Delhi High Court dismisses plea for mandating stipends to young advocates; Appeals to senior lawyers to pay adequately
Delhi High Court: In a PIL filed by Pankaj Kumar, a young advocate of 29 years of age, enrolled with Delhi Bar
Delhi High Court: In a PIL filed by Pankaj Kumar, a young advocate of 29 years of age, enrolled with Delhi Bar
Kerala High Court: In a significant case where a widow whose husband died due to adverse effects of Covid-29 immunization had approached
Digitization is the road ahead. It should lead to empowerment and not deprivation. The “ifs” haunt me. What can the court do in such circumstances when the student is not at fault?
Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench): Suraj Govindaraj, J. while deciding a matter regarding handcuffing of an accused during arrest, held that “handcuffing
Delhi High Court: Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. denied relief to Swastika Ghosh and Manush Shah (‘Petitioner(s)'), table tennis players who
“The allegations of bureaucrats deviating from strict norms of political neutrality with a view to obtaining party tickets to contest elections, is vague, devoid of particulars and unsupported by any materials which could justify intervention of this Court.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Ravi Malimath, CJ. and Dinesh Kumar Paliwal, J.dismissed a petition which was filed in
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Nandita Dubey, J. heard a petition which was filed seeking issuance of the writ of mandamus to the
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Satyen Vaidya, JJ. dismissed the petition being devoid merits. The
Supreme Court: Explaining the scope of writ jurisdiction, the bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that the State
Framing of any scheme is no function of the Court and is the sole prerogative of the Government.
Madras High Court: V. Parthiban, J., expressed that plea of public interest in a private loan transaction is only a mask to
Kerala High Court: T.R. Ravi, J., held that draft stipulation could not be accepted for the challenge as the same is premature
“Judicial review of a policy decision and to issue mandamus to frame policy in a particular manner are absolutely different.”
“What is being claimed and prayed for under the guise of Covid 19 pandemic is nothing but a lame excuse in taking additional attempt to participate in the Civil Service Examination 2021 to be held in future.”
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Sandeep Sharma, JJ., while dismissing the present petition said, “The
Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K. Agrawal J. dismissed the petition based on settled position of law. The facts of the case are
Supreme Court: The bench of Indira Banjerjee and Indu Malhotra, JJ that the Courts are duty bound to issue a writ of
Jharkhand High Court: A Division Bench of Aparesh Kumar Singh and Kailash Prasad Deo, JJ. was hearing a writ petition of mandamus
Uttaranchal High Court: A writ petition was contemplated by Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ and Alok Kumar Verma, J. where the petitioner sought a