The Madras High Court directed police to seize a book carrying offensive remarks and objectionable depictions against a sitting judge. Planned for a city book fair on January 8, it allegedly targeted Justice G. R. Swaminathan, the petitioner said.
In July 2024, the Delhi High Court mandated TMC leader Saket Gokhale to pay Rs 50 lakh in damages after he defamed Lakshmi Puri on social media regarding property accusations. Gokhale’s attempts to contest the ruling were rejected, and salary attachment ensued due to non-compliance, alongside a contempt petition from Puri.
The Supreme Court of India accepted an apology from the CBI for violating a stay order in a case involving a man impersonating an IB officer. The court criticized the routine transfer of investigations to the CBI without solid evidence, restoring the case to local police and emphasizing the necessity of substantial proof for CBI involvement.
The Supreme Court noted that farmer leader Dallewal, who is on a hunger strike, is getting medical care without ending his fast. On January 22, the court paused a contempt case against Punjab officials. Dallewal has also said he wants to meet the appointed panel. The case is still under court observation.
![[Breaking] Delhi Pollution: "Why Workers Not Received Full Compensation, After Supreme Court Clear Directives": SC Slams Chief Secretary Dharmendra](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/image-9.jpeg?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Supreme Court On Thursday (5th Dec) criticized Delhi Chief Secretary Dharmendra for failing to ensure full compensation for construction workers amid air quality measures. Justices questioned delays in payments despite previous directives and demanded immediate resolution. The government was directed to inform unregistered workers about their rights and enhance registration efforts in the ongoing pollution crisis response.
Today, On 4th December, the Delhi High Court rejected a plea challenging Navjot Sidhu’s claim regarding his wife’s cancer cure, emphasizing the importance of free speech. The court ruled that personal expression should not be curtailed by legal actions, allowing Sidhu’s statements to stand despite allegations of misinformation regarding cancer treatments.