Networking company Ericsson is suing Indian handset maker Micromax for Rs 100 crore in the Delhi high court over ‘standards-essential’ patents [Economic Times]
Supreme Court to answer why it uses Yatodharma Stato Jaya tagline under the Lion Capital of Ashoka logo, rather than Satyamev Jayate national emblem tagline [Indian Express]
‘Why does parliament believe that marital rape still not a crime?’ asks WSJ
Little & Co partner J Kapadia gets Priyanka Chopra’s Zanjeer film trailer banned by Bombay high court vs Naik Naik & Co [Mumbai Mirror]
Shanti Bhushan joins Katju in fighting for Sanjay Dutt, criticises SC decision to send actor to jail for gun possession, arguing that right to private defence is protected in the constitution [The Hindu]
Comments
[quote]it is because the Indian Supreme Court acts on behalf of the English Crown Corporation under the Independence act of 1947. IMO[/quote]
[quote]it is because the Indian Supreme Court acts on behalf of the English Crown Corporation under the Independence act of 1947. IMO[/quote][/quote]
No, I beg to differ here. The Indian Independence Act, 1947 had been repealed before Supreme Court of India came into existence by the virtue of Article 395 of the Constitution of India. Supreme Court of India came into existence only on 28th of January, 1950. Hence Supreme Court has never acted on behalf of the English Crown Corporation. Check here: http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/history.htm
Also, Abolition of Privy Council Jurisdiction Act 1949 ended the jurisdiction of India which has relation to the Crown.
Indian Independence Act, 1947 does not mention anything such. I may be wrong but I guess I am correct.
The inscription in Sanskrit “yatodharmastato jayah” means – Truth alone I uphold. It is also referred to - as the wheel of righteousness, encompassing truth, goodness and equity. Check here: http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supct/scm/m2.pdf
Mr Shanti Bhushan has cited Section 96 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However the Supreme Court in Rizan v. State of Chhattisgarh, AIR 2003 SC 976 had observed that "The burden of establishing the plea of self- defence is on the accused and the burden stands discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities in favour of that plea on the basis of the material on record." If the riots were to be taken as a basis, every odd person in Mumbai should have amassed weapons illegally to safeguard their family and themselves. Mr. Bhushan says that these had been overlooked by the SC, however the fact is that Sanjay Dutt had never ever submit any such details to the Court.