Court : US Supreme Court
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld - 05-184 (2006) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2005 HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAMDAN v . RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 05184.Argued March 28, 2006Decided June 29, 2006 Pursuant to Congress Joint Resolution authorizing the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda terrorist attacks (AUMF), U. S. Armed Forces invaded Afghanistan. During the hostilities, in 2001, militia forces captured petitioner Hamdan, a Yemeni national, and turned him over to the U. S. military, which, in 2002, transported him to prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Over a year later, the President deemed Hamdan eligible for trial by military commission for then-unspecified crimes. After another year, he was charged with conspiracy t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Civil) No.502 of 2021 Madras Bar Association .... Petitioner(s) Versus Union of India & Another . Respondent (s) JUDGMENT L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.1. The Madras Bar Association has filed this Writ Petition seeking a declaration that Sections 12 and 13 of the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 and Sections 184 and 186 (2) of the Finance Act, 2017 as amended by the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 as ultra vires Articles 14, 21 and 50 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as these are violative of the principles of separation of powers and independence of judiciary, apart from being contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras 1 | Pa ge Bar Association1, Madras Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr.2, Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Limited & Ors.3 and Madras Bar Ass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION SU O MOT U WRI T PETITIO N (CIVIL ) No.6 O F2020IN RE: PROBLEMS AND MISERIES OF MIGRANT LABOURERS With Writ Petition (C) No.916 of 2020 Bandhua Mukti Morcha Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J.1. The Worldwide Pandemic COVID-19 engulfed this country in March, 2020 and continues till date changing its face from time to time. Different mutations in the virus have made it dangerous and fatal at times. The pandemic had affected each and every person in the world including all citizens of this country. The pandemic has adversely affected all businesses 1 including the small scale businesses, industries, markets and smallest of the person.2. One of the groups, which were severally affected by the pandemic, was the migrant labouers. When Nationwide Lockdown was declared on 24.03.2020, after few days, there was huge exodus of the migrant labourers from their place of work to their na...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISIDCTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6203-6204__OF2016(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 1259-1260 of 2016) Nabam Rebia, and Bamang Felix Appellants versus Deputy Speaker and others Respondents JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.1. Leave granted.2. The 5th session of the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (hereinafter referred to as, the Assembly/House) was concluded on 21.10.2015. On 3.11.2015, the Governor issued an order summoning the 6th session of the Assembly, to meet on 14.1.2016 in the Legislative Assembly Chamber at Naharlagun. The instant order was passed by the Governor, on the aid and advice of the Chief Minister, and in consultation with the Speaker of the House. The 6th session of the House was preponed by the Governor from 14.1.2016 to 16.12.2015, by an order dated 9.12.2015 indicating inter alia the manner in which the proceedings of the House should be conducted. In its support, the Governor issued a message on 9.12.2015....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3123 of 2020 DR. JAISHRI LAXMANRAO PATIL ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE CHIEF MINISTER & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3124 of 2020 SANJEET SHUKLA ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3133 of 2020 KRISHNAJI DATTATRAYA MORE ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DR. JAISHRI LAXMANRAO & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3134 of 2020 MADHUSHRI NANDKISHOR JETHLIYA & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3131 of 2020 DEVENDRA ROOPCHAND JAIN & ORS. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.3129 of 2020 KAMALAKAR SUKHDEO DARODE @ DARWADE ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) WITH WRIT PETITION (C) NO.915 of 2020 DESHMUKH ESHA GIRISH ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Horne v. Flores - 08-289 (2009) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008 HORNE V. FLORES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HORNE, SUPERINTENDENT, ARIZONA PUBLICINSTRUCTION v . FLORES etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 08289.Argued April 20, 2009Decided June 25, 2009 A group of English Language-Learner (ELL) students and their parents (plaintiffs) filed a class action, alleging that Arizona, its State Board of Education, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction (defendants) were providing inadequate ELL instruction in the Nogales Unified School District (Nogales), in violation of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA), which requires States to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers in schools, 20 U. S.C. 1703(f). In 2000, the Federal District Court entered a declaratory judgment, finding an EEOA violation in Nogales because the amount of funding the State allocated for the special needs of ELL students (ELL ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Board of Ed. of Kiryas Joel Village School Dist. v. Grumet - 512 U.S. 687 (1994) OCTOBER TERM, 1993 Syllabus BOARD OF EDUCATION OF KIRYAS JOEL VILLAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT v. GRUMET CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK No. 93-517. Argued March 30, 1994-Decided June 27,1994* The New York village of Kiryas Joel is a religious enclave of Satmar Hasidim, practitioners of a strict form of Judaism. Its incorporators intentionally drew its boundaries under the State's general village incorporation law to exclude all but Satmars. The village fell within the Monroe-Woodbury Central School District until a special state statute, 1989 N. Y. Laws, ch. 748, carved out a separate district that follows village lines. Although the statute gives a locally elected school board plenary authority over primary and secondary education in the village, the board currently runs only a special education program for handicapped children; other village children attend private religious schools, which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Lee v. Weisman - 505 U.S. 577 (1992) OCTOBER TERM, 1991 Syllabus LEE ET AL. v. WEISMAN, PERSONALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF WEISMAN CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT No. 90-1014. Argued November 6, 1991-Decided June 24, 1992 Principals of public middle and high schools in Providence, Rhode Island, are permitted to invite members of the clergy to give invocations and benedictions at their schools' graduation ceremonies. Petitioner Lee, a middle school principal, invited a rabbi to offer such prayers at the graduation ceremony for Deborah Weisman's class, gave the rabbi a pamphlet containing guidelines for the composition of public prayers at civic ceremonies, and advised him that the prayers should be nonsectarian. Shortly before the ceremony, the District Court denied the motion of respondent Weisman, Deborah's father, for a temporary restraining order to prohibit school officials from including the prayers in the ceremony. Deborah and her fam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Nix v. Whiteside - 475 U.S. 157 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986) Nix v. Whiteside No. 84-1321 Argued November 5, 1985 Decided February 26, 1986 475 U.S. 157 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus In preparing for his Iowa state court trial on a murder charge, respondent consistently told his attorney that, although he had not actually seen a gun in the victim's hand when he stabbed the victim, he was convinced that the victim had a gun. Respondent's companions who were present during the stabbing told counsel that they had not seen a gun, and no gun was found. Counsel advised respondent that the existence of a gun was not necessary to establish a claim of self-defense, and that only a reasonable belief that the victim had a gun nearby was necessary, even though no gun was actually present. However, during preparation for direct examination shortly before trial, respondent for the first time told counse...
Tag this Judgment!