Thursday, February 7, 2008

SC revokes its ban on jallikattu

Taming the bull

S.VISWANATHAN

Supreme Court revokes its ban on jallikattu during Pongal, but the legal battle over the issue is by no means over.

S. JAMES

JALLIKATTU AT PALAMEDU near Madurai on January 16

IN Tamil Nadu, the run-up to Pongal, the harvest festival, this year was marked by sullenness in the southern districts over a Supreme Court judgment banning jallikattu (bullfight), an inalienable part of the festivities in several areas. Village leaders and youth went on mass hunger strike in several places seeking protection for what they value as a time-honoured heroic game. In it, the one who tames the bull takes away gifts in the form of cash and jewellery and other valuables, which are tied to the animal’s neck.

The tension led to a tightening of security in the southern districts and the administration worked overtime to ensure that the matter was sorted out before the event, scheduled for January 16 and January 17 in many places.

On January 11, the Supreme Court refused to allow the conduct of jallikattu at Alanganallur and Palamedu (both in Madurai district) and in other places, and quashed an earlier order of the Madras High Court that allowed the event. The court however allowed the conduct of the rekhla (bullock cart) race under the supervision of the police and the district administration.

The Supreme Court was critical of the way in which jallikattu was held, causing harm to the bulls and injuring large numbers of spectators and participants. When counsel for the State pressed his case after explaining the steps taken to protect and provide medical aid to the people concerned, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, the Chief Justice of India, remarked: “What is the point allowing people to get injured and giving them treatment? Many persons were killed and injured in the past.”

The State government quickly filed an application seeking a “modification” in the order. On January 16, the court allowed the game to be organised after ensuring security to all concerned. The court wanted the government to follow strictly the guidelines it had evolved. While jallikattu was held in various places under strict supervision, reports said at least 200 persons were injured. Officials blamed it on the unprecedented crowds thanks to the extra publicity the event got this year.

The present phase of the legal battle over the bull-centred sport began in March 2006 with the filing of a petition with the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court seeking the court’s intervention to get police permission for conducting a rekhla race in connection with a temple festival in Ramanathapuram district.

The petitioner, K. Munisamythevar, vice-president of Karisalkulam panchayat, sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. His petition stated that when he made a representation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Keelakkarai, and the Inspector of Police, Sayalkudi, on March 20, 2006, for permission to conduct the race “in connection with the Maha Kumbabishekam of Sri Nondi Karuppasamy temple proposed to be held on April 4, 2006”, the two officials “did not pass any orders”.

The petitioner claimed that conducting the race was “a customary and hereditary” function and involved “deep-rooted religious sentiments”. The race, in which bullock carts from nearby villages participated, had been held for over 75 years, he contended. He claimed that the participating bullocks were fed with proper food and were fit to complete the race, and said the police authorities “have no authority to stop or interfere with the temple festival and the cart race”. In his response, the government advocate contended that “bullock cart races and bullfights had been prohibited by the Bombay High Court and hence permission cannot be granted”.

Hearing the petition, a single Judge of the Madurai Bench, on March 29, refused to allow it and directed the State government to take steps to prevent cruelty to animals in the guise of rekhla race, oxen race, jallikattu or any other form of entertainment. The Judge, Justice R. Bhanumathi, also directed the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police to implement strictly the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960, all over the State.

The Judge said: “When beating, kicking or otherwise treating the animal cruelly is punishable under Section 11 of the PCA Act, now the petitioner wants the respondents/police to protect their act of inflicting cruelty upon the animals. When the act of whipping and overloading is punishable under the PCA Act, the petitioner cannot seek for a direction forbearing the respondents from conducting the rekhla race.”

Referring to the petitioner’s claim that the Tourism Department had conducted jallikattu to attract tourists, the Judge said: “It is high time the government shouldered the responsibility of taking up the cause of animals…. Equally, it is high time that the police too shared responsibility in boldly declining permission for conducting such races.”

