Petitioner who moved court for independent inquiry apparently feels no need for it anymore, prompting allegations of engaging in underhand attempt to bury the case.
If the government wants to protect the data of individuals collected by private entities, why does it deny the same under the Aadhaar scheme?
“Pakistan shall take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Mr. Jadhav is not executed pending the final decision in these proceedings.”
“The acts alleged by India are culpable of falling under the Vienna Convention guaranteeing the right to communicate and have access to consular access rights,” the ICJ said.
The International Court of Justice on Thursday stayed Pakistan’s execution of Kulbhushan Jadhav. Siddharth Varadarajan explains why.
External affairs minister Sushma Swaraj disclosed this information about the lead attorney in the Jadhav case late last night, in response to a tweet.
Arguments centred on question of urgency, and the status of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
This is the first time India has initiated a case at the ICJ since 1971 and has chosen to do so because of the possibility that Pakistan might quickly carry put the death sentence imposed on the former Indian naval officer.
At stake: can freedom of speech and expression be restricted on grounds other than those explicitly identified in Article 19(2) of the constitution?
The Pacific Ocean nation had filed a suit at the court against India, Pakistan and the UK for failing to control nuclear arms race.
Social activist Harsh Mander had sought the quashing of the December 2014 order of a Mumbai sessions court, which gave BJP president Amit Shah a clean chit in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case.
Auctions, whether at Christie’s or Sotheby’s for works of art, or of telecommunications spectrum by the government of India, are fascinating psychological games. When the interests of large competing corporate groups are involved, not surprisingly, allegations are aired of criminal intent by manipulation of rules. Even as the […]
By hearing only the businessmen guilty of the Uphaar fire—and not the victims or the CBI—in deciding to let the Ansal brothers off without imprisonment, the Supreme Court upended a basic principle of natural justice.
Ansal brothers walk away with a fine of Rs 60 crore ($10 million) despite being held responsible for the death of 59 people in their cinema hall in 1997