Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide Order dated 28.04.2023, directed that whenever incidents of hate speech come to light, the police authorities across all States in India must take suo motu action, failing which it would amount to contempt of court. In 2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had strongly reprimanded...

SachdevaAmita's profile picture

Amita Sachdeva, Advocate

29,478 subscribers

14,756 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce •via X (Twitter)

LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Presented facts and successfully argued in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for Vijaybai Vyankat Suryawanshi. The Supreme Court maintained the order of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court to file FIR and launch investigation as per the application made by Vijaybai on 24 December, 2024, in New Mondha Police Station, Parbhani. #JusticeForSomnathSuryawanshi
4:10

Presented facts and successfully argued in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India for Vijaybai Vyankat Suryawanshi. The Supreme Court maintained the order of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court to file FIR and launch investigation as per the application made by Vijaybai on 24 December, 2024, in New Mondha Police Station, Parbhani. #JusticeForSomnathSuryawanshi

Prakash Ambedkar

29,447 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

SUPREME COMEDY In 2005, the Chief Information Commissioner asked the Supreme Court to declare the assets of its judges. The Supreme Court got angry. "We don't listen to orders. We give orders." The Supreme Court appealed to the Delhi High Court against the order of the Chief Information Commissioner. But the Delhi High Court said, "You have to release the information." So the Supreme Court appealed the decision of the Delhi High Court to a 2-judge bench of the Delhi High Court. The 2-judge bench of the Delhi High Court referred the matter back to the Supreme Court, saying this is your matter, you decide. Now the Supreme Court became the judge, jury and executioner in its own case. Cricket bookies would kill to have such a fixed match. A single-judge bench of the Supreme Court took up the matter and said a 3-judge bench should decide the case. The 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court sat on the case for 8 long years and arrived at a verdict - the matter should be looked at by a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court. Finally in 2019, the 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court gave its verdict. It did not say that Supreme Court judges should declare their assets. It merely said the Supreme Court should release any information it had. So basically if a judge does not declare his assets, then there is nothing to declare. Comedy, yes. Funny, no.
3:34

SUPREME COMEDY In 2005, the Chief Information Commissioner asked the Supreme Court to declare the assets of its judges. The Supreme Court got angry. "We don't listen to orders. We give orders." The Supreme Court appealed to the Delhi High Court against the order of the Chief Information Commissioner. But the Delhi High Court said, "You have to release the information." So the Supreme Court appealed the decision of the Delhi High Court to a 2-judge bench of the Delhi High Court. The 2-judge bench of the Delhi High Court referred the matter back to the Supreme Court, saying this is your matter, you decide. Now the Supreme Court became the judge, jury and executioner in its own case. Cricket bookies would kill to have such a fixed match. A single-judge bench of the Supreme Court took up the matter and said a 3-judge bench should decide the case. The 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court sat on the case for 8 long years and arrived at a verdict - the matter should be looked at by a 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court. Finally in 2019, the 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court gave its verdict. It did not say that Supreme Court judges should declare their assets. It merely said the Supreme Court should release any information it had. So basically if a judge does not declare his assets, then there is nothing to declare. Comedy, yes. Funny, no.

KV Iyyer - BHARAT 🇮🇳🇮🇱

220,478 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that the tweets/posts made by Rana Ayyub are derogatory, defamatory, and communal in nature. The said posts have been withheld in India; however, we have apprised the Hon’ble Court that we are seeking the removal/deletion of those posts. The Hon'ble Court has permitted us to file the Rejoinder. The next date is 12.10.2026. Makarand Adkar OpIndia.com Sanatan Prabhat
1:27

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that the tweets/posts made by Rana Ayyub are derogatory, defamatory, and communal in nature. The said posts have been withheld in India; however, we have apprised the Hon’ble Court that we are seeking the removal/deletion of those posts. The Hon'ble Court has permitted us to file the Rejoinder. The next date is 12.10.2026. Makarand Adkar OpIndia.com Sanatan Prabhat

Amita Sachdeva, Advocate

28,458 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

First, Supreme Court sent a notice to Mamata Banerjee, gave relief to the ED, and stayed the FIRs filed by the Mamata govt in ED raid case. Yesterday, Supreme Court directed Punjab govt not to take any steps against the publication of Punjab Kesari in witch-hunt case. Today, in setback to DMK, High Court quashed FIR against Amit Malviya and called Udhayanidhi Stalin’s Sanatan remarks hate speech. Three days, three cases, all opposition-ruled states. Now tell me who the real murderers of democracy are.
0:29

First, Supreme Court sent a notice to Mamata Banerjee, gave relief to the ED, and stayed the FIRs filed by the Mamata govt in ED raid case. Yesterday, Supreme Court directed Punjab govt not to take any steps against the publication of Punjab Kesari in witch-hunt case. Today, in setback to DMK, High Court quashed FIR against Amit Malviya and called Udhayanidhi Stalin’s Sanatan remarks hate speech. Three days, three cases, all opposition-ruled states. Now tell me who the real murderers of democracy are.

Lala

170,381 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

"Everyone Can't Come Directly to the Supreme Court" A dramatic exchange unfolded in the Supreme Court after a petitioner repeatedly insisted that her plea under Article 32 was maintainable, despite the Bench advising her to approach the jurisdictional High Court. As the arguments continued, the Court stressed the importance of following the judicial hierarchy, observing that parties cannot bypass High Courts and approach the Supreme Court directly in every case. The hearing ended with the Bench dismissing the plea while granting liberty to seek appropriate relief before the High Court. [ Lawbeat, Legal News, Supreme Court ] #SupremeCourt #CourtroomExchange #Article32 #HighCourt #LegalNews
2:13

"Everyone Can't Come Directly to the Supreme Court" A dramatic exchange unfolded in the Supreme Court after a petitioner repeatedly insisted that her plea under Article 32 was maintainable, despite the Bench advising her to approach the jurisdictional High Court. As the arguments continued, the Court stressed the importance of following the judicial hierarchy, observing that parties cannot bypass High Courts and approach the Supreme Court directly in every case. The hearing ended with the Bench dismissing the plea while granting liberty to seek appropriate relief before the High Court. [ Lawbeat, Legal News, Supreme Court ] #SupremeCourt #CourtroomExchange #Article32 #HighCourt #LegalNews

LawBeat

69,757 görüntüleme • 2 ay önce

This entire hate speech debate in the Supreme Court is puerile and reeks of hypocrisy and cowardice. Who decides what is hate speech? Here, I dare milords to have the guts to call the public recitation of the verse claiming ‘Hindus are the worst of creatures’ as hate speech:
0:56

This entire hate speech debate in the Supreme Court is puerile and reeks of hypocrisy and cowardice. Who decides what is hate speech? Here, I dare milords to have the guts to call the public recitation of the verse claiming ‘Hindus are the worst of creatures’ as hate speech:

Anand Ranganathan

118,140 görüntüleme • 3 ay önce

Satyameva Jayate! After the strong judgment by the Madras High Court, in which the court clearly spoke about Udhayanidhi Stalin and his hate speech, there is no justification for him to remain in government. He should immediately be removed, and a case must be registered over his hate speech. Udhayanidhi Stalin, the DMK, and their legacy are anti-Hindu.
3:12

Satyameva Jayate! After the strong judgment by the Madras High Court, in which the court clearly spoke about Udhayanidhi Stalin and his hate speech, there is no justification for him to remain in government. He should immediately be removed, and a case must be registered over his hate speech. Udhayanidhi Stalin, the DMK, and their legacy are anti-Hindu.

