The Madhya Pradesh high court’s Indore bench on Thursday overturned two people’s detention under the National Security Act for black marketing Remdesivir injections.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition to implement the award of reinstatement with back wages passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 16th May 2012.
Madras High Court criticized BSNL on Wednesday for essentially taking individual A. S. Marimuthu’s property by paying a meagre sum of Rupees 1.
Rasul v Bush 542 U.S. 466 (2004) is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case, the US Supreme Court decided that the detained foreign nationals who were held in the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp are allowed to file a petition of writ of habeas corpus before the Federal Court to review the legality of their detention.
The Central Information Commission decided on a case where the appellant filed an appeal after not receiving valid information about some points mentioned in his RTI application.
The appeal was filed under the umbrella of “family civil appeal” by the appellant. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Family Court Judge, dated 05.10.2020, the appellant approached the Hon’ble High Court.
The High Court of Madras recently observed that while dealing and interacting with students, the school administration and authorities must be more supportive and understanding, especially during this pandemic situation.
The central Information commission on the date June 22nd ,2021 decided on a case where an appellant was denied from receiving information and his RTI application was not accepted while referring it to as a third party. The commission further decided that the RTI application was not given proper attention rather it was taken very lightly . Later the commission directed the CPIO to reply within a set time limit and to be very cautious with the provisions of the RTI Act.
The Central Information Commission on June 21st, 2021 decided on a case where an RTI application was filed seeking information about the complaint filed against the practicing lawyers and violation of the Advocate’s Act, 1961. Here, the commission decided on the jurisdiction of the Bar Council which was raised by a respondent and, gave the decision accordingly.
The Central Information Commission decided on a case on 19th June 2021 where the Appellant filed for an answer related to the RTI Act. According to the CPIO, the reply was submitted to the appellant but the appellant was denying this. During the time of the hearing, the Appellant was not present and the CPIO submitted all the relevant information as evidence, so the court decided to dispose of the appeal and gave consideration to CPIO’s reply, and provided copies to the appellant.
Subscribe to our newsletter and receive a curated selection of legal updates directly to your inbox.
