firoz Iqbal Khan against the Union of India and others. It summarizes the hearing held on September 23, 2020. During the hearing, the Solicitor General requested deferring the hearing to allow the central government time to issue a notice to Sudarshan News and take action. The court agreed to defer the hearing to October 5, 2020 and ordered the notice's proceedings and any actions to be subject to the outcome of this case. The interim order from September 15, 2020 will remain in effect until further orders.
Criminal Justice Society v. UOI And Ors.pdfsabrangsabrang
This document is the record of proceedings from the Supreme Court of India regarding a writ petition filed by the Criminal Justice Society of India against the Union of India. It notes that many advocates were present on both sides and that the Additional Solicitor General stated that substantial developments have occurred since the previous affidavit was filed. The court then ordered the ASG to file an updated affidavit within 3 weeks and scheduled the next hearing for November 10, 2022.
The Supreme Court of India pronounced its judgment in a case related to eco-sensitive zones (ESZs) around protected forests. The Court directed that each protected forest must have a minimum 1 km wide ESZ, within which activities will be regulated according to guidelines. For areas where the existing ESZ is already wider than 1 km, the wider ESZ will apply. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Home Secretary of each State/UT will be responsible for compliance with the guidelines within ESZs of protected forests in their respective regions.
In re contagion of covid in protection homesZahidManiyar
The Supreme Court of India heard a case regarding the protection of children affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly those who have become orphans. It directed district authorities to upload information on orphaned children to a government portal and immediately attend to their basic needs. The Court will receive updated information on identification and support of orphaned children from the central and state governments at a further hearing.
This document is the record of proceedings from the Supreme Court of India regarding the suo moto writ petition on the distribution of essential supplies and services during the COVID-19 pandemic. It lists the advocates present and notes that the Court directed the Union of India to file an affidavit addressing specific issues related to vaccination data, including the percentage of the population vaccinated with one and both doses in rural and urban areas, and data on the central government's vaccine purchases.
This document is the record of proceedings from the Supreme Court of India regarding several writ petitions and interim applications. It summarizes that the Court, after hearing from lawyers representing various parties, ordered the inter-cadre transfer of Mr. Prateek Hajela, the State Coordinator for the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam, to the state of Madhya Pradesh on deputation for the maximum period allowed under relevant rules. The notification for this transfer must be issued within 7 days. All other issues in the case will be heard again by the Court on November 26, 2019.
1. The Supreme Court of India heard an application regarding the contagion of COVID-19 in child protection homes.
2. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) filed an affidavit stating that as of now there are 9346 children who have been abandoned, lost one parent, or lost both parents.
3. The Court extended the deadline for district authorities to upload information on affected children to the NCPCR portal to June 5th and directed NCPCR to file an affidavit with the collated information by June 6th.
This document is the record of proceedings from the Supreme Court of India regarding several writ petitions related to the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam. It notes that the Court heard from the Attorney General of India and the State Coordinator of the NRC on the status of the NRC update work. The Court observed that no specific difficulties had been brought to its attention requiring further orders. It then directed the State Coordinator to continue the NRC upgrade work to meet the July 31st, 2019 deadline set by the Court, and that the deadline would not be extended under any circumstances. The Court will review the matter again on April 10th, when the State Coordinator will submit a report on work done so far.
Farmers protests order dated 12-01-2021 by Supreme Court of IndiaOm Prakash Poddar
This document summarizes the proceedings of the Supreme Court of India regarding several petitions challenging the validity of three farm laws recently passed by the Indian parliament. It notes that negotiations between the government and farmers' organizations have not yielded any results. The court proposes constituting an expert committee to negotiate between the parties and issuing an interim stay of implementation of the farm laws. While the Attorney General opposed a stay, some farmers' representatives agreed to participate in committee negotiations and supported a stay. The court adjourned the matter for further hearing.
This document summarizes the proceedings of the Supreme Court of India regarding several petitions challenging the validity of three farm laws passed by the Indian parliament. The Court heard arguments from lawyers representing petitioners against the laws as well as the government. The Court proposed forming an expert committee to negotiate between farmers' groups and the government to resolve the issue, and staying implementation of the laws until negotiations are complete. However, the government opposed staying the laws, arguing the Court should not interfere with laws passed by Parliament without specific provisions being shown as harmful.
The Supreme Court of India heard a writ petition filed by Romila Thapar and others against the Union of India and others. The Court issued a notice to the respondents and ordered them to file a counter affidavit by September 5, 2018. As an interim measure, the Court ordered that if Varavara Rao, Arun Ferreira and Vernon Gonsalves are arrested, they must be kept under house arrest at their own homes, extending the existing house arrest orders for Gautam Navalakha and Sudha Bharadwaj passed by the High Court. The matter was listed for further hearing on September 6, 2018.
Prominent Indians from across the political spectrum, historian Romila Thapar, academic Devaki Jain, left economist, professor Prabhat Patnaik, professor of s0ciology Satish Deshpande and human rights lawyer, Maja Daruwala have approached the SC urging that the highest court intervenes and seeks an explanation from the Maharashtra government on the recent spate of arrests of lawyers, academics and activists.
Sc sedition plea dismissed order 09-feb-2021sabrangsabrang
The Supreme Court of India heard a writ petition filed by Aditya Ranjan and others against the Union of India and others. After hearing arguments from both sides, the court dismissed the writ petition. All pending interlocutory applications related to the writ petition were also disposed of.
SC ORDER FEB 03 2023 ISSUES NOTICE IN ANTI CONVERSION LAWS.pdfsabrangsabrang
The Supreme Court of India heard several matters related to citizens' rights and issued notices to state governments to file counters to the petitions within 3 weeks. The court also allowed the withdrawal of an additional affidavit in one case and scheduled for further hearing of the matters on March 17, 2023. The document provides details of the cases heard and orders issued by the Supreme Court of India.
The Supreme Court of India heard a miscellaneous application regarding the non-consideration of cases for remission or premature release of 50 convicts in Uttar Pradesh, despite previous court orders. The Court ordered the Director General of Uttar Pradesh to file an affidavit within 3 weeks providing details of steps taken to consider such cases in line with a previous Supreme Court judgment, the number of eligible and considered cases district-wise, and the time period for considering remaining cases. The Court also issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority and requested their assistance as panel counsel to ensure the purpose of previous directions is fulfilled. The matter was listed for further hearing on February 6, 2023.
Similar to Sc suo moto order order 19-jan-2021 (20)
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentationseri bangash
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
The Future of Criminal Defense Lawyer in India.pdfveteranlegal
https://veteranlegal.in/defense-lawyer-in-india/ | Criminal defense Lawyer in India has always been a vital aspect of the country's legal system. As defenders of justice, criminal Defense Lawyer play a critical role in ensuring that individuals accused of crimes receive a fair trial and that their constitutional rights are protected. As India evolves socially, economically, and technologically, the role and future of criminal Defense Lawyer are also undergoing significant changes. This comprehensive blog explores the current landscape, challenges, technological advancements, and prospects for criminal Defense Lawyer in India.
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...Massimo Talia
This guide aims to provide information on how lawyers will be able to use the opportunities provided by AI tools and how such tools could help the business processes of small firms. Its objective is to provide lawyers with some background to understand what they can and cannot realistically expect from these products. This guide aims to give a reference point for small law practices in the EU
against which they can evaluate those classes of AI applications that are probably the most relevant for them.
Genocide in International Criminal Law.pptxMasoudZamani13
Excited to share insights from my recent presentation on genocide! 💡 In light of ongoing debates, it's crucial to delve into the nuances of this grave crime.
Matthew Professional CV experienced Government LiaisonMattGardner52
As an experienced Government Liaison, I have demonstrated expertise in Corporate Governance. My skill set includes senior-level management in Contract Management, Legal Support, and Diplomatic Relations. I have also gained proficiency as a Corporate Liaison, utilizing my strong background in accounting, finance, and legal, with a Bachelor's degree (B.A.) from California State University. My Administrative Skills further strengthen my ability to contribute to the growth and success of any organization.
