SCBA’s letter to SC for the resumption of proximity card for using the Library
The Supreme Court Bar Associations wrote to the Secretary-General of the Supreme Court of India asking for the reintroduction of the library’s proximity card claiming that “the members of the Bar fail to achieve their facilities.
A letter was sent out because “many library access requests, in particular, ‘Library 1’ are issued because they provide a broad variety of books and research materials that help lawyers improve their respective research topics.
The letter is written because of the current lockdown, and government officials and other agencies operate entirely. The letter also indicated that the government should introduce Unlock-5 for the opening of cinemas, theatres, multiplexes, etc.
Sushant’s sisters move court, asking for Rhea’s FIR against them to be set aside
Sushant Singh Rajput sisters, Priyanka Singh, and Meetu Singh have filed a plea before the High Court of Mumbai to request that the Rhea Chakraborty FIR against them concerning Priyanka allegedly procuring drugs should be kept away.
The petition says: “Dr. Tarun Kumar’s drugs that he pursued are not banned. A notice released in April 2020 specifically enables such medicines to be administered by telemedicine.
The petition alleges that “respondents have apparently depended upon TV coverage to register an FIR that is not true and consistent proof to any degree of imagination.”
The petition also said: “If the existing FIR as such will withstand the same, only tweets, talk and/or any other rounds of the News channels and/or journals and even on social media sites would open floodgates for multiple complaints.”
The petition further charged that “the filing of an FIR by Respondent No. 2 (Rhea) without any credible material is malicious intent by Respondent No. 1 (the state of Maharashtra) and also reflected serious misconduct and misuse of the system.”
The plea filed in Supreme Court against the 3 farm bills passed by Parliament
Bhartiya Kisan Party filed the petition against the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020 by stating that the acts violate the Constitution.
The petitioner also submitted: “The State Legislature shall be solely allowed to make laws on matters covered by List II, except the matters that are covered by List I and shall also have the powers to pass legislation on matters covered by List III, regarding the matters referred to in List I.
The petitioner has pointed out that “the notion of repugnance only extends to the laws on subjects covered by entries in List III for which both Parliament and the state legislature are eligible for law-making. The Court has also called attention to the doctrine of the pith and substance.
Article 254 of the Constitution provides that, where its provision is repulsive to a law passed by Parliament on the same subject, a State law passed concerning the subject matter mentioned in List III will not be applicable.
The repugnance only existed if the two regulations did not co-exist. Repugnance should not occur only because the legislation on the same subject is passed by Parliament and the States.
The applicant, therefore, prayed for the vulnerability of the three actions and for the fact that it merely refuses a binding decision by the Honorable Court.