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

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>

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

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The US Supreme Court agreed to hear Donald Trump's appeal to appear on the Colorado ballot.</li><li>The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump was ineligible to appear on ballots due to the 14th Amendment.</li></ul>The US Supreme Court announced Friday that it will review a shocking decision made by the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/colorado-rules-trump-disqualified-from-2024-primary-ballot-2023-12">Colorado Supreme Court</a> to bar former President Donald Trump from the state's ballot.Justices will hear oral arguments on February 8, ensuring the case will be considered just as the GOP primary calendar heats up. Their decision could become the most impactful elections-related matter the high court has handed down since it effectively ended the 2000 presidential election in Bush v. Gore.The nation's highest court will now have to consider a thorny set of issues, including whether Trump's actions related to the Capitol riot amounted to support of an insurrection. Justices may also consider the extent of a state's power to boot a presidential candidate off the ballot. <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-cited-colorado-ruling-disqualified-trump-ballot-2023-12">Justice Neil Gorsuch once considered</a> that power as an appellate court judge in a much less high-profile case.<a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-asked-scotus-to-overturn-ban-from-colorado-ballot-2024-1">Trump had previously asked the US Supreme Court</a> to intervene. Before the justices agreed to hear the case, Maine's secretary of state kicked Trump off the primary ballot there. Other states, including Massachusetts, are considering similar efforts or have had voters petition to force a ruling there.If Colorado's ruling were to stand, it would have sweeping implications for the 2024 presidential election, especially if Trump were to secure the Republican Party's nomination. Meanwhile, more than a dozen other states signaled their support for Trump in a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/295041/20240105135740141_23-719%20tsac%20Indiana%20West%20Virginia.pdf">letter to the court</a> submitted Friday.Trump's three appointees, Justices Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, cemented a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. But their participation does not automatically mean that the high court will side with the former president.In a sign of the pressure the justices may soon be facing, Alina Habba, one of Trump's attorneys, said that <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-lawyer-brett-kavanaugh-step-up-supreme-court-trump-colorado-2024-1">Kavanaugh would "step up"</a> when it came to considering the case, though she stressed it was not because Trump fought strenuously for his confirmation.

Supreme Court decides to take up Colorado's decision to bar Trump from the state's ballot

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The Supreme Court announced it won't hear a case about a state ban on conversion therapy for minors.</li><li>The decision upholds the rights of dozens of states that already passed laws against the practice.</li></ul>Conservative Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas both suggested that laws in dozens of states banning conversion therapy could violate the First Amendment.The Supreme Court published the two justices' opinions on Monday in connection to the high court officially denying a petition to adjudicate the Tingley v. Ferguson case regarding the state of Washington's ban on conversion therapy on minors, SB 5722.In his opinion, Thomas noted he would've agreed to hear the case as "this question has divided the Courts of Appeals and strikes at the heart of the First Amendment.""Under SB 5722, licensed counselors cannot voice anything other than the state-approved opinion on minors with gender dysphoria without facing punishment," he wrote. "The Ninth Circuit set a troubling precedent by condoning this regime."In a separately published opinion, Alito concurred with Thomas about how conversion therapy bans encroach on the First Amendment."It is beyond dispute that these laws restrict speech, and all restrictions on speech merit careful scrutiny," Alito wrote.The order also noted that Justice Brett Kavanaugh would have reviewed the case as well, but did not include a written opinion by him in support of the petition.As the minimally-required four justices did not agree to review the case, the Ninth Circuit's <a target="_blank" href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/09/06/21-35815.pdf">decision</a> from September 2022 will be upheld and Washington's ban on conversion therapy for minors will remain legal.In the Ninth Circuit's written decision in support of the law, Judge Ronald Gould dismissed arguments that the ban encroached on any constitutional amendments."Washington's licensing scheme for health care providers, which disciplines them for practicing conversion therapy on minors, does not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments," Gould wrote. "States do not lose the power to regulate the safety of medical treatments performed under the authority of a state license merely because those treatments are implemented through speech rather than through scalpel."

Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito suggested that laws banning conversion therapy may violate the First Amendment       

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The <keyword id="11949172" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="michigan" source="Orion">Michigan</keyword> Supreme Court on Friday rejected the appeals of three GOP candidates seeking to appear on the ballot.</li><li>The candidates — who were all running for governor — were disqualified due to forged petition signatures.</li></ul>The Michigan Supreme Court on Friday rejected the appeals of multiple GOP gubernatorial candidates to appear on the August primary ballot, the result of state election officials declaring that the individual campaigns turned in forged petition signatures.The candidates who will remain off the ballot include former Detroit police chief <keyword id="14116846" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="james-craig" source="Orion">James Craig</keyword> — who for months had been seen as a frontrunner in the race — along with businessmen Perry Johnson and Michael Markey Jr.The judges — who ruled 6-1 in all three cases — stated that they were "not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed" by the court.State election officials found that the Republican candidates lacked the necessary amount of signatures for qualifying for the primary ballot with the discovery of thousands of invalid signatures. However, the officials also said that there was no proof that the disqualified candidates knew of the sweeping problems surrounding the signatures that were submitted.Before the appeals, the elections panel last month deadlocked 2-2 on permitting the five candidates to appear on the ballot, <a href="https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2022/05/26/michigan-board-state-canvassers-petition-fraud-republican-governor/9939185002/">according to The Detroit Free Press</a>. Due to the failure of the panel to produce a majority decision, the five candidates were not allowed on the ballot.When filing their initial paperwork, the gubernatorial candidates were required to submit a minimum of 15,000 signatures and were instructed not to exceed 30,000 signatures.The Republican candidates — who have largely criticized the process as one dictated by <keyword id="11893346" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="politics" source="Orion">politics</keyword> — could potentially mount write-in campaigns, but it remains unclear how most of them will proceed. Two additional candidates were also disqualified from the ballot: businesswoman Donna Brandenburg and Michigan State Police Capt. Mike Brown, who withdrew from the race.In total, five Republicans were not allowed on the ballot due to forged signatures.The GOP candidates who will appear on the ballot include businesswoman Tudor Dixon; pastor Ralph Rebandt; real estate broker Ryan Kelley; businessman Kevin Rinke; and chiropractor Garrett Soldano.The decision puts the party in a difficult position; it had viewed the Michigan governor's race as a highly competitive race in a key Midwestern state that backed former President Donald Trump in 2016 before flipping to President Joe Biden in 2020.Democratic Gov. <keyword id="12936098" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="gretchen-whitmer" source="Orion">Gretchen Whitmer</keyword> is running for a second term, and the lack of a top-tier candidate on the ballot has muddled GOP chances of winning in the fall, despite the favorable political climate that Republicans are expected to enjoy.Republicans have spent much of the last two years attacking Whitmer over the impact of her coronavirus restrictions in the state, but she is currently in a solid position among the state's voters headed into the November contest.In a May <a href="https://www.deadlinedetroit.com/articles/30633/poll_michigan_gov_whitmer_has_commanding_lead_over_potential_republican_challengers_but">survey</a> conducted by Target Insyght of Lansing, Whitmer led all potential GOP opponents by double-digit margins and was well above the 50-percent threshold in every matchup.However, according to Ed Sarpolus, the executive director of Target Insyght, Republicans could easily come back into the fold and revert the race back to the close contest predicted by most observers."It would be wrong of me as a pollster to say Gretchen is doing a great job right now, she's going to win re-election," <a href="https://www.deadlinedetroit.com/articles/30633/poll_michigan_gov_whitmer_has_commanding_lead_over_potential_republican_challengers_but">he told Deadline Detroit</a>. "No, this poll shows Republicans being upset. Despite Republicans leaning Gretchen, or undecided, they still give Gretchen a negative job rating."The primary will be held on August 2.

Michigan Supreme Court blocks three GOP gubernatorial candidates from ballot over forged petition signatures

Six Ministers of opposition-ruled states moved the <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> on Friday seeking review of its order permitting the Centre to conduct NEET and JEE entrance exams this year amid the persisting COVID-19 pandemic. The review plea has been filed by ministers from West Bengal (Moloy Ghatak), Jharkhand (Rameshwar Oraon), Rajasthan (Raghu Sharma), Chhattisgarh (Amarjeet Bhagat), Punjab (B S Sidhu) and Maharashtra (Uday Ravindra Sawant). The plea has been filed through advocate Sunil Fernandes. On Aug 17, the top court had refused to interfere with the conduct of medical and engineering entrance exams -- NEET and JEE scheduled to take place in September saying that life must go on and students can't lose a precious year due to the pandemic. The apex court had dismissed a plea by one Sayantan Biswas seeking direction to National Testing Agency (NTA), which conducts both the NEET and <keyword id="1629686" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="JEE-Exams">JEE exams</keyword>, to postpone them and said that there was absolutely" no merit in the plea.

You Searched For "Supreme Court JEE review petition" and got 6 results

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

ANI

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

IANS

Supreme Court decides to take up Colorado's decision to bar Trump from the state's ballot

Lauren Steussy

Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito suggested that laws banning conversion therapy may violate the First Amendment

Madison Hall

Michigan Supreme Court blocks three GOP gubernatorial candidates from ballot over forged petition signatures

John L. Dorman

NEET-JEE exams: Ministers from six opposition states file a review plea in Supreme Court

PTI

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides