#Supreme Court precedents

[seemabhatnagar]

High Court of Patna Reinstates Natural Justice, Awards Rs. 5 Lakhs Compensation for Wrongful Termination

The Appellant was not served with a show cause notice to defend herself violates the principles of Natural Justice hence High Court of Patna Quashed the Termination order of the Aganbari Sewika.

The termination was made solely on the grounds of pending criminal charges and the appellant was acquitted of the criminal charges therefore it is deemed inappropriate when she is acquitted.

Since the third-party interest was already created hence reinstatement was not feasible. The Court balanced the need for justice for the appellant by directing compensation instead.

Shubhadra Kumari v. The State of Bihar and 6 others

Letters Patent Appeal 828/2019

Before the High Court of Patna

Heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice P B Bajanthri & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Pandey J

Fact:

Shubhadra Kumari, was selected as an Anganbari Sevika in 2003. She was implicated in a criminal case in 2013, as such she was terminated in 2014 by the District Programme Officer (DPO) of Nalanda. Her termination was upheld by the Deputy Director (Welfare) of Patna Division in 2014. Subhadra Kumari-appellant challenged this decision before the High Court through a writ petition, which was dismissed by a Single Judge in 2019, leading to the present appeal.

Legal Issue:

Whether the termination of Shubhadra Kumari from the post of Anganbari Sevika was justified?

Points of Argument

Argument by the Appellant's Counsel:

The appellant had undergone training and had been discharging her duties satisfactorily since 2003, with no complaints regarding her absence before the criminal case.

Prior to the criminal case, she was ill and hospitalized, which justified her absence from work.

She was acquitted of the criminal charges in 2018, which should negate the basis for her termination.

The termination was carried out without serving a show-cause notice, without following proper procedures, and without giving her an opportunity to defend herself.

The termination was abrupt and lacked a proper inquiry, violating the principles of natural justice.

Respondents (State of Bihar and Others):

The termination was based on an inquiry report and due to her continuous absence from duty.

A notice was issued directing the appellant to appear and explain her absence, which could not be served due to her absence.

Given the serious nature of the criminal charges against her, the termination was deemed appropriate.

The termination was affirmed by the superior officers, indicating procedural correctness.

Court’s Observations:

No notice was served on the appellant, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice.

The court emphasized that both quasi-judicial and administrative actions must follow the principles of natural justice, ensuring fair procedures and avoiding arbitrary actions.

The court referred to Supreme Court judgments (D.K. Yadav vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. and State Bank of India vs. Rajesh Agarwal) that highlighted the necessity of fair play and reasonable procedures in administrative actions.

The court found that the termination was not justified solely based on the criminal charges, since the appellant was later acquitted.

[thetaxguyin]

The Dispute over GST Application in Development Rights Transfer: Insights from Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court recently witnessed a significant dispute revolving around the application of Goods and Services Tax (GST) to the transfer of development rights in property ownership. This dispute centered on the interpretation of clauses within Joint Development Agreements (JDAs), crucial documents governing the relationship between landowners and developers. Delving into the provisions…

[ridenwithbiden]

[davidaugust]

“Magna Carta was issued in June 1215 and was the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his government was not above the law. It sought to prevent the king from exploiting his power, and placed limits of royal authority by establishing law as a power in itself.” And on July 1, 2024 the U.S. Supreme Court ended this over 800 year precedent and now says if they say a President can do it, then it’s totally legal whatever it is.

[alwaysbewoke]

[whoreiaki-kakyoin]

Some people have aggressively stupid takes on censorship, fictional content, kink…. But then also in irl sex and relationships, too, and it’s exhausting. If you are a grown adult wringing your hands about how you could never date anyone two years younger than you or getting your panties in a twist over regular safe consenting sex practices/acting like safe and consensual k.ink is inherently abusive…. Then your brain has been so thoroughly rotted by online puritan discourse and you need to get off of twitter and experience the real world. Genuinely. Hope this helps.

[pluralsword]

our read of the majority. opinion regarding presidential immunity (which you can easily replicate by control + f searching the word "prosecutor" in the court opinion and also reading the concluding pages): 1) for an act to be official, it MUST be proven to be the responsibility of the President. a coup attempt for example doesn't count

2) no original provision for immunity in constitution, only implication

3) anything unofficial in an official act still prosecutable

As such the issue we think here that gives good reason for the dissenting opinion to be concerned is not so much 'unlimited official presidential immunity' which is not case in text in a way that would allow for a dictatorship, but that people will try to interpret it that way. already happened w/ discriminatory unconstitutional laws eg anti-trans stuff. since gender discrimination is still sex discrimination, that's be why such laws are flagrantly illegal & not the rule of (constitutional) law but the law of elected despots. stuff like this leaves wanting a constitutional convention or trans stuff spelled out in the constitution. sex discrimination for those who don't know there was a constitutional amendment in the USA that banned that. In other words, no direct dictatorial powers, but the Republicans don't really care about what the constitution says in it anyway if they did they would know the 2nd amendment supports establishment of militias and not the right to own a gun if going for an actual originalist interpretation lmao.

One of the major constitutional crises of the United States of America is not itself this court case, but the fact that at multiple levels of government across multiple states and near entirely on the national level Republican elected officials do not care for constitutional law despite their claims, and only care for the law of despots for reactionary causes.

There is a big difference between someone without means breaking the law to survive (not condoning this, just saying) and a bunch of well off politicians violating the constitution repeatedly with the laws they pass to terrorize and hurt people until they're overturned and they just try again. its abusive behavior.

who the bigger problem is and who is responsible for legalizing the carceral slave labor regime that in our opinion is not only unethical but also happens to violate 8th Amendment of the Bill of Rights (bit ironic, given who wrote the Bill of Rights, but that's law for you) due to being cruel and unusual punishment is obvious. (to be clear, our position is abolition and in favor of instead having a system of reconciliation, reparations, restitution, and restoration)

if you want to read it the court case yourselves we found it here https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-supreme-court-decision-on-trump-and-presidential-immunity

We're not a lawyer (or at least, as a system we do not have a law degree) but we studied politics formally for a while and informally for longer. This whole presidential immunity issue was something we hadn't had to think about for years but had learned about in undergrad, so when the news hit about the opinion it was a shock until gears started turning in the brain(s) to think 'hey wait a second this sounds familiar...' life just got in the way of reading this because we like primary sources and now that we've read it we can say we aren't really satisfied by any of the coverage of it we've read. please reblog this or share the info we'd like people to be more informed

[bloodystray]

i am so fucking scared

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

A bill that would add child sex trafficking and statutory rape to the crimes eligible for the death penalty was debated Monday in a Missouri Senate committee — despite conflicting with U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

The legislation is sponsored by state Sen. Mike Moon, an Ash Grove Republican who said Monday that one of the “principal purposes of government” is to “punish evil.”

Rape of children under 14 and child trafficking of children under 12 would be crimes eligible for the death penalty under his bill.

“And what’s more evil than taking the innocence of the child during the act of a rape? Children are in large part defenseless and an act such as rape can kill the child emotionally,” he said.

“And so I believe a just consequence, after a reasonable opportunity for defense, is death.”

The Senate Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence Committee heard the bill Monday.

State Sen. Karla May, a Democrat from St. Louis, pointed to Moon’s stance of “believing in life” as an outspoken opponent of abortion without exception for rape or incest, yet supporting expanding the death penalty.

“A 12 year old who gets pregnant, you believe that she should bring that child in the world, am I correct?” May asked.

“What crime did that child, that developing human child, commit to deserve death?” Moon replied.

“…But you believe in killing the father to that child?” May asked, if the father is a rapist.

“Yes,” Moon said. “If an attacker commits a heinous crime such as the ones that I mentioned in this presentation, I believe that if they’re charged and convicted, absolutely.”

The Rev. Timothy Faber testified in support of Moon’s bill, pointing to the “lifelong repercussions” of child rape and trafficking.

“It’s also a well established fact that those who commit sexual crimes seldom if ever change their ways,” he said. “Once a sexual offender, always a sexual offender.”

Elyse Max, co-director of Missourians to Abolish the Death Penalty, opposed the bill during Monday’s hearing.

“If the goal is to overturn established U.S. Supreme Court precedent, it’s far from a guarantee,” Max said, “and the amount of resources the state of Missouri would have to spend as well as the trauma to child victims during the process cannot be understated.”

The U.S. Supreme Court in the 2008 case Kennedy v. Louisiana ruled giving the death penalty to those convicted of child rape violates the constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment unless the crime results in the victim’s death or is intended to. Only homicide and a narrow set of “crimes against the state” can be punishable by death, the court ruled.

“Adding statutory rape and trafficking as death-eligible crimes are a slippery slope,” Max said, “of expanding the death penalty to non-murder crimes that would bring the constitutionality of Missouri’s death penalty into doubt.”

“Instead of spending millions of dollars to possibly change long-standing precedent, Missouri resources should be spent to protect children from abuse in the first place, and ensure survivors have access to mental health treatment and proper support, following the offense,” Max said.

Moon said, regarding the Supreme Court precedent, that it’s worth challenging.

“That’s something that we need to start the conversation about,” he said, “and those things need to be challenged.”

Florida passed a similar law for victims of rape under age 12 last year. It received bipartisan support. In December, prosecutors in that state announced they’d seek the death penalty in a case of a man accused of sexually abusing a child.

Florida’s Gov. Ron DeSantis has said the state’s bill could lead the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the issue.

Mary Fox, director of Missouri State Public Defender, which provides defense for the majority of death penalty cases in the state, argued Monday that the death penalty is “no deterrent to a crime.”

Fox also noted that an 18 year old dating a 14 year old could be executed under Moon’s legislation because that would be considered statutory rape.

Mei Hall, a resident of Columbia who also said she was a victim of sexual abuse, also testified in opposition.

“I don’t wish my abuser death,” Hall said. “I wish them to be sequestered away and unable to harm more people, for sure. But I don’t think it’s the state’s place to kill people in general and I don’t think it’s the state’s place to make it more difficult for child victims to come forward.”

Lobbyists from Empower Missouri and Missouri Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers also testified against the bill. A lobbyist from ArmorVine, testified in support.

Missouri was one of only five states to carry out death sentences last year, along with Texas, Florida, Oklahoma and Alabama. There are two executions scheduled for this year.

Three House bills filed this year would eliminate the state’s death penalty, but none has made it to a committee hearing.

[merlindotpdf]

found on insta. topical for whatever the fuck has been going on these past couple of days

[paeinovis]

I just don't understand how the guy who put a ton of the justices in place can be judged by those same justices as if they're impartial. Make it make sense

[catgirlwarrior]

We are so fucked. I hope all six of them choke and die painfully and afraid. May satan call for them and collect them himself.

[seemabhatnagar]

"Supreme Court Overturns Premature Bail in Murder Conspiracy Case, Emphasizes Witness Testimonies"

In a #criminalcase, #keywitnesses #play a #crucialrole in the judicial process as they provide #vitaltestimony that can #significantly #influence the #outcome of the #trial. Vibhuti Kumar Singh v Pritesh Kumar & Anr Crl. Appeal 5719/2024 Before the Supreme Court of India Heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant J & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan J

The #SupremeCourt #setaside the #PatnaHighCourt's #order granting #bail to Pritesh Kumar. The Court directed Pritesh to #surrender within two weeks. It also instructed the #TrialCourt to #expedite the trial by recording the #statements of#keywitnesses within four months. After these depositions, Pritesh would be at liberty to apply for bail again, which should be considered on its merits. The Court emphasized the need of thorough examination of the evidence before making a decision on bail in cases like murder. Background: Chandan Kumar Singh was allegedly #murdered by his #wife, Nisha Kumari, and her #lover, Pritesh Kumar. Chandan’s cousin, Vibhuti Kumar Singh, filed an FIR against them, accusing them of 3conspiracy after Chandan discovered their affair. On October 27, 2023, Chandan was attacked in his bedroom with a knife, resulting in his #death #onthespot and Pritesh was seen #fleeing #fromthescene half naked. Pritesh was arrested on December 4, 2023, but granted bail on March 14, 2024 within three months of his arrest, on the ground of the time already spent in custody. Issue before the Apex Court Whether the High Court's decision to grant bail to Pritesh Kumar, the accused in a murder case, was justified given the gravity of the allegations and the stage of the trial? Observation of the Apex Court The #HighCourt should have #waited for the #deposition of #keywitnesses, especially those who claimed to have seen Pritesh at the scene of the crime or were aware of the alleged extra-marital relationship. The Court noted that these depositions could provide #crucialinsights into the #culpability of the #accused. The Court also remarked that the High Court's decision to grant bail was #premature, given the early stage of the trial and the importance of the testimonies yet to be recorded. Seema Bhatnagar

[in-sightpublishing]

Louisiana Ten Commandments lawsuit plaintiffs seek preliminary injunction 

Publisher: In-Sight Publishing Publisher Founding: September 1, 2014 Publisher Location: Fort Langley, Township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada Publication: Freethought Newswire Original Link: https://ffrf.org/uncategorized/louisiana-ten-commandments-lawsuit-plaintiffs-seek-preliminary-injunction/ Publication Date: July 8, 2024 Organization: Freedom From Religion…

[quelliee]

just realized that exactly 50 years after saying the president (Nixon) isn't immune to criminal prosecution, the supreme court decided the president (Trump) is immune to criminal prosecution

[klysanderelias]

I think one of the things that makes me so mad about the Biden stuff is like, objectively, regardless of which side you're on, that man should be retired. He's fuckin' 80. No one should be working at that age, regardless of the reason. He should not be under any sort of pressure greater than like, having family over for the holidays.

And there's been this trend of liberal politicians but also conservatives too just refusing to step down for literally no one's benefit than themselves. I forget if it was McCain or someone else who came back in the middle of brain cancer treatment just to vote no on some bill or another. Ginsburg was fucking EIGHTY SEVEN WITH CANCER for Christ's sake. If she'd retired like everyone asked her to when Obama got elected, we wouldn't be starting down a 6-3 supreme Court.

But of course God forbid you say that because she's the 'notorious RBG' or whatever, and because apparently asking an octogenarian with cancer to retire is beyond the pale.

And like, I understand the reality a lot of people live in where they have to keep working long past retirement age. I work with a lady who's 73 or something, and she's still working to make sure her grandkids are taken care of. Lord knows most of my generation won't be able to retire.

But genuinely if Biden can't afford to retire then we're all fucked in a way that's beyond repair.

And you end up with people digging the weirdest holes trying to justify why an 80 year old ought to be pulling long hours at a thankless job. Aren't you the idiots who love this man? Let him rest! It feels like elder abuse making/letting him spend his last years doing this.

I'm just sick of this cult of personality bullshit with zero internal consistency. When Bernie was running against Clinton his age was CONSTANTLY brought up by her supporters, but now the party line is that 80 is perfectly fine and you're ableist for saying that he's too old to perform the duties of the office. Especially after we all got fucked because Ginsburg wouldn't retire, I think it's absurd to be doing this shit again.

But of course we also ended up in this position because the Democrats confirmed Barrett with hugs in the literal last weeks of Trump's term instead of following Republican precedent and waiting until the next presidential term started, so asking for effective political strategy is clearly a waste of time