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

The <keyword id="19894846" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Wrestling-Federation-of-India" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Wrestling Federation of India" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="Wrestling Federation of India">Wrestling Federation of India</keyword> (<keyword id="19894852" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="wfi" source="keywords">WFI</keyword>) on Friday said it will challenge the Delhi <keyword id="20030450" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="High-Court-order" source="keywords">High Court order</keyword> that restored the mandate of <keyword id="22809836" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="IOAs-ad-hoc-committee" source="keywords">IOA's ad-hoc committee</keyword> to manage the affairs of the sports body, saying the "interference" could jeopardize the participation of <keyword id="19933029" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Indian-wrestlers" source="keywords">Indian wrestlers</keyword> at the upcoming <keyword id="20200346" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="World-Championships" source="keywords">World Championships</keyword>. The latest order came on a plea seeking a stay on the functioning of the WFI and prevent it from undertaking any activity as a national federation for the sport. Justice Sachin Datta while passing the interim order on the plea by wrestlers <keyword id="19910804" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Bajrang-Punia" source="keywords">Bajrang Punia</keyword>, <keyword id="19895499" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Vinesh-Phogat" source="keywords">Vinesh Phogat</keyword>, <keyword id="19895495" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Sakshi-Malik" source="keywords">Sakshi Malik</keyword> and her husband Satyawart Kadian, said it was open to the <keyword id="19896477" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Indian-Olympic-Association" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Indian Olympic Association" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="Indian Olympic Association">Indian Olympic Association</keyword> (IOA) re-constituting the committee which was earlier led by Bhupender Singh Bajwa. The IOA had dissolved the ad-hoc panel on April 4 while UWW had lifted its suspension on February 13 this year after WFI conducted its elections. "We are going to take it to double bench. The IOA had dissolved the ad-hoc panel . We will also approach world governing body UWW and the International Olympic Committee (IOC). They had warned that outside interference may impact out athletes," WFI President Sanjay Singh told PTI. "Two World Championships are approaching. Indian wrestlers' participation could be blocked," he feared. The U-17 World championship is set to be held in Amman, Jordan from August 19-25 while the U-20 World championship is scheduled in Pontevedra, Spain from September 2-8. UWW President in his April 25 letter to WFI President had made it clear that ad-hoc panel running the show was not acceptable to them. "In case any decision or order should be made against your federation, and a third party be designated to run the daily affairs of our sport in India in violation of the UWW Statutes, UWW would have no other option than to re-impose a temporary suspension of your federation until further notice, and which, this time, could maybe include your athletes,"UWW president Lalovic wrote. The Centre had suspended the WFI on December 24, 2023, three days after it elected the new office bearers, for allegedly not following the provisions of its own constitution while taking decisions, and requested IOA to constitute an ad-hoc committee to manage its affairs. On March 4, the court had issued notice to the central government, WFI and the ad-hoc committee on the petition filed by the top grapplers.

WFI to challenge High Court order, says Indian wrestlers' participation in upcoming Worlds in danger

The Delhi <keyword id="19900812" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="high-court" source="keywords">High Court</keyword> has refused to set aside the Central government's order blocking open-source messaging application '<keyword id="22332861" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Briar" source="keywords">Briar</keyword>' in <keyword id="19900657" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Jammu-and-Kashmir" source="keywords">Jammu and Kashmir</keyword> as it is suspected to be used by <keyword id="19900658" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="terrorists" source="keywords">terrorists</keyword> and could be a potential <keyword id="19968363" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="threat" source="keywords">threat</keyword> to <keyword id="19896999" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="national-security" source="keywords">national security</keyword>. The high court observed that in the matters of national security, principles of natural justice can be given a go-by. "The interim order has been reviewed by the committee constituted under Section 7 of the Blocking Rules and as stated earlier, the committee consists of top officials of the Government of India. The blocking orders have been passed for 14 applications/ softwares, including the software/ application of the petitioner herein as it was being used by the terrorists and their supporters to disturb the security and sovereignty of the country. "The application of the petitioner has been blocked only in Jammu and <keyword id="19896255" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="kashmir" source="keywords">Kashmir</keyword> and the same can be used in all other parts of the country. In view of the above, this court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed," Justice Subramonium Prasad said. Sublime Software Ltd, the petitioner, sought direction to the Centre to produce and publish the order passed by it under Section 69A of the Information <keyword id="19901571" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="technology" source="keywords">Technology</keyword> Act, blocking its open-source messaging application 'Briar' and also prayed for setting aside that order. It was stated that Briar operates on a technology in which a person can directly send a message to another person even when there is no internet connectivity. It added that the technology is crucial in times of emergency, natural calamities and catastrophic disasters in providing emergency healthcare and disaster management as it enables smooth communication between persons and authorities during times of distress. On the other hand, the Centre's counsel submitted that the software, which can work even when there is no internet connection, is suspected to be used by terrorists in Jammu and Kashmir. The application can be misused and can definitely be a potential threat to the national security, sovereignty and integrity of India, the Centre's counsel said. The high court in its order noted that rule 16 of the Blocking Rules provides that strict confidentiality shall be maintained regarding all the requests and complaints received and actions taken thereof. "This court can take judicial notice of the fact that decisions taken at the highest level and for the benefit of the security and sovereignty of the country can be kept confidential," it said.

HC dismisses plea to set aside order blocking messaging app in J&K over threat to national security

Actor <keyword id="19915080" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Shilpa-Shetty" source="keywords">Shilpa Shetty</keyword> and her businessman husband <keyword id="19895826" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Raj-Kundra" source="keywords">Raj Kundra</keyword> have moved the <keyword id="19905533" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Bombay-High-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Bombay High Court" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="Bombay High Court">Bombay High Court</keyword> challenging ED's notices directing them to vacate their house in Mumbai's <keyword id="19933318" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Juhu" source="keywords">Juhu</keyword> area and a farmhouse in Pune in connection with a money-laundering case. The pleas came up for hearing on Wednesday before a division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan. The court issued notice to the <keyword id="19895344" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Enforcement-Directorate" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Enforcement Directorate" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="Enforcement Directorate">Enforcement Directorate</keyword> (ED) and posted the matter for hearing on Thursday. Their petitions challenge ED notices dated September 27 issued to Shetty and Kundra directing them to evict their residential premises here and a farmhouse in Pune within ten days in connection with a money-laundering case linked to an alleged <keyword id="23486542" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Bitcoin-fraud" source="keywords">Bitcoin fraud</keyword>. The couple's advocate Prashant Patil said that Shetty and Kundra received the <keyword id="20675198" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="eviction-notices" source="keywords">eviction notices</keyword> only on October 3. He termed the notices arbitrary and illegal and sought them to be quashed. According to the pleas, there is no grave urgency for the petitioners to vacate their premises and that the issuance of such eviction notices was uncalled for. "The petitioners are also seeking relief on humanitarian grounds as the premise in question is their residential premise in which they have been staying with their family of six members for almost two decades," the petitions said. The pleas also sought HC to stay the effect of the eviction notices. As per the pleas, the ED had in 2018 lodged a complaint against one <keyword id="21346793" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="amit-bhardwaj" source="keywords">Amit Bhardwaj</keyword> and others for an alleged Bitcoin fraud and on charges of <keyword id="19899231" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="money-laundering" source="keywords">money laundering</keyword>. Both Shetty and her husband have not been named as accused in the case. The ED, during its probe, had summoned Kundra for questioning on several occasions. Kundra had appeared before the agency after each summons, the pleas said. In April 2024, Shetty and Kundra received a notice based on an order passed by the ED provisionally attaching their assets including their residential premise in Juhu that had been purchased by Kundra's father in 2009. Both Shetty and Kundra submitted their response to the notice. "However, in contravention to the provisions of law, the adjudicating authority confirmed the provisional attachment order on September 18, 2024. This order clearly states that the attachment is confirmed only till the conclusion of trial and is subject to its outcome," the pleas said. "The petitioners (Shetty and Kundra) on October 3 received two notices dated September 27, 2024, directing them to vacate their residential premises and the farmhouse," the petitions said. The petitions said no eviction order/notice can be issued prior to conviction. The pleas added that their residential premise has no connection with the scheduled offence or any proceeds of crime. The petitions further claimed that Kundra had absolutely no connection with the alleged fraud.

Shilpa Shetty and Raj Kundra's money laundering case takes new turn as they challenge the ED's eviction notices

The <keyword id="19946148" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Karnataka-High-Court" source="keywords">Karnataka High Court</keyword> recently dismissed an appeal filed by a woman seeking Rs 6 lakhs in monthly <keyword id="20538992" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="alimony" source="keywords">alimony</keyword>, citing the lack of reasonable justification for the requested amount. <keyword id="22894144" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Justice-Lalitha-Kanneganti" source="keywords">Justice Lalitha Kanneganti</keyword>, presiding over the case, found the petitioner's claim to be excessive and asked for more concrete figures regarding her actual expenses. The appeal, presented by Advocate Akarsh Kanade on behalf of the petitioner, sought the large sum to cover what was described as her “basic needs,” which included items such as bangles, chains, sandals, and watches. The court questioned whether such expenses constituted "basic needs" and noted that the petitioner did not have any dependents or children. <div type="twitter" handle="DeepikaBhardwaj" handlename="DeepikaBhardwaj" favoritecount="0" retweetcount="0" id="1826237815962907135"></div>According to the Bar and Bench, the court said that she has no responsibility for any other family member or children, “Does anybody spend this much? A single lady for herself?” During the hearing, the petitioner referenced her ex-husband’s preference for branded clothing, such as Calvin Klein t-shirts costing around Rs 10,000, arguing that she should be entitled to similar living standards. Additionally, she cited health concerns, including knee joint pain and fever, which she attributed to negligence during the marriage. Further, Judge Lalitha Kanneganti also refused to entertain the request, saying, “If she wants to spend, let her earn,” TOI reported. <h2>But how much alimony is considered fair in India?</h2>In India, alimony, also referred to as <keyword id="20027249" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="maintenance" source="keywords">maintenance</keyword>, is a key aspect of <keyword id="19911325" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="divorce" source="keywords">divorce</keyword> proceedings. This <keyword id="19972877" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="financial-support" source="keywords">financial support</keyword> is provided by one spouse to another, irrespective of the divorce grounds. The determination of alimony involves complex legal and financial assessments, taking into account factors such as the earning capacity of both spouses, their financial needs, the length of the marriage, and the lifestyle maintained during the marriage. The <keyword id="19900742" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="supreme-court-of-india" source="keywords">Supreme Court of India</keyword> has set a general benchmark for monthly alimony, where the husband may be required to pay 25% of his net salary to his estranged wife. While this guideline applies to monthly payouts, no specific rule exists for lump-sum settlements, though they typically range from one-fifth to one-third of the spouse's net worth. The calculation of alimony depends on various factors, such as: <ul><li>Monthly incomes of both spouses</li><li>Educational background and employment prospects</li><li>Duration of the marriage</li><li>Number of children and child custody arrangements</li><li>Husband's income, liabilities, and lifestyle</li><li>Reasonable needs and financial independence of the wife</li></ul>In case of the Karnataka woman, the court expressed its expectation that more reasonable figures be provided to support her request. "If you want an order from the court, I want actual figures, not these lakhs of figures," said Justice Kanneganti. The judge also stated that the court is not a place for bargaining and advised the petitioner to be realistic in her demands. While the petitioner’s counsel attempted to lower the alimony request, the court maintained that without a rational basis for the amount, the application could not be entertained. Justice Kanneganti emphasised that the appeal would be dismissed if a more reasonable claim was not presented. In its final remarks, the court suggested that the appeal could be denied solely on the grounds of being unreasonable, stressing the importance of presenting justified and fact-based requests in legal proceedings. <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="112689204" title="Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck reportedly didn&amp;#39;t sign a prenup. Here are the assets they may have to split 50/50 in their divorce settlement." mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div>

A Karnataka woman is being ridiculed for demanding an alimony of Rs 6 lakh monthly from her ex. Is this fair?

<keyword id="19895875" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-High-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Delhi High Court" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="Delhi High Court">Delhi High Court</keyword> on Thursday, has appointed a sole <keyword id="20233811" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="arbitrator" source="keywords">arbitrator</keyword> to address the conflicts between <keyword id="19956322" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="BharatPe" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="BharatPe" meta.hostid="261" meta.entityid="BharatPe">BharatPe</keyword> and its former MD <keyword id="20115473" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Ashneer-Grover" source="keywords">Ashneer Grover</keyword>. The disputes center around allegations that Grover breached confidentiality terms outlined in his <keyword id="20424040" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="employment-agreement" source="keywords">employment agreement</keyword> with the fintech firm. Justice C. Hari Shankar of the Delhi High Court has ordered the appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve disputes between Ashneer Grover and BharatPe. BharatPe's plea under a relevant section of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act sought to resolve issues stemming from Grover's alleged breach of confidentiality by disclosing sensitive company information on social media. BharatPe proposed former <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> Justice Hemant Gupta as the arbitrator, but Grover suggested Justice (Retired) J.R. Midha instead. Grover's advocate, Giriraj Subramanium, did not oppose arbitration, but proposed that the matter be handled by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), given its ongoing involvement with related disputes over the shareholders' agreement. BharatPe's advocate, Anuj Berry, contested this, asserting that the employment agreement specifies arbitration under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC), which the Court upheld. Additionally, BharatPe had previously sought a restraining order to prevent Grover from publicly disclosing company details. The Delhi High Court had previously imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakh on Ashneer Grover for breaching a court order by posting derogatory content about BharatPe on social media. Justice Rekha Palli, expressing disapproval of Grover's repeated violations, mandated that he pay the costs to the Delhi High Court Clerk Association. Grover issued an unconditional apology, which the court accepted, contingent upon the payment of the imposed costs.

Delhi HC appoints arbitrator to address conflict between Ashneer Grover and BharatPe

The <keyword id="19895346" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="Calcutta-High-Court" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Calcutta High Court" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="Calcutta High Court">Calcutta High Court</keyword> on Thursday directed the <keyword id="19896633" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="CBI" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="CBI" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="CBI">CBI</keyword> to file a report by September 18 on detestable posts being made on social media regarding the <keyword id="22813393" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="rape-murder-victim" source="keywords">rape-murder victim</keyword> of R G Kar Medical College and Hospital. The body of the on-duty trainee doctor was found in the seminar room of the state-run hospital on August 9, triggering nationwide outrage. The CBI is investigating the case from the second week of August on an order of the high court. The petitioner prayed in the PIL that the CBI be directed to investigate the <keyword id="22008077" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="cyber-offences" source="keywords">cyber offences</keyword> in connection with the "unfortunate and brutal incident." The court asked the Additional Solicitor General Asok Kumar Chakrabarti, representing the central agency, whether it could find a way to block these types of posts. The division bench, presided by Chief Justice T S Sivagnanam, directed the joint director, CBI, Kolkata, to look into the grievance expressed by the petitioner with regard to the issue of such abominable <keyword id="20074678" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="social-media-posts" source="keywords">social media posts</keyword>. The bench, also comprising Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, directed the CBI joint director or any other competent officer to file a report in this regard by September 18, when the PIL will come up for hearing again along with other petitions relating to the August 9 rape-murder of the doctor. After the order was dictated, Chakrabarti submitted before the court that the CBI does not have any separate wing to investigate such cyber crimes. Maintaining that the state police has a special unit to monitor such matters, he prayed that the <keyword id="20054502" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="West-Bengal-government" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="West Bengal government" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="West Bengal government">West Bengal government</keyword>'s cyber crime branch be also directed to file a separate report. The court said that it would consider the prayer on the next date of hearing.

Calcutta High Court seeks CBI report on nasty social media posts on RG Kar hospital rape-murder victim

The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> on Monday deferred by six weeks hearing on a plea of Chief Minister <keyword id="19901384" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Arvind-Kejriwal" source="keywords">Arvind Kejriwal</keyword> challenging a <keyword id="19895875" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Delhi-High-Court" source="keywords">Delhi High Court</keyword> order upholding the summons issued to him in a criminal <keyword id="19917023" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="defamation-case" source="keywords">defamation case</keyword> for retweeting an allegedly defamatory video circulated by YouTuber <keyword id="21917603" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Dhruv-Rathee" source="keywords">Dhruv Rathee</keyword> in 2018. A bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar and R Mahadevan posted the matter for hearing after six weeks after senior <keyword id="22757218" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="advocate-Abhishek-Singhvi" source="Orion">advocate Abhishek Singhvi</keyword>, appearing for <keyword id="19895701" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="kejriwal" source="keywords">Kejriwal</keyword>, sought some more time to work out a settlement. "We express regret but some more time may be given (for settlement). Currently, too many things are going on in this man's life," Singhvi submitted. Advocate Raghav Awasthi, appearing for the complainant, submitted that time may be given (to Kejriwal) but it should not be unlimited and some negotiations have to take place. Singhvi submitted that although he (Kejriwal) expresses regret for the tweet but it cannot be on his (complainant's) terms. The bench posted the matter for hearing after six weeks to enable the parties reach a settlement. Earlier, Kejriwal has admitted that he "committed a mistake" by retweeting the alleged defamatory video. On March 11, the top court asked Kejriwal whether he wanted to give an apology to the complainant in the matter. Kejriwal had on February 26 told the apex court that he made a mistake by retweeting the allegedly defamatory video related to the <keyword id="20738764" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="BJP-IT-Cell" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="BJP IT Cell" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="BJP IT Cell">BJP IT Cell</keyword>. The counsel appearing for complainant Vikas Sankrityayan had told the top court that Kejriwal may issue an apology on social media platforms like microblogging platform 'X' or Instagram. On February 26, the apex court, without issuing notice on Kejriwal's plea challenging the high court order, had asked the complainant whether he wanted to close the matter in view of the petitioner accepting it was a mistake. The top court had asked the trial court not to take up the defamation case involving Kejriwal till further orders. In its February 5 verdict, the high court said that reposting alleged libellous content would attract the defamation law. It said a sense of responsibility has to be attached while retweeting content about which one does not have knowledge and added that retweeting defamatory content must invite penal, civil as well as tort action if the person retweeting it does not attach a disclaimer. The high court, while refusing to quash the trial court's 2019 order summoning Kejriwal, had said when a public figure tweets a defamatory post, the ramifications extend far beyond a mere whisper in someone's ears. It had said if the act of retweeting or reposting is allowed to be misused as it is still considered to be a vacant grey area of law, it will encourage people with ill intentions to misuse it and conveniently take a plea that they had merely retweeted a content. The chief minister had said in the high court that the trial court failed to appreciate that his tweet was not intended or likely to harm the complainant. Sankrityayan claimed the YouTube video titled 'BJP IT Cell Part II' was circulated by Rathee, who lives in Germany, "wherein a number of false and defamatory allegations were made".

Defamation case: Supreme Court defers hearing on Arvind Kejriwal's plea to enable settlement by six weeks

The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> on Tuesday said it has ordered listing of a plea challenging the verdict of the <keyword id="19905533" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Bombay-High-Court" source="keywords">Bombay High Court</keyword> which had upheld a decision of a Mumbai college to impose a ban on wearing of 'hijab', 'burqa' and 'naqab' inside the campus. The high court had on June 26 refused to interfere with the decision of the <keyword id="22185170" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="chembur-trombay-education" source="keywords">Chembur Trombay Education</keyword> Society's N G Acharya and <keyword id="22271323" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="d-k-marathe-college" source="keywords">D K Marathe College</keyword> imposing the ban, saying such rules do not violate students' <keyword id="20068423" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="fundamental-rights" source="keywords">fundamental rights</keyword>. It had said a <keyword id="42035" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="dress-code" source="Orion">dress code</keyword> is meant to maintain discipline which is part of the college's fundamental right to "establish and administer an educational institution". Taking note of submission seeking urgent listing of the appeal, a bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said it has already assigned a bench for the matter and that it would be listed soon. Lawyer Abiha Zaidi, appearing for petitioners, including Zainab Abdul Qayyum, sought urgent hearing saying the unit tests in the college are likely to commence on Wednesday. The top court is yet to conclusively decide the legality of such diktats issued by educational institutions. A two-judge bench of the top court, on October 13, 2022, had delivered opposing verdicts in the hijab controversy emanating from Karnataka. The then BJP-led state government had imposed a ban on wearing the Islamic head covering in schools there. While Justice Hemant Gupta, since retired, had dismissed the appeals challenging the judgement of the Karnataka High Court which had refused to lift the ban, Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia had held there shall be no restriction on the wearing of hijab anywhere in the schools and colleges of the state. The present controversy stems from the decision of a Mumbai college. The Bombay High Court trashed the plea against the ban and said the dress code was applicable to all students irrespective of religion or caste. The students, who were in the second and third year of the science degree course, had moved the high court, challenging a directive issued by the college imposing a dress code under which students cannot wear a hijab, naqab, burka, stoles, caps and badges on the premises. The students had claimed it was against their fundamental right to practice religion, the right to privacy and right to choice. The college's action was "arbitrary, unreasonable, bad-in-law and perverse", the plea had said. The high court, however, had said it could not see how the prescription of dress code by the college violated Articles 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and 25 (freedom to practice religion) of the Constitution. "In our view, the dress code as prescribed cannot be held to violate the petitioners' rights claimed under Article 19(1) (a) and Article 25 of the Constitution of India," the HC had said. The high court had also refused to accept the petitioners' contention that wearing a hijab, naqab and burqa was an essential practice of their religion. "Except for stating that the same constitutes an essential religious practice on the basis of the English translation of Kanz-ul-Iman and Suman Abu Dawud, there is no material placed to uphold the petitioners' contention that donning of hijab and naqab is an essential religious practice. The contention in that regard, therefore, fails," the HC had said. Prescribing a dress code should be seen as an "exercise towards maintaining discipline", and the right to do so flows from the fundamental right to establish and administer an educational institution under Article 19(1)(g) (right to practise any profession or run trade/business) and Article 26 of the Constitution, the HC had said. The dress code was mandatory only within the college premises and the petitioners' freedom of choice and expression was not otherwise affected, it had said.

Supreme Court to hear plea of students against Bombay HC verdict upholding ban on hijab, burqa in college

The <keyword id="19895345" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court" source="keywords">Supreme Court</keyword> on Monday issued notice to concerned respondents on the <keyword id="20054502" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="West-Bengal-government" source="keywords">West Bengal government</keyword> plea challenging the <keyword id="19895346" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Calcutta-High-Court" source="keywords">Calcutta High Court</keyword> decision cancelling all Other Backward Caste certificates issued in <keyword id="19896517" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="west-bengal" source="keywords">West Bengal</keyword> after 2010. A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud with justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra also asked the West Bengal government to file an affidavit explaining the process to determine 77 communities as OBCs. The top court, however, did not stay the Calcutta High Court order but issued notice on West Bengal's application seeking a stay on the order. In the meantime, the top court also asked the government to file an affidavit explaining the process followed for the determination of 77 communities as OBCs. The court sought to know the nature of the survey and the study relied upon the classification of 77 communities as OBCs. The court also sought to know details of the consultation the state government had with the WB Backward Commission prior to including the 77 communities in the OBC list. The court has asked the WB government to file the affidavit within one week. The top court was hearing West Bengal Government challenging Calcutta High Court order. Calcutta HC on May 22 cancelled all <keyword id="20636195" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="OBC-certificates" source="keywords">OBC certificates</keyword> issued in West Bengal after 2010 had directed the West Bengal <keyword id="20779164" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Backward-Classes-Commission" source="keywords">Backward Classes Commission</keyword> to prepare a new list of OBCs in accordance with the 1993 Act. Those who were in the OBC list before 2010 will remain. However, after 2010, OBC nominations have been cancelled. About 5 lakh OBC certificates are set to be cancelled. After 2010, those who have jobs under the OBC quota or are in the process of getting them cannot be excluded from the quota. There will be no impact on their job and they cannot be excluded from the quota.

SC issues notice on plea challenging Calcutta HC decision cancelling all OBC certificates issued in West Bengal after 2010

A sperm or <keyword id="22773682" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="egg-donor" source="keywords">egg donor</keyword> has no legal right on the child, and cannot claim to be its <keyword id="22773683" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="biological-parent" source="keywords">biological parent</keyword>, the Bombay <keyword id="19900812" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="high-court" source="keywords">High Court</keyword> held on Tuesday, while allowing a 42-year-old woman visitation rights to her five-year-old twin daughters. The woman, in her plea, said her daughters, born via <keyword id="20302787" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="surrogacy" source="keywords">surrogacy</keyword>, were living with her husband and younger sister, who was the egg donor. The petitioner's husband had claimed since his sister-in-law was the egg donor, she had a legitimate right to be called a biological parent of the twins, and that his wife had no right over them. A single bench of Justice Milind Jadhav, however, refused to accept this contention, citing that though the petitioner's younger sister was the egg donor, she has no legitimate right to claim that she is a biological parent of the twins. The court said the role of the younger sister is that of an egg donor, rather, a voluntary donor, and at the most, she may qualify to be a genetic mother and nothing more. An advocate appointed to assist the court in the matter informed it that since the estranged couple's surrogacy agreement took place in 2018, when the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act 2021 had not come into force, the guidelines issued by the <keyword id="19914690" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Indian-Council-of-Medical-Research" source="keywords">Indian Council of Medical Research</keyword> (ICMR) in 2005 would regulate the agreement. As per a rule of the guidelines, the donor and the surrogate mother have to relinquish all parental rights, the court noted, adding that in the present case, the twins would be the daughters of the petitioner and her husband. "Under the guideline, it is clearly stated that the sperm/oocyte (egg) donor shall not have parental rights or duties in relation to the child and in that view of the matter, the younger sister of the petitioner can have no right whatsoever to intervene and claim to be the biological mother of the twin daughters," the high court said. As per the plea, the couple could not conceive naturally, and the petitioner's sister volunteered to donate her eggs. In December 2018, the babies were conceived by a surrogate woman and the twin girls were born in August 2019. In April 2019, the sister and her family met with a road accident, and her husband and daughter were killed. The petitioner lived with her husband and twin daughters from August 2019 to March 2021. Following a marital discord in March 2021, the husband moved into another flat with the children without informing his wife. The man claimed that his wife's sister (the egg donor) had been depressed after the road accident and started living with him to take care of the twins. The petitioner filed a police complaint and an application before a local court, seeking interim visitation rights to her daughters. The local court rejected her application in September 2023, following which she approached the high court. The wife said her sister had only donated her eggs and was not the surrogate mother, and hence, she had no legal right or role in the lives of the twins. The high court, in its order, noted that the surrogacy agreement of 2018 between the intending parents, the surrogate mother and the doctor is signed by the petitioner, her husband and the doctor. "It is seen that the petitioner (wife) and Respondent No. 1 (husband) are recognised as the intending parents. At least to a naked eye, there is no ambiguity whatsoever while observing and even concluding that it is the petitioner along with Respondent No. 1 who signed the surrogacy agreement as intending parents," it said. Justice Jadhav held that the lower court order denying visitation rights to the wife was passed without proper application of mind and is unsustainable and quashed it. The court directed the husband to give physical access and visitation rights of the twins to the petitioner for three hours every weekend.

You Searched For "High Court order" and got 10 results

WFI to challenge High Court order, says Indian wrestlers' participation in upcoming Worlds in danger

PTI

HC dismisses plea to set aside order blocking messaging app in J&K over threat to national security

PTI

Shilpa Shetty and Raj Kundra's money laundering case takes new turn as they challenge the ED's eviction notices

PTI

A Karnataka woman is being ridiculed for demanding an alimony of Rs 6 lakh monthly from her ex. Is this fair?

BI India Bureau

Delhi HC appoints arbitrator to address conflict between Ashneer Grover and BharatPe

ANI

Calcutta High Court seeks CBI report on nasty social media posts on RG Kar hospital rape-murder victim

PTI

Defamation case: Supreme Court defers hearing on Arvind Kejriwal's plea to enable settlement by six weeks

PTI

Supreme Court to hear plea of students against Bombay HC verdict upholding ban on hijab, burqa in college

PTI

SC issues notice on plea challenging Calcutta HC decision cancelling all OBC certificates issued in West Bengal after 2010

ANI

Sperm or egg donor has no legal right on child, can't claim to be biological parent, says high court

PTI

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides