Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
XYZ & Anr. versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2023) is an ongoing case of Bombay High Court , which is considering comprehensive measures to sensitize the society and various branches of the State Government of Maharashtra to remove prejudices against the queer community.
This is the history of how the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court was constituted. The Constitution of the Bench by The Hon’ble Chief Justice V.S.Deshpande then came to be challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Petition filed by the State of Maharashtra was allowed and the people's aspirations from Marathwada were recognized.
The Court emphasized that dismissing the findings of an expert body solely due to opposition undermines democratic principles, and policy shifts driven by external pressures jeopardize the foundational fabric of the nation.The Court concluded by stating its expectation of receiving a status update from the NCERT on this matter during the next ...
High courts may also enjoy original jurisdiction in certain matters, if so designated, especially [1] by the constitution, a state law or union law. The work of most high courts primarily consists of appeals from lower courts and writ petitions in terms of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
A writ petition was filed by People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL). The Supreme Court of India judgement said, . We direct the Election Commission to provide necessary provision in the ballot papers/EVMs and another button called "None of the Above" (NOTA) may be provided in EVMs so that the voters, who come to the polling booth and decide not to vote for any of the candidates in the fray ...
On 18 December 1996, the Supreme Court of India gave the verdict in D. K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal.The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) had started as a result of a letter sent by D. K. Basu, a former Calcutta High Court judge and then executive chairman of Legal Aid Services of West Bengal, to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) on 26 August 1986.
Writ Petition (Civil) No(S). 55 OF 2019 [17] Upheld the 103rd Amendment which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Section (EWS) in education and public employment. It held that the 50% cap on quota is not inviolable and affirmative action on economic basis may go a long way in eradicating caste-based reservation.
Meanwhile, Memon then filed a mercy petition with the Governor of Maharashtra and then filed a Writ before the Supreme Court of India for a stay on his execution till the mercy petition is decided. He claimed that the death warrant was illegal, as it had been issued before he had exhausted all his legal avenues of appeal. [ 31 ]