The Judge said she was not trying to enact a new law but only emphasising effective implementation of an existing law. Referring to Section 11 of the PCA Act, which stipulated a fine of Rs.50 for beating, kicking, overriding, overloading or torturing an animal, the Judge said: “There is an urgent need to increase the fine amount and to award stringent punishment under the Section.”

Stating that there was increasing cruelty to animals, the Judge also said: “[The] general public also must be made aware of being kind to the animals rather than harassing and causing cruelty to the dumb animals.”

The petitioner went in appeal and a Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court set aside the single Judge’s order on March 9, 2007. Allowing the appeal along with a batch of public interest petitions, Justices Dharma Rao Elipe and P.P.S. Janarthana Raja held that imposing a total ban on these sports events on the sole grounds that the animals were subjected to cruelty would not be proper. The Judges also accepted the State’s submission that the sport attracted tourists from abroad in large numbers.

“In such matters, where the interests of the villagers and the animal lovers are pitted against each other,” the Judges said, “we are of the view that every endeavour should be made by all concerned to strike a proper balance to safeguard the interests of everyone, including the animals.”

Regulatory measures

The Division Bench held that the government might introduce regulatory measures such as registration of the trained animals, medical examination of bulls by qualified veterinarians before the event in order to ensure that the animals were not intoxicated or administered steroids or subjected to any cruel treatment such as application of chilli powder or mud on their genital parts to make them aggressive and ferocious. As for the loss of human life, the Judges said they had been informed that the casualty rate had gone up only for want of immediate medical attention to the injured.

On July 27, 2007, acting on a special leave petition from the Animal Welfare Board, the Supreme Court stayed this judgment, which removed the roadblocks to the conduct of bull-related sports events in different parts of Tamil Nadu. The Animal Welfare Board had in its appeal asserted that jallikattu was in clear violation of Section 11 (a) of the PCA Act, 1960. Significantly, it was the same Act that the single Judge relied on while denying permission to the original petitioner to conduct the bullock cart race.

A three-Judge Bench of Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Justice R.V. Rajendran issued notices to the State and also to A. Nagarajan, who had filed a petition in the High Court.

The Tamil Nadu government and the organisers of the events in some parts of Tamil Nadu filed petitions in the Supreme Court seeking vacation of the stay and permission to hold the festival as usual. A three-Judge Bench, comprising the Chief Justice of India, Justice Raveendran and Justice J.M. Panchal, heard the petitions. The court rejected the prayer in no uncertain terms on January 11, 2008, a few days before the events to be held as part of Pongal celebrations. The Judges refused to permit bullfight but permitted rekhla race under the supervision of the police and the district administration and also with protection.

Senior counsel of the State, T.R. Andhyarujina, contended that people’s sentiments were involved and that the event was based on a 400-year-old custom. He listed the special arrangements for security and medical aid for participants and spectators. That was when the Chief Justice’s pointed intervention about “allowing people to get injured and giving them treatment” came. The Chief Justice went on to say: Will your [Tamil Nadu] DGP give an undertaking in writing that no one will be injured, then we will allow it.”

When counsel argued that in any such event there could be some injuries and for that the event itself could not be prevented, the Chief Justice said: “We cannot continue such barbaric and uncivilised events. We should have some concern for animals.”

When the Supreme Court order kicked off widespread resentment and protests in the State, particularly in the southern districts where the sport is most popular, the Tamil Nadu government filed an urgent petition seeking modifications in the order, obviously taking advantage of the exemption given to rekhla race. Senior government officials were rushed to Delhi to brief the advocates on the precautions taken for the festival and the jallikattu event.

The Supreme Court heard the application for modification on January 15, Pongal day, and revoked the ban on jallikattu “as part of Pongal festivities” after the Tamil Nadu government gave an assurance that the administration would see to it that the animals would not be tortured and that steps would be taken to prevent injuries to both participants and onlookers.

The same three-Judge Bench, in its interim order, the second within a week, said, “We do not approve of all the reasons given by the State of Tamil Nadu for modifying the order. However, it is pointed out by the Additional Solicitor-General appearing for the State that this is a part of the religious festival of Pongal and villages have been celebrating the same from time immemorial. It has been submitted that extreme care and precautions will be taken by the district authorities and no harm or injuries would be caused to the citizens, spectators, participants or the animals.”

The court ordered that the State should ensure that all the guidelines it had submitted for the conduct of jallikattu would be followed fully. The guidelines related to the procedure for the organisers to take permission for conducting jallikattu, the precautions to guard against torture of the participating animals, and the security arrangements for participants and viewers. The order said the entire event should be videographed and the District Collector concerned should give a report within a week or two of the event.

Although the cloud over jallikattu has dispersed after the latest judgment, many questions the judiciary has raised remain to be answered

Courtesy_
Frontline

2 comments:

  1. a few pointers on jalliakttu:
    1.first and foremost, have you ever wondered that when there are people and cattle throughout the world, why does an event like jallikattu exist only in Tamil Nadu? the answer is tied to the allegation that the bulls are tortured and ill-treated to anger and infuriate them. have you ever seen the Indian Gaur stand up against a tiger or an African Cape Buffalo ever ward off a pride of lions. you might have guessed...the first and foremost reason for the existence of such a sport lies in the nature of the bull itself. please know that any bull cannot be a jallikattu bull. it needs to have certain charecteristics of boldness, ggressiveness, speed to become a jallikattu. the bull does not need to be irritated to attack people. it does so because that is its nature. and the bull has that character right from the time it is born.(cant believe me. please visit my orkut profile in the name "raja marthandan" in the first week of feb for related videos).

    2. jallikattu is not similar to Spanish bullfighting for the following reasons:
    a) the bull is killed in Spanish bullfighting, not in jallikattu.
    b) in Spanish bullfighting, the bull enters the arena for the first time and hence does not know what is going to happen. whereas in jallikattu, the bulls are acclimatised to the event from a young age.the bulls know exactly what is going to happen and they are ready for the event.

    3.jallikattu is an event that celeberates not just the triumph of man over th bull but also vice-versa. the involvement of the bull owners and the bulls themselves are to such an extent that the bulls will display pride and joy at having won in a jallikattu.(this may sound very hard to believe, but i can prove it. you are invited to witness it if you want)

    4."It is unthinkable that such a cruel sport as Jallikattu -- mind you cruel to both animals and human beings -- is being practiced in the 21st century". the above statement mentions cruelty to the bulls. i wonder how the people come to such a conclusion. did they see the cruel acts being meted out to the bulls firsthand. if so what, how, and where? can they answer these questions? there is an old proverb "WHAT YOU SEE, WHAT YOU HEAR IS MOSTLY FALSE. IT IS MOST IMPORTANT THAT YOU INVESTIGATE"

    5.about the event being dangerous to humans - if you are not aware, the people who participate in jallikattu, do so out of their own accord and not out of compulsion. there is danger in every sport. hundreds of injuries take place every year in motorsports...please ban motorsports. a well known cricketer died while playing cricket...please ban cricket. many players have suffered terminal injuries while playing football and hockey...please ban football and hockey.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is played in our country for thousands of years - why suddenly we make issue out of it.

    The aim of the game is just to tame the bull, they are not killing the bull like the one in Spain, the government have made many restriction now to protect the bulls from abuse, such as only healthy bull can take part in the game checked by a vet, also one to one taming of the bull - not hundred men jumping on one bull, bull's tail can't be pulled or touched while taming and the person who does that act taken out of the ring same moment, also no one is allowed to take part in the game with alcohol influence...come on guys if you feel the animal is ill-treated by participation in this game where it is not harmed in any way like the one in Spain, if we still feel the bulls are harmed then we can't use the Bulls for farming or any other work where they have to work even harder...By the way this villagers don't have any other form of entertainment or any games to participate, they raise this bulls like their children and it's kept in that manner till their death, at-least the youths don't go in to any unlawful acts when they are kept active by such sports...