Business law for the students of undergraduate level. The presentation contains the summary of all the chapters under the syllabus of State University, Contract Act, Sale of Goods Act, Negotiable Instrument Act, Partnership Act, Limited Liability Act, Consumer Protection Act.
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।
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence LawyersHarpreetSaini48
Discover how Mississauga criminal defence lawyers defend clients facing weapon offence charges with expert legal guidance and courtroom representation.
To know more visit: https://www.saini-law.com/
This document briefly explains the June compliance calendar 2024 with income tax returns, PF, ESI, and important due dates, forms to be filled out, periods, and who should file them?.
What are the common challenges faced by women lawyers working in the legal pr...lawyersonia
The legal profession, which has historically been male-dominated, has experienced a significant increase in the number of women entering the field over the past few decades. Despite this progress, women lawyers continue to encounter various challenges as they strive for top positions.
1. 1
ITEM NO.14 Court No.1 (Video Conferencing) SECTION PIL-W
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Suo Moto Writ (Crl.) No(s).1/2017
IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND
DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s)
(MR. R. BASANT, SR. ADV (A.C.), MR. SIDHARTH LUTHRA, SR. ADV (A.C.)
MR. K. PARAMESHWAR, ADV (A.C.) )
WITH
SLP(Crl.)...CRLMP No. 7862/2017 (II-A)
(MS. VIBHA DATTA MAKHIJA, SR. ADV. A.C. Following Advocates have
filed Vakalatnama or Appearance Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee for Bombay
High Court, Mr. P.I.Jose for Gauhati High Court, Mr. Nikhil Goel
for Gujarat High Court, Mr. Arjun Garg for Madhya Pradesh High
Court, Mr. Mahesh Thakur for Manipur High Court, ms Parekh and Co.
for Patna High Court, Mr. Mukul Kumar for Rajasthan High Court, Mr.
Mukul Kumar for Rajasthan High Court, Ms. Rachana Srivastava for
Uttarakhand High Court, Ms. Uttara Babbar for Andhra Pradesh High
Court and Telangana High Court, Mr. Kunal Chatterji for Calcutta
High Court, Mr. Sahil Tagotra for J and K High Court, Mr. Mahfooz
Ahsan Nazki for State Of Andhra Pradesh, Mr. V. N. Raghupathy for
State Of Karnataka, Mr. G. Prakash for State Of Kerala, Mr. M.
Yogesh Kanna for State Of Tamil Nadu, Mr. Surjendu Kumar Das for
State of Goa, Ms. KSN and CO. for High Court of Madras, Ms. Astha
Sharma for State of Mizoram, Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra for Odisha High
Court, Mr. K. Enatoli Sema for State of Nagaland, G. Indira for
Andaman and Nicobar Administration, Mr. Ashok Mathur for Punjab and
Haryana High Court, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi for Allahabad High Court,
Mr. Himanshu Shekhar for Jharkhand High Court, Mr. Jaspreet Gogia
for State of Punjab, Mr. Narendra Kumar for High Court of Sikkim
and for State of Sikkim and Mr. Anil Nag for High Court of Himachal
Pradesh.
(With IA No. 7862/2017 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.
7864/2017 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING THE DEFECTS)
Date : 19-01-2021 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
Digitally signed by
Sanjay Kumar
Date: 2021.01.20
16:56:24 IST
Reason:
Signature Not Verified
2. 2
By Courts Motion
Counsel for the parties
Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. (A.C.)
Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv. (A.C.)
Mr. K. Parameshwar, Adv. (A.C.)
Mr. A. Karthik, Adv.
Mr. M. V. Mukunda, Adv.
Mr. Mehaak Jaggi, Adv.
Ms. A Sregurupriya, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, AOR
Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR
Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR
Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR
Mr. Keshav Mohan, Adv.
Mr. R.K Awasthi, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Piyush Vatsa, Adv.
Ms. Ritu Arora, Adv.
Mr. Santosh Kumar - I, AOR
Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR
Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR
Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, AOR
Mr. Pururshaindra Kaurav, Ld. AG
Mr. Saurabh Mishra, AAG
Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR
Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR
Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR
Ms. Anupama Ng., Adv.
Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR
Mr. Shaurya Sahay, Adv.
Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv.
Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR
Ms. Aruna Mathur, AOR
Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv.
3. 3
Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv.
For M/s Arputham Aruna And Co, AOR
Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, AOR
Ms. Garima Prashad, AOR
Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR
Mr. Yajur Bhalla, Adv.
Mr. Deepak Samota, Adv.
Mr. Shubham Bhalla, AOR
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR
Mr. K M Nataraj,ASG
Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, ASG
Mr. R Bala, Sr. Adv
Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv.
Mr. Pranay Ranjan, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv.
Mr. K. M. Nataraj, ASG
Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG
Mr. R. Bala, Adv.
Mr. Pranay Ranjan, Adv.
Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv
Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv
Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR
Mr. V. G. Pragasam, AOR
Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Annam D. N. Rao, AOR
Ms. Sneha Kalita, AOR
Ms. Manisha Ambwani, AOR
Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, AOR
Mr. P.N. Ravindran, Sr. Adv.
Mr. T. G. Narayanan Nair, AOR
Mr. Anandh Kannan N., AOR
Mr. Mishra Saurabh, AOR
Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR
Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Adv.
4. 4
Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, AOR
Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, AOR
Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR
Mr. Rahul Raj Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, AAG/AOR
Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, Adv.
Ms. Bhaswati Singh, Adv.
Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR
Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR
Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR
Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv.
Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR
Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv.
Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv.
Mr. Divyansh Tiwari, Adv.
Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR
M/S. Ksn & Co., AOR
Mr. Prashant Kumar Sharma, Adv.
Mr. P. I. Jose, AOR
Mr. Soumya Chakraborty, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR
Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Adv.
Ms. Shashi Pathak, Adv.
Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR
Mr. Nikhil Goel, AOR
Ms. Naveen Goel Adv.
Mr. Dushyant Sarna Adv.
Mr. Vinay Mathew Adv.
Mr. Anil Nag, AOR
Mr. Surjendu Sankar Das, AOR
Mr. Mahfooz A. Nazki, AOR
Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv.
Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv.
Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv.
Mr. Amitabh Sinha, Adv.
5. 5
Mr. Shrey Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, Standing Counsel
Mr. Anand Kumar Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Narendra Kumar, AOR
Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR
Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR
Mr. Rajarajeswaran S, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Chada, Adv.
Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, AOR
Mr. Karanvir Gogia, Adv.
Ms. Shivangi Singhal, Adv.
Ms. Rachana Srivastava, AOR
Mr. Sharan Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Thakur AOR
Mr. Siddhartha Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Sanchit Guru, Adv.
Mr. Jamnesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, AOR
Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
Mr. P. H. Parekh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sameer Parekh, Adv.
Mr. Kshatrashal Raj, Adv.
Ms. Tanya Chaudhry, Adv.
Ms. Pratyusha Priyadarshini, Adv.
Ms. Nitika Pandey, Adv.
For M/s Parekh & Co., AOR
Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR
Ms.Priyanka Prakash, Adv.
Ms. Beena Prakash, Adv.
Mr. G. Prakash, AOR
Mr. Mukul Kumar, AOR
Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR
Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR
Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Pravar Veer Misra, Adv.
Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Adv.
Ms. G. Indira, AOR
6. 6
Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, AOR
Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv.
Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Parikshith, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Adv.
For M/s PLR Chambers & Co., AOR
Mr. K M Nataraj, Ld. ASG
Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, Ld. ASG
Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv.
Mr. R Bala, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Neela Kedar Gokhale, Adv.
Mr. Pranay Ranjan, Adv.
Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Shekhar Raj Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Amit Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR
Mr. Subodh S. Patil, Adv.
Mr. Supriya Patil, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Patil,AOR
Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya A.Pande, Adv.
Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Suo Moto Writ (Crl.) No(s).1/2017
This Court took suo moto cognizance of certain inadequacies
and deficiencies which have been noticed in the way criminal trials
are conducted in the country.
It was found that some of these inadequacies and deficiencies
were relatable to the rules in that regard framed by the various
High Courts. Undoubtedly such inadequacies and deficiencies
attributable to the rules do not exist in all the High Courts.
Nonetheless, it was found necessary to prepare draft rules the
provision of which can be incorporated in the existing rules by the
7. 7
High Courts.
Accordingly, this Court issued notices to the Registrars
General of all the High Courts and the Chief
Secretaries/Administrators of all States/Union Territories (UTs)
including the Advocates General and the Standing Counsel for the
States/UTs for arriving at a general consensus to amend the
Criminal Manual to bring about uniform best practices across the
country.
A Committee of learned Amici Curiae comprising of Mr. Sidharth
Luthra, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. R. Basant, learned Senior
Counsel and Mr. K. Parameshwar, learned counsel, was constituted to
examine the issues after considering the existing rules of all the
High Courts. The Committee has submitted a report for which we have
sought responses from all the High Courts. Only five High Courts
viz., High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Telangana,
Allahabad and Delhi have filed their responses. The High Courts of
Bombay, Calcutta, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Guahati, Himachal Pradesh,
Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Kerala, Madras, Madhya Pradesh,
Meghalaya, Manipur, Orissa, Patna, Punjab & Haryana, Rajasthan,
Sikkim Uttarakhand and Tripura have not filed their respective
responses so far.
In these circumstances, we consider it appropriate having
regard to the urgency of change that is necessary to call upon the
High Courts to submit their substantive response dealing with all
aspects within a period of two weeks from today. In case the High
Courts cannot do so, the Registrars General of such High Courts
shall remain present in person before this Court on the next date
8. 8
of hearing with appropriate instructions from their High Courts to
make a statement about the changes in the rules.
Ordered accordingly.
The Committee has submitted its report on 05.03.2020. The said
report is available on the official website of this Court.
List the matter after four weeks.
SLP(Crl.)...CRLMP No. 7862/2017
We have noticed that in the special leave petitions filed by
Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC) on behalf of the
convicts, there is an inordinate delay which becomes difficult to
condone. Needless to say, the situation brings about a lack of
evenhandedness in dealing with matters of condonation of delay. We
see no reason why these delays should continue to occur
particularly with the availability of tools provided by information
and communication technology which are easily available. In this
matter, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned Amicus Curiae, has
submitted a report dated 15.01.2021 in consultation with the SCLSC
on measures to curb the delay. Valuable as that report is, we
consider it appropriate to constitute a Committee comprising of
certain experts who would examine all the suggestions and responses
which may be received by it from the High Courts as well as the
other stakeholders.
In view of the other suggestions (Annexure B) by NALSA and the
response submitted by various High Courts, we find it appropriate
to constitute a Committee comprising of Secretary (Ministry of Home
Affairs), Government of India, Director General, National
9. 9
Informatics Centre, Member (Process), E-Committee, Supreme Court of
India and Member Secretary, NALSA. The Committee shall examine the
aforementioned suggestions/responses and submit a report with
regard to digitization, translation and electronic transmission of
records to facilitate access to justice and timely filing of
appeals/SLPs by the convicts, by utilizing the Information and
Communication Technology tools, within four weeks.
We have also gone through the Module and the Note dated
16.10.2019 as per the report for timely filing of appeals/SLPs of
convicts though the Legal Services Institutions. We therefore
direct the High Courts to submit their responses to the Committee
through their Registrars General within two weeks. The Committee
shall submit its report within two weeks’ thereafter.
The Secretary General of this Court shall coordinate meetings
of the Committee.
List the matter after four weeks.
(SANJAY KUMAR-II) (INDU KUMARI POKHRIYAL)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR