Rezultati pretraživanja
  1. prije 22 sata

    A nine-Judge Bench of the takes up for hearing matter concerning questions of rights of women as against religious rights under Articles 25 and 26. These questions were referred to a larger Bench in the Review petition filed against verdict.

    Prikaži ovu nit
  2. prije 22 sata

    Religion, private properties should be kept away from governance/JUDICIARY purviews as they have made discriminatory laws like Hindus Succession Act which SUPREME COURT is upholding got millions daughters killed not got their parental inheritance but Sabarimala? Farce

  3. Far from deciding the 'larger issues' of essential religious practices, etc, the nine-judge Bench now faces the preliminary task of trying to explain its own existence

    Prikaži ovu nit
  4. Fali Nariman bells the cat on how a review of the case ended up with SC using its extraordinary powers u/Art 142 to form a larger Bench to 'interpret' & define essential religious practices across multiple faiths. CJI concedes Nariman has a 'formidable point there'

    Prikaži ovu nit
  5. CJI says Nariman may be "correct" in saying 'decide the law as and when cases come' not in anticipation or pre-emption of their coming

    Prikaži ovu nit
  6. Supreme Court's nine-judge bench, headed by CJI Sharad Arvind Bobde, begins hearing the temple matter and other related cases involving entry of women into the temple. Follow for updates:

  7. matter to be heard on 6 January by the nine judge bench of the SC. Follow for updates:

  8. prije 20 sati
  9. A nine-judge Constitution bench of the SC resumed examining the matters related to the entry of women into temple and discrimination against women at other religious places.

  10. prije 22 sata

    LEGENDARY FALI NARIMAN QUESTIONS CLUBBING OF OTHER ISSUES WITH SABARIMALA Nariman: SC cannot club other issues with it. SC cant frame new questions. Scope of review is very restricted. This will set a new precedent. How can you think about other issues in a review?

  11. 2. velj

    A very informative thread! Rangarajan garu made such valid legal observations! Is anyone that matters listening??

  12. prije 12 sati

    The lawyer Narimen is a parsi. His ancestors had come as refugees to India. Now this once upon refugee is asking us hindus how can the court review a judgement on sabarimala. He has audacity to ask the majority people and interfere in our religion.

    Prikaži ovu nit
  13. A nine-judge Bench, headed by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, is hearing several senior lawyers, including jurist F.S. Nariman, on the issue of framing of questions to be decided by it

  14. prije 21 sat

    CJI suggests adjourning the matter for the time being for framing the issues, including the preliminary issue of possibility of reference in the review jurisdiction.

    Prikaži ovu nit
  15. prije 11 sati
  16. prije 22 sata

    Already they have taxed properties with PROPERTY tax despite bought after paid IT, revenue fee at registration, development tax at construction time & now, property tax? Why should we pay any taxes post income is taxed & then, every expenditure too including HOUSING?

  17. prije 19 sati

    case: SC to frame questions relating to discrimination against in religions

  18. prije 20 sati

    it's a matter of great faith and judiciary should consider this RT if you agree!!

  19. : Reference to larger bench is not permissible in review petition Review can only be used to correct errors in main judgment. It can't be used to frame issues and refer same to larger bench. That could have been done only during pendency of writ petition, Shyam Divan

    Prikaži ovu nit
  20. prije 21 sat

    Narrow decisions on the right to privacy but let's re-think 70 years of imposing constitutional norms on religion. That's our CJI for you

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.