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Search our Blog here

Google
 

Compiled by

Disclaimer


This Blog Spot is meant for publishing landmark judgments pronounced by the Court of law as we collected from the renowned Dailies, Magazines, etc., so as to create an awareness to the general public and also to keep it as a ready reckoner by them. As such the readers may extend their gratitude towards the Original Author as we quoted at the bottom of each Post under the title "Courtesy/Sources". Furthermore, the Blog Authors are no way responsible for the correctness of the materials published herein and the readers may verify the concerned valuable sources.



Followers

Dinamalar | Court News Feed

Dinakaran | Crime News Feed

Labels

Madras High Court (226) supreme court (157) Supreme Court (96) Madurai Bench (60) Advocate (44) High Court (44) tamil nadu (42) Indian Kanoon (41) Delhi High Court (37) Education (31) Divorce (30) Pondicherry (30) Husband (28) Wife (28) consumer forum (23) Lawyers (22) Cr.P.C. (20) Maintenance (20) police (20) Consumer (19) 2013 (16) Judges (16) article (16) the hindu (16) Matrimonial case (15) Hindu Marriage Act (14) Bank (13) Cruelty (13) IPC (13) karnataka high court (13) AIADMK (12) Compensation (12) Criminal cases (12) Jayalalithaa (12) dmk (12) Bar Council of India (11) CJI (11) School (11) Woman (11) election (11) Accident cases (10) Child (10) Kerala High Court (10) Marriage (10) dinamani (10) election commission (10) insurance (10) medical (10) Labour cases (9) MV ACT CASES (9) Madurai (9) Mobile Phone (9) doctors (9) evidence (9) pil (9) tamil nadu bar council (9) tax (9) taxation (9) Cell Phone (8) Examination (8) Frontline (8) Loans (8) Magistrate (8) Rent Control Act (8) State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (8) Allahabad high court (7) Bar Council (7) Constitution (7) Domestic Violence Act (7) Gujarat High Court (7) Negligence (7) Reservation Quota (7) Tenant Landlord (7) bombay high court (7) court (7) new delhi (7) 2012 (6) Andhra Pradesh High Court (6) Civil Judge (6) Complaint (6) Consumer National Commission (6) Dowry (6) Employee (6) Justice G. Rajasuria (6) Muslims (6) Negotiable Instruments Act (6) Notification (6) Railway (6) USA (6) arbitration (6) compassionate (6) madras (6) rape (6) rulings (6) sex (6) Airlines (5) Andhra Pradesh (5) College (5) Delay (5) Employer (5) FIR (5) Judgment (5) Karunanidhi (5) Labour Court (5) Madras Family Court (5) Mumbai High Court (5) President (5) Rajiv Gandhi (5) Recruitment (5) Sethusamudram ship canal (5) Student (5) TRAI (5) advertisement (5) appointment (5) deficiency of service (5) editorial (5) fined (5) 2014 (4) BSNL (4) Bigamy (4) CBI (4) Cheque Dishonour Cases (4) Chief Minister of Pondicherry (4) Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu (4) Civil Matters (4) Commissioner of Police (4) Corruption (4) Daughter (4) Death penalty (4) Father (4) Fees (4) Foreigners Act (4) Gazette (4) Hindu (4) Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (4) Hospitals (4) Judiciary (4) Justice G.Rajasuria (4) Life Imprisonment (4) Matrimonial House (4) Ministry of Law (4) Minor Child (4) Parents (4) Private Schools (4) RTI Act (4) Ram Sethu project (4) Sexual exploitation (4) Suspension (4) Teachers (4) Tenant (4) Transfer (4) contempt (4) delhi (4) hindustan times (4) karnataka (4) pmk (4) registration department (4) times of india (4) us (4) Actor (3) Adoption (3) Aircraft (3) Assassination (3) Ban (3) Bank Cases (3) CJ (3) Calcutta High Court (3) Cheque (3) Computer (3) Copyright (3) Court Fees (3) Dinakaran (3) Disqualification (3) Electricity (3) Encroachers (3) Eviction (3) Full Bench Decision (3) HC Advocate Karunanidhi.R (3) Human Rights (3) Human Rights Commission (3) IT Act (3) Income Tax (3) Justice Ashok Kumar (3) Landlord (3) Law Firms (3) Limitation Act (3) Medicos (3) Motor Vehicle (3) Murder case (3) Muslim (3) NDNC (3) Panchayats Act (3) Patent (3) Prisoner (3) Proterty Act (3) Public Property (3) Punishment (3) RTE Act (3) Ragging (3) Salaries (3) Selection (3) Smoking (3) Strikes (3) Subramanian Swamy (3) Telephone (3) Theft (3) Villupuram (3) Websites (3) Wikipedia (3) Witness (3) Woman Lawyers (3) Workman (3) Youtube (3) girl (3) helmet (3) parliament (3) software (3) stamp act (3) 2007 (2) 5-Judges Bench (2) 99th Constitutional Amendment (2) Aadhaar Card (2) Abortion (2) Absence (2) Acquittal (2) Agitating (2) Agriculture (2) Airport (2) Airtel (2) Amendments (2) Apple (2) Arrest (2) Assault (2) BCCI (2) BCI (2) Britain (2) CBSE (2) CIC (2) CNN IBN (2) CPC (2) CTC (2) Chenai Corporation (2) Child Marriage Act (2) Child Witness (2) Cigarette (2) Citizenship (2) Code of Civil procedure (2) Coimbatore (2) Collector (2) Collegium systems (2) Companies Act (2) Complainant (2) Congress (2) Constitution Bench (2) Cr.P.C (2) Credit Card (2) DNA Test (2) Damages (2) Date of Birth (2) Dayanidhi Maran (2) District Judges (2) Driving Licence (2) Drugs (2) EVMs (2) Enrolment (2) Evening Court (2) Exam Marks (2) Eye-witness (2) Family (2) Family Court (2) Foreign Law Firms (2) Freedom Fighters (2) Fundamental Rights (2) Google (2) Governors (2) Grave crimes (2) Habeas Corpus (2) Haldiram (2) Health Ministry (2) High Courts (2) Himachal Pradesh High Court (2) ICICI (2) ID Act (2) Impeachment (2) Inspector General of Registration (2) Inter-caste (2) Interest (2) Interim Injunction (2) Interim Orders (2) International Arbitration (2) International Court of Justice (2) Internet (2) Job (2) Justice (2) Justice A.K.Ganguly (2) Justice Dinakaran (2) LPG (2) LTTE (2) Law Commission (2) Law Department (2) Lok Adalat (2) MPs (2) Madhya Pradesh High Court (2) Maharashtra (2) Mark Sheets (2) Medi-claim (2) Men (2) Microsoft (2) Municipal Post (2) Municipal Waste (2) Municipality (2) NJAC (2) Nagapattinam (2) Nalini (2) National Highways (2) Nuke Deal (2) Obscenity (2) PTI (2) Patient (2) Patna High Court (2) Penalty (2) Pension (2) Police Reforms Committee (2) Poll freebies (2) Power of Attorney (2) Pregnant (2) Prevention of Corruption Act (2) Prime Minister (2) Property (2) Public Meetings (2) Punjab High Court (2) Punjab and Haryana High Court (2) RBI (2) Registrar (2) Registration Act (2) Release (2) Reserve Bank of India (2) Retired benefits (2) