The Delhi High Court has ordered the government to frame fair criteria allowing deaf sportspersons to apply for the 2025 Khel Ratna Award. The Court also extended the application deadline until the new framework is created.
The Supreme Court heard petitions challenging the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, led by advocates for petitioners claiming it unfairly targets Muslims with stringent property registration rules not imposed on other religions. Key concerns include potential loss of waqf status, implications for community rights, and calls for interim relief amidst government’s defense of the law.
NEW DELHI: 4th April: All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief Asaduddin Owaisi have moved the Supreme Court against the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, 2025. The bill was passed in the Rajya Sabha with 128 votes in favor and 95 against on Thursday. Earlier, on April 3, the Lok Sabha had passed the bill with 288 members supporting it and 232 opposing it.
NEW DELHI: Today, 4th April: A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court by Congress Member of Parliament (MP) Mohammad Jawed against the Waqf Amendment Act. He argues that the law is unfair to the Muslim community and violates their fundamental rights. Mohammad Jawed, who is also the Congress party whip in the Lok Sabha, was a part of the Joint Parliamentary Committee that reviewed the Waqf (Amendment) Bill of 2024.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has ruled that government authorities must provide “reasonable accommodation” in employment to people suffering from HIV. The court rejected the decision to deny promotion and appointment to three paramilitary personnel who tested positive for the virus. A bench led by Justice Navin Chawla, along with Justice Shalinder Kaur, ruled in favor of the petitioners. The court said that the HIV Act protects HIV-positive individuals from discrimination in employment. Authorities can refuse reasonable accommodation only if they can “certify” that doing so would cause administrative or financial hardship.
NEW DELHI: Senior Advocate Indira Jaising told the Supreme Court on Thursday that she does not support the idea of conducting interviews to designate lawyers as Senior Advocates. She clarified that she never made such a suggestion in 2017, yet the Supreme Court included an interview process in its judgment and assigned 25 marks for it.