Piyush Goyal

38,999 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Under MASSIVE PUBLIC PRESSURE - the Supreme Court has reversed its OWN order that accepted the ‘100-meter’ rule for the #AravaliHills The Supreme Court also stayed the HC Order that ‘suspended’ the life sentence of former BJP MLA #KuldeepSengar 🔥THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE THE PEOPLE SPEAK - there is no court - no power - higher than the PEOPLE’S COURT OF INDIA. 🔥This is democracy in action💪
1:21

Under MASSIVE PUBLIC PRESSURE - the Supreme Court has reversed its OWN order that accepted the ‘100-meter’ rule for the #AravaliHills The Supreme Court also stayed the HC Order that ‘suspended’ the life sentence of former BJP MLA #KuldeepSengar 🔥THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE THE PEOPLE SPEAK - there is no court - no power - higher than the PEOPLE’S COURT OF INDIA. 🔥This is democracy in action💪

The DeshBhakt 🇮🇳 Akash Banerjee

172,012 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

The Delhi Police did not carry out any investigation for the past one year in the case against Rana Ayyub. In the FIR, the police mentioned the accused as “unknown” instead of naming Rana Ayyub. Despite her having more than 1 million followers, the police submitted before the Court of Ld. Magistrate that it needed to verify whether the concerned handle belonged to her. Due to the failure of the Grievance Appellate Committee to decide the appeal on merits, we were constrained to approach the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The Hon’ble Court, in its Order dated 08.04.2026, observed that the tweets of Respondent No. 4 (Rana Ayyub) were derogatory, inflammatory, and communal, and directed the Union of India to take appropriate action within 24 hours. Praarabdh.in Awanish P.N. Sharma
2:19

The Delhi Police did not carry out any investigation for the past one year in the case against Rana Ayyub. In the FIR, the police mentioned the accused as “unknown” instead of naming Rana Ayyub. Despite her having more than 1 million followers, the police submitted before the Court of Ld. Magistrate that it needed to verify whether the concerned handle belonged to her. Due to the failure of the Grievance Appellate Committee to decide the appeal on merits, we were constrained to approach the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The Hon’ble Court, in its Order dated 08.04.2026, observed that the tweets of Respondent No. 4 (Rana Ayyub) were derogatory, inflammatory, and communal, and directed the Union of India to take appropriate action within 24 hours. Praarabdh.in Awanish P.N. Sharma

Amita Sachdeva, Advocate

34,371 görüntüleme • 4 ay önce

We must protect the innocence of children! Today, I spoke in front of the Supreme Court on behalf of all the kids being brainwashed and abused into the demonic gender ideology of the left. My prayer is for the Supreme Court to stand with Tennessee, and in the next Congress, to pass my Protect Children’s Innocence Act to end this insanity once and for all.
3:15

We must protect the innocence of children! Today, I spoke in front of the Supreme Court on behalf of all the kids being brainwashed and abused into the demonic gender ideology of the left. My prayer is for the Supreme Court to stand with Tennessee, and in the next Congress, to pass my Protect Children’s Innocence Act to end this insanity once and for all.

Former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸

212,262 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

VIDEO | As the Supreme Court stays the UGC regulation pertaining to the definition of caste discrimination, advocate Satyam Pandey says, "As soon as this issue came to my notice, we filed a case before the Supreme Court... The Supreme Court said that although it is not an academic body, it would be appropriate to consult scholars and academic institutions to better understand the matter and make whatever appropriate changes are required in the regulations... At present, this is partial relief; it is not a final victory... A stay has been put in the matter. The next hearing will be held on March 19." (Full video available on PTI Videos – #UGCRegulations
1:16

VIDEO | As the Supreme Court stays the UGC regulation pertaining to the definition of caste discrimination, advocate Satyam Pandey says, "As soon as this issue came to my notice, we filed a case before the Supreme Court... The Supreme Court said that although it is not an academic body, it would be appropriate to consult scholars and academic institutions to better understand the matter and make whatever appropriate changes are required in the regulations... At present, this is partial relief; it is not a final victory... A stay has been put in the matter. The next hearing will be held on March 19." (Full video available on PTI Videos – #UGCRegulations

