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><li>The Supreme Court has rejected the petition filed by six ministers of six non-BJP ruled state challenging court’s decision to not entertain a plea seeking postponement of NEET-JEE exams slated in September against the backdrop of Covid-19. </li><li>The Joint Entrance Examination (JEE)-Main — to get admission in engineering colleges — began at 9 am across the country on September 1 despite massive protests across the country. </li><li>A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, B.R. Gavai and Krishna Murari took up the plea in-chambers. </li></ul>The Supreme Court has rejected the petition filed by six ministers of six non-BJP ruled state challenging court’s decision to not entertain a plea seeking postponement of NEET-JEE exams slated in September against the backdrop of Covid-19. <div type="twitter" handle="LiveLawIndia" handlename="Live Law" image="http://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/897707258334916608/nMQWwGlo_normal.jpg" favoritecount="1089" retweetcount="554" status="Breaking: SC Dismisses Review petition by cabinet ministers of six states challenging August 17 Order rejecting po… https://t.co/zdAIKw59Q3" createdat="1599210925000" id="1301811094164570112"></div> The Joint Entrance Examination (JEE)-Main — to get admission in engineering colleges — began at 9 am across the country on September 1 despite massive protests across the country. A bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, B.R. Gavai and Krishna Murari took up the plea in-chambers. The petition, filed through advocate Sunil Fernandes, contends the petitioners have moved the top court to "secure the safety, security and right to life of the students -candidates appearing for the NEET/JEE exams". What does the petition say - <ul><li>The petitioners contended that if the August 17 order is not reviewed, then grave and irreparable harm and injury would befall the student community of the country and it will impact health, welfare and safety of the students/candidates appearing for the NEET/JEE examinations.</li><li>The petition argues that the top court has ignored the logistical difficulties in conducting the examinations at the proposed dates.</li><li>"Failed to balance the competing but equally important aspects of conducting the examination and securing safety of the student. Fails to ensure that mandatory safeguards are put in place during the conduct of the examinations," said the petition challenging the August 17 order.</li><li>"The advice of 'Life Must Go On' may have very sound philosophical underpinnings but cannot be a substitute for valid legal reasoning and logical analysis of the various aspects involved in the conduct of the NEET UG and JEE exams," the petitioners argued.</li><li>They said the apex court failed to appreciate that the Centre had adequate time to establish at least one centre for every district for NEET (UG) and JEE (Mains) rather than having several centres in one district.</li><li>"With regards to the second reason of losing a year, it is most respectfully submitted that this would be tantamount to putting the cart before the horse, as the submissions hereinabove have revealed. The review petitioners too do not desire for the students to lose an academic year, but wish to balance their health, safety and security and that of their family with not losing the current academic year," said the petition.</li></ul>The petitioners include - <ol><li> West Bengal’s Labour and Law Minister Moloy Ghatak</li><li>Jharkhand’s Finance Minister Rameshwar Oraon</li><li>Rajasthan’s Health and Family Welfare Minister Raghu Sharma</li><li>Chhattisgarh's Food and Civil Supplies Minister Amarjeet Bhagat</li><li>Punjab's Health and Family Welfare Minister Balbir Singh Sidhu</li><li>Maharashtra's Higher and Technical Education Minister Uday Ravindra Samant.JEE-NEET 2020: Supreme Court rejects review petition filed by six ministers seeking delay in examination </li></ol>Previously, the Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking a delay in JEE-NEET examination and said the exams will be held as per schedule in September. SEE ALSO:<a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/retail/news/mukesh-ambani-plan-for-reliance-retails-5-7-billion-fund-raise-heres-what-we-know-so-far/articleshow/77924632.cms"> Mukesh Ambani’s plan for Reliance Retail’s $5.7 billion fundraise – Here’s what we know so far</a>

JEE-NEET 2020 to be held as scheduled — Supreme Court dismisses review petition filed by six ministers

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Elon Musk's X sued to stop a new California law from going into effect, citing free speech concerns.</li><li>The law, which regulates online content moderation, will go into effect anyway, a judge ruled.</li></ul>An attempt by <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk">Elon Musk</a>'s X to stop a new California law from going into effect was shot down by a federal judge on Thursday, signaling that the billionaire's social media platform will be accountable to a new set of <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-x-suing-california-over-law-requiring-online-transparency-2023-9">rules about online content moderation</a> despite the company's efforts to avoid such regulation.The bill, AB 587, was signed into law by <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/gavin-newsom-career-timeline">Gov. Gavin Newsom</a> last November. It requires social media companies with over $100 million in annual revenue to publicly post their terms of service, including information about how content is moderated on the platform. It also requires qualifying companies to submit two reports each year to the state's Attorney General, detailing statistics about actions taken by the company to moderate hate speech or racism, extremism or radicalization, disinformation or misinformation, harassment, and foreign political interference.X <a target="_blank" href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.caed.433955/gov.uscourts.caed.433955.1.0.pdf">filed suit</a> against the state of California in September, arguing the bill violates the social media company's freedom of speech under both the First Amendment and California's state constitution, writing in the initial complaint that AB 587 "compels companies like X Corp. to engage in speech against their will.""AB 587 seeks to force social media companies to provide the Attorney General and the public detailed information about how, if at all, they define and moderate the boundaries of the most controversial categories of content," the company argued in its suit. "Put another way, through AB 587, the State is compelling social media companies to take public positions on controversial and politically charged issues."On Thursday, a judge disagreed and shot down X's petition for a preliminary injunction, which would have halted implementation of the law."While the reporting requirement does appear to place a substantial compliance burden on social media companies, it does not appear that the requirement is unjustified or unduly burdensome within the context of First Amendment law," US District Judge William Shubb wrote in his <a target="_blank" href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24248552-elon-musk-x-vs-california-judge-ruling?responsive=1&amp;title=1">decision</a>.He added: "The statistics required if a company does choose to utilize the listed categories are factual, as they constitute objective data concerning the company's actions. The required disclosures are also uncontroversial. The mere fact that the reports may be "tied in some way to a controversial issue" does not make the reports themselves controversial."Representatives for X did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider.Since <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk">Musk's</a> $44 billion takeover of the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, he declared himself a "<a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/free-speech-absolutist-elon-musk-censors-employees-critics-2022-3">free speech absolutist</a>" and took aim at content moderation policies on the site, laying off a portion of the site's <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/new-twitter-layoffs-hit-trust-and-safety-workers-again-2023-9">trust and safety team</a>.Under Musk's leadership, X has <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/list-of-twitter-accounts-reinstated-since-elon-musk-took-over-2022-11">re-instated the accounts</a> of users who had violated the app's old rules about inciting violence and spreading misinformation, including Donald Trump, comedian Kathy Griffin, and "manosphere" influencer Andrew Tate.Musk himself has also engaged in a <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-personality-attitude-problem-advertisers-x-meta-facebook-instagram-2023-12">war with advertisers</a>, calling them the "greatest oppressors" of free speech after multiple big brands pulled their content from X. The advertiser exodus followed reports of surging antisemitism on the site and a controversial post by Musk that suggested that the "great replacement theory" (often levied against pro-immigration Jewish populations) was "the actual truth."He has since apologized for the tweet, which was widely regarded as antisemitic.

A new California law regulating online content moderation will force X to reveal how it reviews hate speech

<ul class="summary-list"><li>A Cornell University history professor has apologized for calling the Hamas attacks on Israel "exhilarating" and "energizing."</li><li>"I recognize that some of the language I used was reprehensible," Russell Rickford said in a statement. </li></ul>The <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/cornell-professor-hamas-attacks-exhilarating-students-want-him-fired-2023-10">Cornell University history professor who came under intense scrutiny</a> after he called the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/why-hamas-chose-attack-israel-now-after-decades-conflict-gaza-2023-10">deadly Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel</a> "exhilarating" and "energizing" has now apologized for his controversial remarks, days after the college confirmed it was investigating his comments."I apologize for the horrible choice of words that I used in a portion of a speech that was intended to stress grassroots African American, Jewish, and Palestinian traditions of resistance to oppression," associate professor Russell Rickford said in a statement issued to <a href="https://cornellsun.com/2023/10/18/rickford-a-statement-regarding-my-actions-from-oct-15/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Cornell Daily Sun</a>, the school's student newspaper. Rickford continued, "I recognize that some of the language I used was reprehensible and did not reflect my values. As I said in the speech, I abhor violence and the violent targeting of civilians. I am sorry for the pain that my reckless remarks have caused my family, my students, my colleagues, and many others in this time of suffering."The history professor at the Ivy League college was speaking at a pro-Palestinian rally near the Ithaca, New York, university on Sunday when he referred to the attacks on Israel as "exhilarating."Rickford said that the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-hamas-2023-10">Palestinian militant group Hamas</a> — which is designated as a terrorist organization by the United States and other nations — "challenged the monopoly of violence" when it launched its surprise assault on the Jewish state earlier this month. More than 1,400 people were killed in the attacks and nearly 200 more were <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-israeli-women-children-seniors-taken-hostage-hamas-in-gaza-2023-10">taken hostage into Gaza by Hamas fighters</a>, according to Israeli officials. The assault prompted Israel to respond with <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-airstrike-kills-women-children-fleeing-evacuation-route-northern-gaza-2023-10">deadly airstrikes on Gaza</a>, which have killed thousands more. Rickford said at the rally that in the immediate aftermath of the attacks by Hamas, Gazans and Palestinians "were able to breathe for the first time in years," according to a video. "It was exhilarating. It was energizing. And if they weren't exhilarated by this challenge to the monopoly of violence, by this shifting of the balance of power, then they would not be human. I was exhilarated," Rickford said. Students and others quickly called for Rickford's removal from Cornell University in online petitions as Rickford <a href="https://cornellsun.com/2023/10/16/cornell-professor-exhilarated-by-hamass-attack-defends-remark/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">defended his comments to The Cornell Daily Sun</a>.Cornell University President Martha Pollack and Cornell University Board of Trustees Chair Kraig Kayser called Rickford's remarks "reprehensible" and said his actions were under review in a statement to Insider on Tuesday. "The university is taking this incident seriously and is currently reviewing it consistent with our procedures," Pollack and Kayser said. Cornell University did not immediately respond to a request for comment by Insider on Thursday. In his apology, Rickford added, "As a scholar, a teacher, an activist, and a father, I strive to uphold the values of human dignity, peace, and justice. I want to make it clear that I unequivocally oppose and denounce racism, anti-semitism, Islamophobia, militarism, fundamentalism, and all systems that dehumanize, divide and oppress people."

A Cornell history professor apologized for calling Hamas' attacks 'exhilarating' and 'energizing.' His actions are under review by the school.

Tecno Phantom V Fold Review - Affordable Foldable device with minor compromises

<ul><li>SC today dismissed review petition filed on the 2018 Rafale verdict. </li><li>Three review petitions were filed by lawyer Vineet Dhandha and Aam Aadmi Party lawmaker <keyword id="6360239" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="sanjay-singh">Sanjay Singh</keyword>.</li><li>On December 14, 2018, the apex court dismissed the petitions seeking an investigation into alleged irregularities in the Rs 58,000 crore deal. </li></ul> The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions filed on the Rafalae judgment on Thursday. Three petitions were seeking a review of its judgement which gave a clean chit to the Modi government in the <keyword id="1560525" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Rafale-fighter-jet">Rafale fighter jet</keyword> deal with French firm Dassault Aviation. On May 10, the apex court had reserved the decision on the pleas, including one filed by former Union ministers Yashwant Sinha, <keyword id="47167" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Arun-Shourie">Arun Shourie</keyword> and activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan, seeking a re-examination of its findings that there was no occasion to doubt the decision-making process in the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets. A Bench comprising Chief Justice <keyword id="245445" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ranjan-Gogoi">Ranjan Gogoi</keyword> and Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph is likely to pronounce verdicts on three review petitions filed by the trio, lawyer Vineet Dhandha and Aam Aadmi Party lawmaker Sanjay Singh. On December 14, 2018, the apex court dismissed the petitions seeking an investigation into alleged irregularities in the Rs 58,000 crore deal.

SC dismisses review petitions on Rafale judgment

Xiaomi 13 Pro Review: Cameras stand true to the promise

New Delhi, Jan 16 () With the Supreme Court dismissing its review petition on AGR dues, telecom company Bharti Airtel on Thursday said it is disappointed, and evaluating options to file a curative petition in the matter.
"While respecting the Supreme Court's decision, we would like to express our disappointment as we believe the long standing disputes raised regarding the AGR definition were bonafide and genuine," Airtel said in a statement.
The company is "evaluating filing a curative petition", it added.
"The industry continues to face severe financial stress and the outcome could further erode the viability of the sector as a whole. The industry needs to continue to invest in expanding networks, acquiring spectrum and introducing new technologies like 5G," it said.
The money now required to pay punitive interest, penalty and interest on penalty which forms nearly 75 per cent of AGR dues would have better served the digital mission of the country, Airtel added.
The comments came after the Supreme Court dismissed the plea of telecom majors, including Bharti Airtel and Vodafone Idea, seeking review of certain directions of the apex court on recovery of past dues amounting to Rs 1.47 lakh crore from telecom service providers.
The recovery of past dues by the government was based on adjusted gross revenue (AGR) of about Rs 92,000 crore.
A bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, S A Nazeer and M R Shah did not find merit in the review plea. PRS MBI BAL

Disappointed with SC dismissing AGR review plea; may file curative petition: Airtel

<ul><li>The government files affidavit in the review petition against the Supreme Court verdict in the Rafale case</li><li>Ministry accused petitioners of conspiring to leak sensitive information about India's war capacity</li><li>A similar statement by Attorney General KK Venugopal faced severe criticism</li></ul> The Ministry of Defence has filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court on March 13 in a case that questions the sanctity of the government deal to buy 36 Rafale fighter jets from the French company Dassault. "...the deponent of the affidavit of the Review Petition are guilty of leakage of sensitive information, which offends the terms of the agreements. Additionally, those who have conspired in this leakage are guilty of penal offences under the Indian Penal Code including theft by unauthorized photocopying and leakage of sensitive official documents affecting National Security,” Bar and Bench reported. The ministry also contends that the petitioners have no authority to produce the documents before the Supreme Court without explicit permission from the Government of India. The Supreme Court is presented with an appeal to review its December 2018 verdict that gave the government a clean chit after accusations of corruption in the defence procurement deal. The petitioners include former Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha, a former union minister Arun Shourie and advocate Prashant Bhushan. Both Sinha and Shourie have been part of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) governments in the past. The affidavit is in consonance with the allegation made by the Attorney General KK Venugopal that the documents were stolen and an inquiry under the Officials Secrets Act was underway-- a statement which he later corrected as "photocopied without permission". SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/Seven-shocking-truths-about-how-India-buys-arms/articleshow/67981937.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink" target="_blank">Seven shocking truths about how India buys arms</a>

India's defence ministry claims the Rafale review petition is a threat to national security

<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.

You Searched For "review petitions" and got 11 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

JEE-NEET 2020 to be held as scheduled — Supreme Court dismisses review petition filed by six ministers

BI India Bureau

A new California law regulating online content moderation will force X to reveal how it reviews hate speech

Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert

A Cornell history professor apologized for calling Hamas' attacks 'exhilarating' and 'energizing.' His actions are under review by the school.

Natalie Musumeci

Tecno Phantom V Fold Review - Affordable Foldable device with minor compromises

Dhruv Mohan

SC dismisses review petitions on Rafale judgment

BI India Bureau

Xiaomi 13 Pro Review: Cameras stand true to the promise

Dhruv Mohan

Disappointed with SC dismissing AGR review plea; may file curative petition: Airtel

PTI

India's defence ministry claims the Rafale review petition is a threat to national security

Sriram Iyer

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

John L. Dorman

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides