“You can’t arbitrarily exercise the power by closing the window,” the chief justice said.
The recent Delhi high court ruling exempting the attorney general’s office from disclosing information raises questions about how it aids Mukul Rohatgi.
Taking exception to the widespread protests across the state in support of Jallikattu, the Supreme Court observed that such things cannot be permitted in a country governed by the rule of law.
Given previous cases, the Centre’s decision to remove (or not) governors after allegations of cognisable offences seems to depend on their political leanings.
The apex court initiated this as an interim measure to make sure that the BCCI implements Justice Lodha panel recommendations.
If nationalism, the way its sternest adherents argue, is a deep and overwhelming sentiment, then why do we need a disciplining machine to enforce that sentiment in us?
The petitioner submitted that the ministries of environment and science have openly pushed GM mustard and that they shouldn’t be allowed to regulate GMOs.
“Such a view coming from a retired judge of this Court needs to be treated with greatest of respect and consideration” the bench said in its order.
Asking the apex court to recall its order, the Centre said it would set up a technical team to assess the ground realities of the Karnataka-Tamil Nadu water dispute.
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi pleaded for more time and asked that the Supreme Court not issue any notice at the moment.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Arunachal Pradesh is the third consecutive setback for the Modi government, which has used its criticism of the judiciary to divert public attention from its own performance.
The apex court-appointed panel is investigating alleged scuttling of probe into the coal block allocation scam by Ranjit Sinha.
The Kejriwal government had initially moved the Delhi high court, not realising that its claim of Delhi being a state locked in a federal dispute with the Modi government is best heard before the apex court.
This ordinance will ensure that students of state government boards will not have to take NEET on July 24.
As a result, the nine MLAs cannot vote in tomorrow’s floor test in the Uttarakhand assembly.
What the court ended up doing was restore president’s rule, effectively removing the chief minister, and asking the high court to send the order which it had not seen but blindly suspended.
Unlike the Supreme Court which heard the case on Nabam Tuki’s ouster as Arunachal chief minister, the Uttarakhand high court accepted Harish Rawat’s plea that any delay in granting his prayer could make the result infructuous
The Uttarakhand HC is unconvinced by the Centre’s motives in imposing president’s rule, saying that they are “cutting at the roots of democracy”.
New Delhi: In a recent case in the Supreme Court, Kerala Bar Hotels Association vs State of Kerala, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi appeared for a private four star hotel which challenged the validity of the Kerala government’s liquor policy restricting the grant of bar licences to only five […]
Is it morally right or legally permissible for a government to insist on the waiver of fundamental rights for accessing benefits?
New Delhi: People will no longer need an Aadhaar card to benefit from government welfare schemes, the Supreme Court decided today, even as it referred the wider issue of the Unique Identification (UID) programme’s impact on privacy to a Constitution Bench. The court was responding to a batch of petitions that challenged both […]
New Delhi: The Centre today urged the Supreme Court that the pleas for scrapping of government’s ambitious project to grant Aadhaar cards to all citizens be referred to a constitutional bench as they relate to issues which require authoritative pronouncement. Rohatgi also reiterated the Centre’s stand that privacy is […]
The right to privacy flows from a structural reading of the Fundamental Rights chapter, and has been established as an integral part of constitutional jurisprudence over the last 30 years.
Rules allow law officers to represent private clients only in exceptional circumstances. What is so exceptional about a Kerala hotel fighting for a liquor license that Mukul Rohatgi needs to fight the case?