Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

Union Minister <keyword id="20150028" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Chirag-Paswan" source="keywords">Chirag Paswan</keyword> expressed his disagreement with the <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Supreme Court" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Supreme Court">Supreme Court</keyword>'s observation on <keyword id="22418374" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="creamy-layer" source="keywords">creamy layer</keyword> among Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and said that the <keyword id="22663720" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Lok-Jandhakti-Party" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Lok Jandhakti Party" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Lok Jandhakti Party">Lok Jandhakti Party</keyword> (Ram Vilas) will be filing a review peition against the ruling. Emphasising that <keyword id="20053971" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Dalit" source="keywords">Dalit</keyword> people in various spheres of life still face <keyword id="21301343" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="untouchability" source="keywords">untouchability</keyword>, Paswan said that the basis of giving <keyword id="19914887" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="reservation" source="keywords">reservation</keyword> to Scheduled Caste is 'untouchability,' so there is no point of creamy layer in it. "We disagree with the observation of the Supreme Court and we have registered this disagreement prominently. We are clear about this that the base of the Scheduled Caste is untouchability. It does not have an educational or economic basis. In such a situation, there can be no provision of creamy layer in it, reservation within the reservation is not correct, because even today the example of a Dalit youth is given who is prevented from riding a mare," Chirag Paswan told reporters on Sunday. "There are many such big names, who are on high posts, but even after they go to the temple, the temple is washed with Ganga water, so even today discrimination takes place based on untouchability... We, LJP (Ram Vilas) are also going to file a <keyword id="20143564" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="review-petition" source="keywords">review petition</keyword> in the Supreme Court regarding this matter," he added. The Supreme Court, in a landmark ruling on Thursday, ruled that states have the power to sub-classify SCs and STs and said that the authority concerned, while deciding if the class is adequately represented, must calculate adequacy based on effective and not quantitative representation. The top court ruled by a majority judgement of 6:1, that sub-classification within the SCs and STs reservation is permissible. As many as six separate opinions were delivered in the case. The judgement was delivered by the seven-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, which overruled earlier judgement in the EV Chinnaiah matter, which had held that sub-classification was not permissible because SC/STs form homogenous classes. Besides CJI Chandrachud, other judges on the bench were Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma. Justice Bela M. Trivedi, in a dissenting opinion, said that she disagreed with the majority judgement that sub-classification within the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes is permissible.

We will file review petition against top court's verdict on SC/ST subclassification: Chirag Paswan

Aarey colony, popularly known as the Green Lung of Mumbai is a suburban located in Goregaon. This lovely region has more than five lakh trees combining the Sanjay Gandhi National Park. While a project for the construction of a new car shed is on the way, a lot of trees are being cut to give room for the said metro project. Protesters are organizing demonstrations and pressing the government in different ways with demands that the cutting of the trees must be stopped. A special bench of the Supreme Court is presently hearing a case related to this. Court proceedings - The story so far The special bench was formed after a few law students made a request to the Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi pressing for the topmost court’s intervention in this issue and stop the cutting of trees with immediate effect. This important move happens one day after the Bombay High Court rejecting an application by the environmentalists asking for a stay on the cutting of trees. Meanwhile, the High Court had also rejected a few petitions that sought to change the Mumbai Civic Body’s tree committee order that approved the cutting of trees in the Aarey colony to create space for the Mumbai Metro’s car shed in the area. Understanding forests in India as per laws Reserved forests and protected forests in India refer to the term forests that have been accorded a certain degree of protection. This term was first introduced in 1927 in British India to refer to the forests that were given protection under the British crown in India. Land rights to the reserved and protected forests are owned by the Government of India. The state governments declare the reserved forests and protected forests. While all rights to activities like grazing and hunting are banned in reserved forests unless there are some specific orders, in case of protected areas, these rights are given to the communities inhabiting on the forest fringes whose livelihood depends on the forest products and resources. Forest Management in India In India, the state and also the national governments are jointly responsible for managing the forest resources in a sustainable manner. The Indian Forest Act 1927 empowers the State Governments in India to enact rules to regulate the various aspects of managing forests. The forest rules can differ from state to state. The Indian Forest Act of 1927 is the legislation that guides the policies, rules and regulations related to the forests. This law defines the procedure under which the state government can declare an area as a Reserved Forest, a Village Forest or a protected forest. Diversion of forest lands for other purposes The forest conservation act requires that the prior approval by the central government is essential for diverting the forest areas for the non-forestry purposes. Diversion of forestry areas for developmental projects is allowed only on grounds of some irrigation projects, transmission lines, defense related projects, railways, roads, power projects, and mining. The act also makes it mandatory to undertake afforestation in compensation of diverting the forest area for the said purpose. Also, the law states efforts must be taken to plan for catchment and treatment, conserving bio-life and wild life, rehabilitation and others and the reports of the efforts taken must be submitted to the state authority. See Also: <a data-type="tilCustomLink">Supreme Court tells Mumbai Metro not to cut any more trees in Aarey</a>

Aarey Forest Case – All you need to know about Forest laws, management and division of forest land

MPs and MLAs taking bribes to vote or make a speech in the <keyword id="19910021" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="house" source="keywords">House</keyword> are not immune from prosecution, the Supreme Court said on Monday in a landmark, unanimous verdict that overrules its 1998 judgment protecting such lawmakers. Observing that bribery is not protected by parliamentary privileges, a seven-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y <keyword id="19985698" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="chandrachud" source="keywords">Chandrachud</keyword> held that a five-judge bench's interpretation in the 1998 verdict in the JMM bribery case was contrary to Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution. Describing the judgment as "great", Prime Minister <keyword id="19895781" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="narendra-modi" source="keywords">Narendra Modi</keyword> said in a post on X that it would "ensure clean politics and deepen people's faith in the system". Articles 105 and 194 deal with the powers and privileges of MPs and MLAs in the Parliament and the legislative assemblies. "Corruption and bribery by members of the legislatures erode probity in public life," the CJI, who read the operative part of the verdict, said while pronouncing the verdict today. The bench also comprised Justices A S Bopanna, M M Sundresh, P S Narasimha, J B Pardiwala, <keyword id="19931190" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="sanjay-kumar" source="keywords">Sanjay Kumar</keyword> and Manoj Misra. In 1998, the five-judge constitution bench held in its majority verdict on the Narasimha Rao versus CBI case that parliamentarians have immunity against criminal prosecution for any speech made and vote cast inside the House under Articles 105(2) and 194(2). The seven-judge bench was reconsidering the 1998 judgement. While pronouncing the verdict, the CJI said Article 105 of the Constitution seeks to sustain an environment to have deliberations by the lawmakers in the House and this atmosphere is vitiated when a member is bribed to deliver a speech. Justice Chandrachud said the privileges claimed must have a nexus to the collective functioning of the House and must have a relationship with the essential functions of a legislator which he or she has to discharge. The seven-judge bench had reserved its judgement in the matter on October 5 last year. During the arguments, the Centre had submitted that bribery can never be a subject matter of immunity and a parliamentary privilege is not meant to place a lawmaker above law. The top court, in the course of the hearing, had said it will examine whether the immunity granted to lawmakers from prosecution for taking bribes to make a speech or vote in Parliament and state legislatures extends to them even if criminality is attached to their actions. On September 20, 2023, the <keyword id="19936355" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="apex-court" source="keywords">apex court</keyword> had agreed to reconsider its 1998 judgement, saying it was an important issue having a significant bearing on "morality of polity". The issue came under the apex court's lens in 2019, when a bench headed by then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was hearing an appeal filed by <keyword id="20405400" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="sita-soren" source="keywords">Sita Soren</keyword>, JMM MLA from Jama and daughter-in-law of party chief Shibu <keyword id="19968807" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="soren" source="keywords">Soren</keyword>. She was an accused in the JMM bribery scandal. The Gogoi-led bench had referred to a five-judge bench the matter, noting it had "wide ramification" and was of "substantial public importance". Sita Soren was accused of taking bribes to vote for a particular candidate in the Rajya Sabha election in 2012. She contended that the constitutional provision granting lawmakers immunity from prosecution, which saw her father-in-law being let off the hook in the JMM bribery scandal, be applied to her. She moved the apex court against the Jharkhand High Court order of February 17, 2014 refusing to quash the criminal case lodged against her. The three-judge bench had then said it will revisit the apex court verdict in the JMM bribery case involving Shibu Soren, a former Jharkhand chief minister and ex-union minister, and four other party MPs who had accepted bribes to vote against the no-confidence motion threatening the survival of the P V Narasimha Rao government in 1993. The Narasimha Rao government, which was in a minority, survived the no-confidence vote with their support. The CBI registered a case against Soren and four other JMM Lok Sabha MPs but the Supreme Court quashed it citing immunity from prosecution they enjoyed under Article 105(2) of the Constitution. SEE ALSO:<a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/realme-12-5g-with-dimensity-7050-chipset-to-launch-in-india-on-march-6/articleshow/108129873.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/realme-12-5g-with-dimensity-7050-chipset-to-launch-in-india-on-march-6/articleshow/108129873.cms" target="_blank">Realme 12+ 5G with Dimensity 7050 chipset to launch in India on March 6</a><a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/xiaomi-14-to-launch-in-india-on-march-7-to-take-on-the-galaxy-s23-and-oneplus-12/articleshow/107841326.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/mobile/news/xiaomi-14-to-launch-in-india-on-march-7-to-take-on-the-galaxy-s23-and-oneplus-12/articleshow/107841326.cms" target="_blank">Xiaomi 14 to launch in India on March 7, to take on the Galaxy S23 and OnePlus 12</a><a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/auto/news/upcoming-cars-launching-in-india-in-march-2024/slidelist/108095936.cms" target="_blank"></a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/auto/news/upcoming-cars-launching-in-india-in-march-2024/slidelist/108095936.cms" target="_blank">Upcoming cars launching in India in March 2024</a>

No immunity for MPs, MLAs taking bribe to vote, make speech in House: SC

<ul><li>The Supreme Court has ordered the Uttar Pradesh government to extend ₹250,000 as compensation money to <keyword id="490253" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Unnao-rape-case">Unnao rape case</keyword> survivor. </li><li>It has asked <keyword id="76600" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Central-Reserve-Police-Force">Central Reserve Police Force</keyword> (CRPF) Raebareli unit to provide protection. </li><li>The justice bench headed by CJI <keyword id="245445" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ranjan-Gogoi">Ranjan Gogoi</keyword> also directed the transfer of of the five Unnao cases to Delhi.</li></ul>The Supreme Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to provide ₹250,000 as interim compensation to Unnao rape case survivor. "We will be failing in duty if we don't grant a compensation," the court <a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/unnao-rape-case-sc-directs-compensation-to-survivor-fixes-7-day-deadline-for-truck-accident-probe/articleshow/70479013.cms">said</a>. The apex court also directed the state government to ensure security to the girl, and her lawyer. Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Raebareli unit was asked to provide protection. The rape survivor, two of her aunts and her lawyer were injured in a road accident on Sunday. The Central Bureau of Investigation, on Wednesday filed a case against BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar and eight others on murder charges, alleging that the accident was planned, India Today reported. Sengar was accused of rape by the victim, a year back. The King George Medical University hospital said that the condition of the injured rape survivor is critical. Both the survivor and her lawyer are on ventilator. Both the aunts succumbed to injuries. At a hearing on Wednesday, the SC offered the rape survivor’s family to shift her to AIIMS in Delhi for treatment. The bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi also <a href="https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/supreme-court-unnao-case-hearing-live-updates-1575940-2019-08-01">transferred </a>the all the five Unnao cases — rape of the 19-year-old girl, case on her father under Arms Act, a case on the custodial death of the father, murder case against Kuldeep Sengar, and finally the accident — to Delhi. The Supreme Court asked the bench to conclude all the judicial proceedings within 45 days. In a letter she wrote to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), the girl had mentioned the possibility of a threat. Unfortunately,<a href="https://www.news18.com/news/india/didnt-receive-letter-from-unnao-rape-survivors-kin-says-cji-gogoi-seeks-report-from-sc-registry-on-delay-2252495.html"> the message reached CJI Ranjan Gogoi</a> on Tuesday, two days after she met with an accident. In April 2018, a four-time MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar was <a href="https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/unnao-rape-case-fir-against-victim-kin-for-falsely-claiming-she-is-a-minor-1418061-2018-12-27">accused</a> for raping the minor at his place in Makhi village. He is currently in judicial custody. <div type="image" title="g1" tempid="117753" msid="70483134" hostid="261"></div>

 <div type="image" title="g2" tempid="117757" msid="70483135" hostid="261"></div>

India’s apex court directs UP state government to grant ₹25 lakh as interim compensation to Unnao rape survivor

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Union government if a change in law is warranted on the legal question of whether a person holding a driving licence for a light motor vehicle is entitled to legally drive a <keyword id="1049502" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="transport-vehicle" source="Orion">transport vehicle</keyword> of a particular weight. Observing that these are policy issues impacting the livelihood of lakhs of people, a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice <keyword id="445662" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="d-y-chandrachud" source="Orion">D Y Chandrachud</keyword> said the government needs to take a "fresh look" at the matter while asserting that it needs to be taken up at the policy level. The top court asked the Centre to wrap up the exercise within two months and apprise it about the decision taken. It said any interpretation of the law must duly take into account valid concerns of road safety and the safety of other users of public transport. The top court had earlier sought the assistance of Attorney General R Venkataramani in dealing with a legal question about whether a person holding a driving licence for a light motor vehicle is entitled to legally drive a transport vehicle of a particular weight. The constitution bench had said knowing the position of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways will be necessary after it was argued that the apex court's 2017 verdict in the case of Mukund Dewangan versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited was accepted by the Centre and rules were amended to align them with the judgement. In the Mukund Dewangan case, a three-judge bench of the top court had held that transport vehicles, the gross weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg, are not excluded from the definition of LMV. "There may be lakhs of drivers across the country who are working on the basis of Dewangan judgment. This is not a constitutional issue. It is purely a statutory issue," the bench, also comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, P S Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra, said. "This is just not the question of law but also the social impact of the law... Road safety has to be balanced with the social purpose of the law and you have to see if this causes serious hardships. We cannot decide issues of social policy in a constitution bench," it said. The apex court said once the government informs its stand to the court, the hearing in the constitution bench will be taken up thereafter. The Constitution bench is dealing with a legal question which reads: "Whether a person holding a driving licence in respect of 'light motor vehicle' could on the strength of that licence, be entitled to drive a 'transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class' having unladen weight not exceeding 7,500 kg." On July 18, the constitution bench commenced hearing as many as 76 petitions to deal with the legal question. It had then heard the arguments of senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for one of the petitioners, on alleged anomalies in the Motor Vehicle Act with regard to regimes for dealing with the grant of driving licenses for different categories of vehicles. The lead petition was filed by M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd. The legal question has given rise to various disputes over payment of claims by insurance companies in accident cases involving transport vehicles being driven by those having licences to drive LMVs. The Motor Vehicle Act provides for different regimes for the granting of driving licences for different categories of vehicles. The matter was referred to the larger bench on March 8, 2022, by a three-judge bench headed by Justice U U Lalit, since retired. It was said that certain provisions of the law were not noticed by the apex court in the Mukund Dewangan judgement and "the controversy in question needs to be revisited".

Can you drive a light transport vehicle if you have an LMV licence? SC asks Centre to respond

One of the most important constitutional mechanisms, a floor test is a kind of motion through which the executive head of the state is put to test if he or she still has the confidence of the legislation. As per the mandates of the Indian Constitution, the Governor appoints the Chief Minister of a State. When a floor test is called for during some critical situations in the state assembly, The Chief Minister of the State has the responsibility to prove that he has the support of the majority of members in the legislature bypassing the floor test. Why a floor test is necessitated If a single party gets the majority of seats in the Assembly that is sufficient to form the government as per the guidelines issued by the Constitution, the Governor invites the person recommended by the winning candidates of the party to take charge as the Chief Minister. If no party is in a position to form the government due to the lacking majority, the Governor appoints the leader heading the single largest party or coalition to pass a vote of confidence to be able to continue as the executive leader of the house. When the Governor orders for a floor test, the chief minister is required to prove that he or she has the support of the majority members and hence has successfully retained the confidence of the house. The floor test is conducted with the participation of the members present and voting. If the floor test or confidence motion fails, the Chief Minister will have to resign his position. Composite floor test Composite floor test happens when more than one person makes a claim to form the government under circumstances when the majority is not clear. A composite floor test is a special session that will assess who has the majority based on the voting of those present and voted and at times, it happens via voice voting also. What happens in a floor test The Chief Minister is expected to move a motion of confidence and win the majority among the members present and voted. The objective of the floor test is to ensure the constitutional process happens in a transparent manner. How voting is conducted in a floor test There are three modes in which the floor test can be administered. In a voice vote, the legislators are asked to respond orally. In case a division vote is ordered for, the voting is done with the use of electronic gadgets, ballot box or slips. A ballot vote is done if secret voting is necessitated. This is similar to how the general elections are conducted. The outcome of a floor test If the floor test fails, the Chief Minister has to resign. If a composite floor test happens and more than one member takes up the floor test, the winning person with the majority will be asked to form the government. If there is a tie, the speaker can cast his or her vote. The role of the pro-tem speaker Before a floor test is conducted, the Governor of the State appoints the longest-serving member of the house as the pro tem speaker who will conduct the floor test.

karnataka politics: What happens when a party fails the floor test

The <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> will hear SEBIs petition, in an open court, seeking review of its August 5 judgment, which directed the market regulator to share certain documents with Reliance Industries Limited (RIL). A bench headed by Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Hima Kohli said: "Considering the facts and circumstances on record and the submissions advanced in the review petition, we deem it appropriate to allow application for listing of the instant petition in open court. Let this review petition be listed in court on October 12, 2022." <keyword id="35210" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="SEBI" source="Orion">SEBI</keyword> has refused to entertain RIL's request to share the privileged documents on the grounds that under the Sebi (Settlement Proceedings) Regulations, the accused company has no right to seek information from it. The <keyword id="6356229" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="apex-court" source="Orion">apex court</keyword>, in its judgement, had rejected this stand of the market regulator. RIL had claimed that documents will exonerate it and its promoters from criminal prosecution initiated in a case related to the alleged irregularities in acquisition of its own shares between 1994 and 2000. Last week, a bench headed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna had recused from hearing RIL's petition seeking to initiate contempt proceedings against SEBI for failing to provide certain documents to the company. On August 5, a bench led by then Chief Justice N.V. Ramana had said: "The approach of SEBI, in failing to disclose the documents, also raises concerns of transparency and fair trial. Opaqueness only propagates prejudice and partiality. Opaqueness is antithetical to transparency." The top court had said the market regulator should show fairness and furnish documents sought by RIL, and SEBI has a duty to act fairly, while conducting proceedings or initiating any action against the parties. RIL filed a contempt petition as SEBI has not shared three documents -- the two legal opinions by former apex court judge B.N. Srikrishna and former ICAI president Y.H. Malegam's report which examined the irregularities. The company claimed SEBI cannot continue to resist the production of these documents and it had also sent a notice to the regulator saying if documents were not received by August 18, then it will establish that SEBI does not want to comply with the apex court's judgment. In 2002, Chartered Accountant S. Gurumurthy filed a complaint with SEBI alleging irregularities by RIL, its associate companies and their directors/promoters, including <keyword id="3820" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="mukesh-ambani" source="Orion">Mukesh Ambani</keyword> and his wife, Nita; <keyword id="9171" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="anil-ambani" source="Orion">Anil Ambani</keyword> and his wife, Tina; and 98 others. The complaint cited the issue of two preferential placement of non-convertible debentures in 1994. SEBI had alleged that RIL along with Reliance Petroleum had circuitously funded the acquisition of its own shares in violation of the Sections 77 and 77A of the Companies Act, 1956. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/markets/news/sebi-tightens-disclosure-norms-for-ipo-brings-mutual-fund-transactions-under-the-gambit-of-insider-trading-rules/articleshow/94577801.cms">SEBI tightens disclosure norms for IPOs, brings mutual fund transactions under the gambit of insider trading rules</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/jio-will-launch-5g-for-the-entire-country-by-december-2023-mukesh-ambani/articleshow/94579338.cms">Jio will launch 5G for the entire country by December 2023: Mukesh Ambani</a>

You Searched For "sc judgement on aarey case" and got 7 results

We will file review petition against top court's verdict on SC/ST subclassification: Chirag Paswan

ANI

Aarey Forest Case – All you need to know about Forest laws, management and division of forest land

BI India Bureau

No immunity for MPs, MLAs taking bribe to vote, make speech in House: SC

PTI

India’s apex court directs UP state government to grant ₹25 lakh as interim compensation to Unnao rape survivor

Prerna Sindwani

Can you drive a light transport vehicle if you have an LMV licence? SC asks Centre to respond

PTI

karnataka politics: What happens when a party fails the floor test

BI India Bureau

SC to hear SEBI's review petition against RIL on Oct 12

IANS

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides