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

<ul><li>The 5-judge constitutional bench headed by Chief Justice <keyword id="6355251" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="dipak-misra">Dipak Misra</keyword> ruled that women can now enter <keyword id="28504" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Kerala">Kerala</keyword>’s <keyword id="6384180" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="sabarimala">Sabarimala</keyword> temple, irrespective of their age.</li><li>The verdict stated that the tradition violated the right of Hindu women to practice their religion.</li><li>The bench also said, the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965 put patriarchy in religion above the right to pray, which is stated in Article 25 of the Indian constitution. </li></ul>In another landmark verdict this week, the <keyword id="75952" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court-of-India">Supreme Court of India</keyword> ended the centuries-old tradition of women not being able to enter Kerala’s most well-known temple, the Sabarimala temple, if they were between the ages of 10 to 50. Petitioners had challenged the Kerala High Court’s decision that only the tantri or priest had the power to decide on traditions. The <a href="https://indianexpress.com/article/india/sabarimala-verdict-live-updates-supreme-court-women-temples-kerala-5377598/?#liveblogstart">five-judge Constitutional bench</a> that included Chief Justice Dipak Misra, R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and <keyword id="854247" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Indu-Malhotra">Indu Malhotra</keyword>, ruled that the tradition enforced patriarchy in religion and could not be allowed to trump women’s right to pray. Not a unanimous decision Justice Indu Malhotra was the only judge on the bend to vote against the petition. She stated that rational arguments cannot be applied to matters of religion and that religious practices are more complex than the right to equality. She added that Article 25 of the Indian constitution already protects the Sabarimala shrine and its deity. While Article 14 stresses the right of all individuals to be equal in the eye of the law, constitutional morality also accounts for everyone being allowed to practise their beliefs. Even if those beliefs are biased towards one gender. That being said, Justice Nariman expressed that the rule actually violates Article 25 by not extending the freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion to women. The management of the Sabarimala temple, the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) has already announced that they will be filing to review the petition. The president of TDB, A Padmakumar, stated that he would be enlisting the help of other religious heads to push this forward. The custodians of the temple, the Pandalam royal family, also expressed their disappointment in the verdict.

Supreme Court of India lifts ban, women of all ages can now enter Sabarimala temple

<ul><li>The <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> is reviewing the entry of women of all ages into the temple.</li><li>The Supreme Court today moved the matter to a seven member bench, from the current five bench judgement.</li><li>Before the last SC verdict women of menstruating age were not allowed to enter the temple because the deity is believed to celibate. </li></ul>The controversial <keyword id="498405" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Sabarimala-case">Sabarimala case</keyword> shows no signs of dying down. The Supreme Court today moved the matter to a seven member bench, from the current five bench judgment. The petitions that were filed to review its earlier judgment are kept pending. The Court needs time to review the matter, said a lawyer who was speaking outside the Supreme Court. 
 <div type="image" title="Sabrimal-temp" msid="72050713" hostid="261"></div>



 The top court is reviewing the entry of women of all ages into the temple. Before the last SC verdict women of menstruating age were not allowed to enter the temple because the deity is believed to celibate. Today's appeal is expected to settle the debate once and for all. The Supreme Court with a 5-judge bench led by <keyword id="548459" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Chief-Justice-Ranjan-Gogoi">Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi</keyword> was reviewing 64 petitions which had challenged its earlier verdict. Last year, in a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court had allowed menstruating women between the age group of 10-50 to enter the temple. The earlier verdict was passed by a 5-judge bench which included the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, and Justices A. M. Khanwilkar, R. F. Nariman, Indu Malhotra and D. Y. Chandrachud. It wasn’t a unanimous judgment with the only woman on the panel Justice Indu Malhotra opposing the decision where she had said that the rational arguments cannot be applied to matters of religion and that religious practices are more complex than the right to equality. Then, the body which manages the <keyword id="453325" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="sabarimala-temple">Sabarimala temple</keyword> – the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and the custodians of the temple, the Pandalam royal family had expressed its disappointment with the verdict. Since then, the temple has seen multiple protests from both sides of the party – the temple authorities have challenged the court’s verdict, while women have on different occasions <a href="https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/two-women-below-50-enter-keralas-sabarimala-temple-police-sources-1971204">sneaked into</a> the temple and were escorted by cops. The Mandala season is here From Wednesday, the security at Sabarimala temple, which opens its doors on Sunday for devotees for the two-month long festival, has been tightened before the verdict. According to IANS, the police have classified the two month long season ⁠— from November to January ⁠— into four segments with the first two weeks starting on November 15 to November 29 and in all 2,551 police personnel would be posted in and around the temple complex.

Supreme Court moves Sabarimala case to a 7-judge bench

New Delhi, May 13 () The Supreme Court on Wednesday came out with a formal notification asking lawyers not to wear coats and long gowns during the hearings through video conferencing "till medical exigencies exist or until further orders" in the wake of COVID-19 pandemic. The notification came in the evening, hours afterChief Justice of India (CJI) S A Bobde, said such dresses should not be donned as they make it easier to "catch virus". "It is notified for the information of all concerned that considering the medical advice, as a precautionary measure to contain spread of Coronavirus (COVID-19) infection under the prevailing conditions, the Competent Authority has been pleased to direct that the advocates may wear 'plain white-shirt/white-salwar-kameez/white saree, with a plain-white neck band' during the hearings before the Supreme Court of India through Virtual Court System till medical exigencies exist or until further orders," said the notification, issued by apex court Secretary General, Sanjeev S Kalgaonkar. Besides sharing the notification on the apex court's website, it will be served to the secretaries of Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association to ensure compliance.The observation of the CJI and subsequent formal notification assumed significance in view of the fact that the apex court has been holding courts through video conferencing only from March 25 due to the nation-wide lockdown to contain the spread of coronavirus (COVID-19) and had even suspended the entry of advocates and other staff into the high security zone on the basis of their proximity cards, till further orders.Earlier during the day, the CJI and Justices Indu Malhotra and Hrishikesh Roy were not wearing their coat and gowns when they assembled for the hearing through video conferencing in the courtroom. The bench, which was hearing arguments of senior lawyer Kapil Sibal in a case, observed that the judges and the lawyers should not wear coat and gown for the time being as they make it easier "to catch virus". The impact of the observation was instant as the lawyers were seen appearing without coat and gown in cases heard after that through video conferencing. Earlier, the apex court on Tuesday said that as part of a pilot project, the judges may come to the courtrooms in the apex court premises from next week to hold proceedings through video conferencing. During the lockdown, the benches usually assemble at the residences of the judges and the lawyers are allowed to join the video conferencing from their homes or offices. SJK ABA MNL RKS MNL RKSRKS

SC asks lawyers not to put on coat, long gowns during COVID-19 pandemic

New Delhi, May 14 () The Bar Council of India asked lawyers across the country on Thursday not to wear coats and long gowns during the hearings through video conferencing before any court or tribunal as a "precautionary measure to check the spread of coronavirus infection".The apex bar body's direction came a day after the Supreme Court issued a notification asking lawyers appearing before it via video conferencing not to wear coats and long gowns."It is notified for information of all advocates of the country, that considering the medical advice and also the circular dated May 13, 2020 issued by the Supreme Court, all lawyers may wear 'plain white shirt/white salwar-kameez/white saree with plain white neck band' during hearing/ proceedings before all high courts and all other courts, tribunals, commissions and all other forums and no coat or gown/robes are/is required to be worn during such time period during which the threat of spread of corona virus looms large and/ or till such time the council further issues another administrative order modifying/ overriding this order."This administrative order is being issued as a precautionary measure to check the spread of corona virus infection under the present situation. This order will come into force with immediate effect and will be operative until further orders of the council," BCI's secretary Srimanto Sen said in the notification.The apex court on Wednesday came out with a similar notification for the lawyers appearing before it following one such observation by the Chief Justice of India S A Bobde.The apex court has been conducting hearing through video conferencing only since March 25 due to the nationwide lockdown to contain the spread of coronavirus (COVID-19). It had even suspended the entry of advocates and other staff into the high security zone on the basis of their proximity cards, till further orders.During the proceedings on Wednesday, the CJI and Justices Indu Malhotra and Hrishikesh Roy were not wearing their coats and gowns when they assembled in the courtroom here for the hearing through video conferencing.The bench, which was hearing arguments of senior lawyer Kapil Sibal in a case, observed that the judges and the lawyers should not wear coat and gown for the time being as they make it easier "to catch virus".The impact of the observation was instant as the lawyers were seen appearing without coat and gown in cases heard after that through video conferencing. Earlier, the apex court had said on Tuesday that as part of a pilot project, the judges may come to the courtrooms in the apex court premises from next week to hold proceedings through video conferencing.During the lockdown, the benches usually assemble at the residences of the judges and the lawyers are allowed to join the video conferencing from their homes or offices. UK SJK SA

BCI asks lawyers not to wear coat, long gowns during COVID-19

New Delhi, May 13 () WhatsApp Inc told the Supreme Court Wednesday that it will not go ahead with the payment service scheme without complying with all the regulations that are in force in India.WhatsApp Inc said this before a bench, headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde, which was hearing through video-conferencing a plea seeking directions to the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) and the RBI to ban the US-based firm's operations in the unified payment interface (UPI) ecosystem on its current model."Kapil Sibal, senior counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 - WhatsApp Inc, makes a statement on behalf of his client that they will not go ahead with the payments' scheme without complying with all the regulations in force," the bench, also comprising Justices Indu Malhotra and Hrishikesh Roy, noted in its order. The apex court issued notices to the Centre, WhatsApp Inc and others asking them to file their responses on the plea."Issue notice returnable after three weeks," the bench said. The plea, filed by Delhi-based think tank Good Governance Chambers, said that in February 2018 NPCI had accorded permission to WhatsApp Inc to provide its payment services under the UPI ecosystem. The plea has alleged that WhatsApp Inc, for the purpose of providing payment service, has not launched a 'dedicated app' for UPI enabled transactions but has embedded its 'messaging app' with UPI enabled feature. "Therefore the Respondent no. 3 (WhatsApp Inc) operates on a model wherein a social app has been bundled with the UPI enabled payment feature," the plea claimed, adding that this poses huge risk to the financial data of users. It alleged that data sharing policy of WhatsApp Inc is "inconsistent and non-compliant" with the applicable laws and guidelines issued by the NPCI and Reserve Bank of India and therefore, it cannot be permitted to operate under the UPI system. The plea has sought a direction to the NPCI to ensure a change of existing model of operations of WhatsApp Inc so that it is consistent with the scheme of UPI payment system.It said that NPCI and RBI should be directed not to permit WhatsApp Inc to offer its UPI payment service through its messaging app and rather ensure its operation only through a separate dedicated app. The plea has also sought directions for NPCI and RBI to run extensive user awareness campaign to educate them about data security and protect them against any online fraud.The bench has tagged the plea with another pending petition in the apex court which has claimed that WhatsApp has not fully complied with RBI's circular which prescribed data localisation norms.During the earlier hearing in the pending plea, WhatsApp had told the apex court that it is conducting a trial run of its payment service and will comply with the RBI norms on data localisation before launching the full service. ABA MNL SJK SA

Will not go ahead with payment service without complying with all norms: WhatsApp Inc to SC

<ul><li>An in-house committee said there was no substance in the allegations. </li><li>Last month, allegations of sexual harassment were made by a former woman employee of the <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword>.</li><li>A report submitted by the committee is “not liable to be made public."</li></ul> <keyword id="45053" type="POSITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Chief-Justice-of-India">Chief Justice of India</keyword> <keyword id="245445" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ranjan-Gogoi">Ranjan Gogoi</keyword> has been cleared of the allegations of sexual harassment brought forward last month by a former woman employee of the Supreme Court. An in-house committee, which had been set up to probe into the matter, reportedly said there was no substance in the allegations. The committee was headed by Justice SA Bobde, and Justices Indira Banerjee and Indu Malhotra. A report submitted by the committee is “not liable to be made public,” LiveLaw reported citing a statement by the court. In April, the Supreme Court had announced that a woman staffer had accused the chief justice of sexual harassment and announced the formation of a judicial panel. Gogoi had rejected all the charges. Last week, the complainant reportedly <a href="https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/breaking-in-house-committee-finds-no-substance-in-allegations-against-cji-report-not-liable-to-be-made-public-144825">withdr</a>ew from the probe, objecting to the committee saying she felt she “was not likely to get justice from this committee. She also cited the lack of a lawyer or a support person and felt "intimidated and nervous in the presence of three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court,” she was quoted as saying in media <a href="https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/breaking-woman-who-alleged-sexual-harassment-by-cji-decides-not-to-participate-in-in-house-enquiry-144658">reports.</a> Many lawyers have also raised concerns about the findings. Writing in <a href="https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/a-miscarriage-of-justice/article27051604.ece/amp/?__twitter_impression=true" data-type="tilCustomLink">the Hindu</a>, Dushyant Dave, a senior lawyer and the former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association, says, "Can [the complainant] and her family get justice at all at the hands of the judiciary, considering the respondents would be the CJI and the Supreme Court? Only time will tell. But certainly for the present, the picture is dark for them."

Judicial panel clears Chief Justice of India from sexual harassment charges

<keyword id="860096" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Section-497">Section 497</keyword> of the <keyword id="75223" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Indian-Penal-Code">Indian Penal Code</keyword> has become a hot topic following an important ruling by the Supreme Court which scrapped this law altogether. Here we discuss in length about this law and what it implied so far. Section 497 of the India Penal Code deals with adultery. The recent judgment by the Supreme Court overturned there earlier rulings that upheld that the said law was constitutional. As per the Supreme Court’s recent decision, Section 497 of IPC goes against the constitution of India and hence need to be scrapped altogether. The bench that pronounced the recent judgment consisted of five judges including the Chief Justice <keyword id="6355251" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="dipak-misra">Dipak Misra</keyword>, and Justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra. Overview of Section 497 of IPC Section 497 of IPC says it is a punishable offense for a man to have sexual intercourse with a married woman without the consent of her husband. The man committing such an offense can be imprisoned for five years or more and can also be asked to pay a fine. Understanding ‘adultery’ in the legal context The dictionary meaning of the term adultery reads thus, "adultery is a voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not their spouse". The petitioners wish to address a few problems connected to Section 497 of IPC as explained hereunder. One big concern regarding this law is that it does not appear to be gender-neutral. In case of any act of adultery committed, the law calls for punishing the man but not the woman involved. Section 497 does not enable a woman to file a complaint against her husband when he has had sexual intercourse with another woman. A number of people call this an anti-woman law since the law seems to reduce a woman as a mere object. As per what the said law implies, a man does not need the consent of the woman to have sexual intercourse with her. The law only says, the said act will not be a crime if the woman’s husband agrees for the act. How the Supreme Court interpreted Section 497 of IPC The judges have stated recently that the Section 497 seems outdated. In fact, it appears to violate the Articles 14 and 21 of the IPC. While commenting on the said law, the justices remarked, "Adultery can be ground for civil issues including dissolution of marriage but it cannot be a criminal offence." The bench also added further that Section 497 looked 'unconstitutional' as it violates the right to equality. There are no reasons whatsoever to continue this law that does not serve the intended purpose. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court upheld that adultery can be a valid ground for applying for divorce. Talking at length about the law and the reasons for scrapping the law, Justice DY Chandrachud commented that Section 497 deprives women of their dignity. CJI Misra said, "Women must be treated with equality with men. Any discrimination shall invite wrath of Constitution. A woman can't be asked to think the way society desires."

What is Section 497 IPC

(Eds: Adding details from order) New Delhi, Jul 13 () The Supreme Court Monday dismissed a plea seeking restrictions on devotees in this year's Amarnath Yatra pilgrimage due to COVID-19 pandemic, saying these issues fall within the "domain of the executive arm of the state".The apex court said the issue as to whether Amarnath Yatra 2020 should or should not be held is a matter which must be left to the "competence of the local administration" and any decision that is arrived at has to be "based on law and on relevant statutory provisions holding the field". A bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud observed that the principle of separation of powers requires that administrative decisions "must be taken where they are entrusted, namely by the executive arm of the state". The top court passed the order while hearing a plea filed by 'Shri Amarnath Barfani Langars Organisation' (SABLO) which had sought a direction to the Centre, Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board to restrict access of pilgrims in the Yatra this year in wake of coronavirus outbreak. "Entertaining a writ petition under Article 32 at this stage would necessarily involve this court taking over an executive function of oversight over the local administration. We decline to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 32 to take over these powers under the rubric of judicial review," the bench, also comprising Justices Indu Malhotra and K M Joseph, said. "We have to respect principle of separation of powers," the bench orally observed during the hearing, while refusing to entertain the plea which had also sought a direction for 'live darshan' of Lord Shri Amarnath Ji Shrine by way of the internet and on television. In its order, the bench said the decision as to whether a pilgrimage should be permitted and, if it is permitted, the safeguards which should be observed, are matters which fall within the domain of the executive. "In arriving at a decision, the administrative authorities must bear in mind statutory provisions governing the field and policies and administrative circulars issued in pursuance of statutory provisions. An assessment of the situation will be based on ground realities. This assessment lies in the domain of the administrative functions of the state," the bench said. It said the duty of court is to step in where the decision making process is flawed by a failure to observe statutory or constitutional requirements and is either contrary to law or failure to take a decision results in a breach of a statutory duty or a fundamental right. "Once a decision is taken, its validity can be tested on procedural and substantive grounds including proportionality and manifest arbitrariness. The power to take a decision on whether a pilgrimage should take place in a given situation lies with the executive arm of the state," it said. The bench dealt with the contention of senior advocate Devdutt Kamat, appearing for the petitioner, that the top court had earlier put restrictions on the Puri Rath Yatra of Lord Jagannath. The apex court later modified the order to allow Rath Yatra at Puri, the bench said during the hearing. Referring to the order passed in Puri Rath Yatra matter, the bench said it indicated that order of restraint was premised on the information furnished to the court by the authorities that it was "well nigh impossible to ensure that there is no congregation." "It was on the basis of the affidavit that was filed by the state of Odisha and on the proposal of the Chairman of the Puri Jagannath Temple Administration that the modification was issued, subject to conditions," the bench noted while referring that order was later modified to allow the holding of Puri Rath Yatra. "This only goes to emphasise that the decision turned upon the view which was taken by the administration of the exigencies of the situation and on whether the religious congregation arising out of the procession at Puri could proceed in a safe and orderly manner," it said. Dealing with the issue raised in the plea concerning this year's Amarnath Yatra, the bench said, "The issue as to whether the Amarnath Yatra 2020 should or should not be held is a matter must be left to the competence of the local administration." It said the court will step in where parameters for judicial review arise. "The petitioners are at liberty to provide such inputs as they may be advised to furnish having regard to their experience of assisting in the pilgrimage in the past," the bench said. During the hearing, the bench observed, "We are ill-equipped to determine whether a Yatra should be held in a particular terrain or not." The Jammu and Kashmir administration, on July 5, had decided to permit Amarnath Yatra by restricting the number of pilgrims to 500 per day by road from Jammu to the 3,880-metre-high cave shrine. The Shrine Board is reportedly planning to allow the yatra for a period of 15 days only. The move was challenged by SABLO in the top court saying it will not be possible to carry out the norms of physical distancing, wearing of masks and other steps to prevent COVID-19 transmission at high altitudes. Kamat said during the hearing that the organization was not against the conduct of rituals pertaining to Yatra, but was only seeking to restrict participation of people from all over the country. The petitioner also sought for allowing live-telecast of the rituals. ABA MNL SJK ABA RKS RKS

SC dismisses plea for restrictions on Amarnath Yatra due to COVID-19

New Delhi, Jul 15 () The Supreme Court Wednesday asked the Jammu and Kashmir administration to explain the basis for detaining high court's bar leader Mian Abdul Qayoom who has challenged his detention under Public Safety Act (PSA) since August 7 last year. The top court asked it to take into consideration various aspects including Qayoom's age, expiry of detention period and the COVID-19 pandemic. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Indu Malhotra posted the matter for July 23 after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for J-K, said that he needs 10 days time to consider various aspects. "We want to know on what basis you (J-K administration) would like to detain him in Delhi's Tihar Jail. Moreover, his detention as per order has already expired," the bench said. At the outset, Mehta said he had not received the copy of the plea and sought time to reply to it. Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for Qayoom, said the detention order was for a limited period, for around one year. The bench said that was the reason it has issued notice on the plea during the last date of hearing. Dave replied that he understands why the Solicitor General was uncomfortable and complained that the present matter was not listed despite specific directions of the court. Justice Kaul told Mehta that firstly his detention period has expired and secondly his ideology remains the same. Dave pointed out that Qayoom is 73 years old and should not be kept in Tihar jail. "In the current scenario of COVID-19 would you like to keep this petition pending," the bench told Mehta, who said that Qayoom's ideology remained the same. The bench said it understands all these issues but sometimes there are compulsions which need to be complied with. It told Mehta that he should respond by next date considering Qayoom's age, expiry of his detention order and the COVID-19 times. On June 26, the top court had issued notice to the J-K administration and sought its reply on Qayoom's plea challenging his detention order. Qayoom has also sought a direction to shift him from Tihar jail here to central jail in Srinagar on medical ground. He has challenged the May 28 order of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court rejecting his plea against his prolonged "illegal detention" under the PSA in jails outside the UT. He said he is a Senior Advocate with more than 40 years' standing at the Bar and has served as President of the J&amp;K High Court Bar Association for many terms, including from 2014 till the present day. Qayoom said he was detained on the intervening night of August 4th and 5th, 2019, under the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter, an order of detention under the PSA was passed against him on August 7, 2019. He said that on August 8 he was taken to Central Jail, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, without any prior notice of intimation, where he was kept in solitary confinement. He said the high court's May 28 order is ex facie unsustainable in law as it is premised on "stale, irrelevant, remote, vague, imprecise and deficient" grounds of detention. "The impugned judgment and order concluded that most of the grounds in the detention order "are somewhat clumsy" which implies that the High Court too found them wanting. Placing reliance on the doctrine of severability as enunciated by this Court in Gautam Jain versus Union of India...the High Court then proceeds to uphold the detention order solely on one ground," his appeal said. He said the high court makes it abundantly clear that the detention order has been upheld solely on one ground -- the four FIRs dating back to 2008 and 2010, as enumerated in the detention order. "These FIRs are stale, irrelevant and have no proximate, pertinent or live link to the present, and are thus superfluous and extraneous to the satisfaction required in law qua the tendency or propensity to act in a manner prejudicial to public order. Pertinently, even in the said decade old 4 FIRs, the Petitioner was neither arrested, nor any charge sheet ever filed by the police against the Petitioner," he added in his plea. Qayoom said he had already been detained in 2010 on the basis of the said FIRs under the PSA, and the said detention was subsequently revoked. "Thus, the same FIRs cannot be used to pass another order of detention under the PSA, as held by this Hon'ble Court…," his plea said. Qayoom said he is suffering from serious health ailments and is at a high-risk vulnerability for COVID-19 due to his co-morbid conditions. "The Petitioner has numerous serious medical conditions for which he has been receiving treatment for the last 25 years under the care and supervision of his doctors in Srinagar, Kashmir. The Petitioner is also dependent on his family for ensuring the regular and daily intake of medicines and regular injections," he added. As an interim prayer, he sought his transfer to Central Jail, Srinagar, during the pendency of the present petition, ensuring that all necessary medical precautions are taken qua COVID-19. MNL ABA SJK SA

You Searched For "Indu Malhotra" and got 9 results

Supreme Court of India lifts ban, women of all ages can now enter Sabarimala temple

Prabhjote Gill

Supreme Court moves Sabarimala case to a 7-judge bench

Sanchita Dash

SC asks lawyers not to put on coat, long gowns during COVID-19 pandemic

PTI

BCI asks lawyers not to wear coat, long gowns during COVID-19

PTI

Will not go ahead with payment service without complying with all norms: WhatsApp Inc to SC

PTI

Judicial panel clears Chief Justice of India from sexual harassment charges

Rimin Dutt

What is Section 497 IPC

BI India Bureau

SC dismisses plea for restrictions on Amarnath Yatra due to COVID-19

PTI

SC asks J-K admin to explain detaining bar leader after expiry of order under PSA

PTI

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides