Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah faces prosecution over alleged irregularities in land allocations by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority. Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot approved the prosecution after petitions from activists. The Chief Minister’s Office confirmed the communication and Siddaramaiah dismissed the allegations as politically motivated. The complaint alleges significant losses to the state’s finances. BJP advocates for a CBI investigation.
![[Breaking] Enrolment Fees for Lawyers Cannot Exceed Rs. 600: Supreme Court Mandates For All State Bar Council](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/WhatsApp-Image-2024-01-27-at-3.05.14-PM.jpeg?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Supreme Court today has mandated that State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India cannot charge lawyers more than Rs 600 for enrolment fees, in accordance with Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act. This decision aims to make the enrolment process accessible and affordable, consistent with the Act. The ruling allows charges for legal aid services, but not during enrolment.
The Bombay High Court summoned Mehul Choksi, a key accused in the PNB scam, to appear before the court. The court expressed concern about his absence and rejected his petitions, questioning his whereabouts. Choksi’s lawyer argued against his fugitive status, while the ED informed that proceedings to declare him a fugitive are ongoing. The court adjourned the hearing to August 12.
![[NEET-UG 2024 Row] Controversy Over NEET-UG Physics Question: IIT-D Experts Confirm Only One Correct Answer](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/image-39-2.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Supreme Court today was informed that a disputed physics question from the NEET-UG 2024 exam only had one correct answer, not two, according to a panel of three experts from IIT Delhi. This conclusion validates the National Testing Agency’s answer key. The court is reviewing petitions challenging NEET-UG due to various issues.
The Supreme Court is set to hear petitions today challenging the Uttar Pradesh government’s order for shopkeepers along the Kanwar Yatra route to display their names. Trinamool MP Mahua Moitra argues that the directive violates constitutional rights. The move has sparked criticism and is expected to be discussed in Parliament.
Tomorrow(on 18th July), The Supreme Court of India is set to hear petitions for canceling the NEET-UG 2024 exam. The court has previously requested the National Testing Agency to disclose the nature of the paper leak and asked the CBI to file a status report on the investigation. The Centre has stated that the exam showed no widespread malpractice.
The Supreme Court is hearing petitions today (11th July) about alleged malpractices in the NEET-UG 2024 exam, following reports of a paper leak. The CJI emphasized that a retest would be a last resort and directed petitioners’ counsels to file a common submission not exceeding 10 pages. The next hearing is scheduled for July 18.
The Karnataka High Court has issued an interim order restraining Power TV and its affiliate from broadcasting due to their expired broadcasting license. The court found no evidence of renewal, despite claims of a valid license. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on July 9. Clients are advised to contest the show-cause notice instead of seeking leniency.
Today (3rd June): Two BJP candidates, Pranat Tudu and Rekha Patra, along with party workers, approached the Calcutta High Court to address alleged false police complaints hindering their participation in vote counting for the Lok Sabha election. The court scheduled a hearing and also received petitions from BJP workers identifying themselves as party counting agents. The BJP has requested re-elections in 412 polling booths, alleging widespread election malpractices, and criticized the ruling Trinamool Congress for favoring tactics that led to clashes and injuries.
Today (8th May): The Bombay High Court dismissed petitions challenging the renaming of Aurangabad and Osmanabad as Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and Dharashiv. The court ruled that the renaming notifications were not illegal and affirmed the state government’s authority to make such decisions. The government stated that the renaming did not incite religious or communal hatred, and cited previous unsuccessful attempts to change the names.