"The petitioner has approached this court invoking our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India directly against the order of a tribunal constituted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. In our opinion, the constitutional writ jurisdiction ought to be the forum t
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for one of the petitioners, informed the top court that the matter was listed for hearing on August 28 but it is being deferred and not getting listed.
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh for the petitioner, said that a census is not needed. However, the court said that there are many other issues that have to be addressed. The court also refused to issue any notice on the plea at this stage and asked the petitioner to serve the copy to the other s
The petition has sought to direct the instant review petition to be listed for an open court hearing to enable the petitioners to address oral arguments in support of the review petition.
A five-judge Constitution bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjiv Khanna BR Gavai, JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was told that Electoral Bonds have nothing to do with the election and there is no accountability.
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued notice on a plea of an accused in the Air India flight urination case. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Appellate committee refusing to direct Air India to supply related and material documents.
The Supreme Court has expressed its surprise in a recently passed decision when it noted that the Bombay High Court in an order refrained from granting relief to petitioner observing there is an alternate remedy.
The petitioner, Dr Neena Raizada, had challenged the order of August 13 passed by the Medical Council of India issuing a warning to Dr Ravi Kumar and Dr Arti Lalchandani not to issue any opinion letters without seeing the patients.
Even though the Supreme Court has refused to give marriage equality rights to the LGBTQIA+ community noting that conferring legal status to civil union can only be through a law enacted by Parliament, petitioners and rights activists, though disappointed, but were of the view that the ver
A bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra asked senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, to circulate the papers of the case and it would take a call on listing the matter.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia said it would hear the case on November 2 after senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan appearing for petitioners mentioned the matter for early hearing.
The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the petitioner to take a call and posted the matter for hearing tomorrow relating to the termination of a 26-week pregnancy.