Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Madhya Pradesh High Court noted that petitioner, a police officer, was a member of the party which was deputed to nab a dreaded anti-social element of Uttar Pradesh, namely Kamaluddin.
April was not the regular, run-of-the-mill month for the Supreme Court of India as it not only delivered some big judgments and began hearing the momentous Marriage Equality matter but also dealt with some unusual cases like Mr Put Mine, Advocate’s appearance, Justice Gangopadhyay controversy; and case of the Judge who lost job over unprepared judgments. This Roundup covers all of that and more!
The Supreme Court held that the critical views of the Media One News Channel on Government policies cannot be termed ‘anti-establishment’ as the use of such a terminology in itself, represents an expectation that the press must support the establishment.
Observing that the sealed cover procedure violates both principles of natural justice and open justice, the Supreme Court has held that the public interest immunity proceeding is a less restrictive means to deal with non-disclosure on the grounds of public interest and confidentiality.
Supreme Court: In the case where the Madras High Court had ordered an enquiry and obtained a report without furnishing a copy
Bombay High Court: G.S. Patel, J., while addressing a petition observed in the context of sealed cover submissions that, “…it is not
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Asha Menon, JJ., has asked Central Government to submit policy on social