![[Bharat Bandh Today] Nationwide Protest By BSP Workers After SC's Ruling on SC/ST Reservation Sub-Categorization](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/image-89-2.png?resize=447%2C338&ssl=1)
Mayawati, leader of BSP, supports Bharat Bandh protesting SC’s ruling on SC/ST reservation sub-categorization. Protesters argue ruling will undermine reservation principles. Supreme Court allows states to create sub-classifications within SC/ST for additional protections, setting aside previous decision. Protesters demand constitutional amendment to reverse changes to reservation policy.
![[Adani-Hindenburg Row] New Plea in SC Demanding Disclosure of Sebi's Final Findings in Adani's Case](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/image-183.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Advocate Vishal Tiwari, who petitioned today in the Supreme Court regarding the Adani-Hindenburg issue, plans to submit a plea urging the court to compel Sebi to release its final report. This comes after Hindenburg Research raised concerns about Sebi’s chairperson and a delay in disclosing investigation findings. The SC had upheld Sebi’s investigation previously.
BJP SC/ST MPs met with PM Modi to discuss the Supreme Court’s decision on “creamy layer” in SC/ST reservations, requesting non-enforcement. PM Modi assured support for their position. The Court’s ruling allows sub-classification of SCs and STs for reservation benefits, with six justices in favor and one dissenting. This ruling overruled the earlier EV Chinnaiah decision.
The Supreme Court of India found a police inspector and a magistrate guilty of unlawfully arresting and remanding an accused, in violation of a standing court order. The court held them accountable for contempt, emphasizing the duty to uphold the rule of law and protect citizens’ rights, amounting to a serious breach of trust.
A recent Supreme Court petition calls for the confiscation of political party funds obtained through the electoral bonds scheme, which was invalidated in February. The petitioner demands an investigation into alleged benefits given to donors and the reopening of tax assessments. This points to the ongoing concern over the use of funds collected under the now-defunct scheme.
A Delhi court granted custody parole to Kashmiri leader Sheikh Abdul Rashid, allowing him to take the oath as a Member of Parliament (MP) on July 5. Rashid, arrested under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, won as an independent candidate. Despite being in custody, Indian law permits undertrials to run for elections.
![[Breaking] Supreme Court Strikes Down Haryana's 5-Marks Reservation in Employment Exams](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/image-16-1.png?resize=447%2C309&ssl=1)
The Supreme Court of India has declared unconstitutional Haryana government’s 5-marks reservation in employment exams, affecting 23,000 appointments across Group C and D positions. The policy, aimed at economically disadvantaged candidates, was struck down due to lack of justification, putting existing appointments at risk and requiring affected candidates to retake exams.
The Calcutta High Court has instructed the West Bengal government to implement a one percent reservation for transgender persons in all public employment within the state. This comes in response to a petition by a transgender individual who passed the Teachers’ Eligibility Test but was not called for counseling or an interview. The directive aligns with the Supreme Court’s recognition of transgender rights and the need for equal opportunities.
The Kerala High Court rejected the plea of a 10-year-old girl from Bengaluru seeking permission to visit Sabarimala Temple. The court stated that since the matter is pending before the Supreme Court, the petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The girl’s plea was based on her prepubescent status, but it was ultimately dismissed.
The Supreme Court challenged the Calcutta High Court’s mandate for physical presence in a matrimonial case, due to medical concerns. Justices emphasized the rights of litigants with medical issues and the need to integrate technology in the judicial process. They criticized the demand for physical presence and allowed virtual attendance, advocating for a more flexible legal process.