Search Results

Justice Subramonium Prasad criticised the petitioner, former AAP MLA Sandeep Kumar, for filing the plea though two similar petitions filed by others had already been rejected by the High Court earlier ...

The Court cautioned the petitioners against pursuing such issues by way of PIL. However, it refrained from imposing costs on the four petitioners.

Justice Ramana highlighted that there is growing tendency among lawyers to go for headline hunting by filing publicity interest litigation.

The Court noted that the lawyer, in his affidavit of service, claimed to have served notice (of the hearing) to all the respondents. However, the documents on record contradicted his claims.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath gave liberty to the petitioners to approach the High Court for appropriate relief.

A bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh said that the plea, an appeal against an order of the Allahabad High Court, was a 'publicity interest litigation' and dismissed the petition.

A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Hima Kohli said that the plea was a publicity interest litigation and such petitions need to be nipped in the bud since they waste the time of the courts.

The CJI was speaking at a joint conference of Chief Ministers (CM) and Chief Justices (CJ) of High Courts held at Vigyan Bhavan in New Delhi.

The petitioner had sought disqualification of all candidates of Congress and the Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh and the candidates set up by Aam Aadmi Party in Punjab for the assembly elections of 2 ...

The counsel appearing for the petitioner assured the Court the petition is being filed to do some good. The Court issued notice in the PIL filed against certain courses offered by Annamalai University ...

The High Court directed the petitioner, one Kannan Swaminathan, to pay the costs to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.

The Court, however, issued notice on a third PIL petition filed by Congress MLA KR Ramesh Kumar.