Press Trust of India

13,384 görüntüleme • 6 ay önce

VIDEO | Here's what senior advocate HS Phoolka said on Supreme Court hearing a plea challenging the Madras High Court judgment which held that watching pornographic content containing children in private is not an offence. "In the child pornography case, the Madras High Court had held that watching pornographic content containing children in private is not an offence. However, during the hearing in Supreme Court today, the CJI was shocked over the verdict of the Madras High Court. He said that it is a clear offence and has issued a notice over it."
2:12

VIDEO | Here's what senior advocate HS Phoolka said on Supreme Court hearing a plea challenging the Madras High Court judgment which held that watching pornographic content containing children in private is not an offence. "In the child pornography case, the Madras High Court had held that watching pornographic content containing children in private is not an offence. However, during the hearing in Supreme Court today, the CJI was shocked over the verdict of the Madras High Court. He said that it is a clear offence and has issued a notice over it."

Press Trust of India

43,055 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

Time to impeach Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Moraes? Son of jailed fmr. President of Brazil Jair Bolsonaro, and Member of the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies Eduardo Bolsonaro🇧🇷 explains that Justice Alexandre de Moraes is desperate. He’s losing support in the Supreme Court. Moraes asked for all 11 Justices of the Supreme Court to sign a declaration in favor of him, against Donald Trump. “He didn’t get even half of the Justices of the Supreme Court supporting him.”
2:20

Time to impeach Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Moraes? Son of jailed fmr. President of Brazil Jair Bolsonaro, and Member of the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies Eduardo Bolsonaro🇧🇷 explains that Justice Alexandre de Moraes is desperate. He’s losing support in the Supreme Court. Moraes asked for all 11 Justices of the Supreme Court to sign a declaration in favor of him, against Donald Trump. “He didn’t get even half of the Justices of the Supreme Court supporting him.”

One America News

487,750 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

ELECTION LAW BATTLE IN SUPREME COURT! Judicial Watch argued before the Supreme Court of the United States in a historic case filed on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors, who were before the court to vindicate their standing to challenge an Illinois law allowing the counting of ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day.
1:43:49

ELECTION LAW BATTLE IN SUPREME COURT! Judicial Watch argued before the Supreme Court of the United States in a historic case filed on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors, who were before the court to vindicate their standing to challenge an Illinois law allowing the counting of ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day.

Judicial Watch ⚖️

66,122 görüntüleme • 10 ay önce

Leftists are trying to manipulate the Supreme Court and trigger the recusal of justices they don’t like. They’re doing this in an effort to influence the outcome of cases pending before the Court. That’s wrong.
3:12

Leftists are trying to manipulate the Supreme Court and trigger the recusal of justices they don’t like. They’re doing this in an effort to influence the outcome of cases pending before the Court. That’s wrong.

Mike Lee

346,370 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

The Ashanti Regional Chairman of the NPP, Chairman Wontumi, has arrived at the Accra High Court as the court is expected to deliver its final judgment on allegations of his involvement in illegal mining activities within forest reserves. However, his legal team has filed an application seeking a suspension of the judgment, arguing that a constitutional interpretation case related to the matter is currently pending before the Supreme Court. His lead counsel, Lawyer Samuel Atta Akyea, who is currently out of the country, has also informed the court that he is expected to return on June 22. The court is expected to first determine whether to proceed with the judgment or grant the request by the defense team to put the matter on hold. [🎥: GhBrain]
0:45

The Ashanti Regional Chairman of the NPP, Chairman Wontumi, has arrived at the Accra High Court as the court is expected to deliver its final judgment on allegations of his involvement in illegal mining activities within forest reserves. However, his legal team has filed an application seeking a suspension of the judgment, arguing that a constitutional interpretation case related to the matter is currently pending before the Supreme Court. His lead counsel, Lawyer Samuel Atta Akyea, who is currently out of the country, has also informed the court that he is expected to return on June 22. The court is expected to first determine whether to proceed with the judgment or grant the request by the defense team to put the matter on hold. [🎥: GhBrain]

SIKAOFFICIAL🦍

133,349 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce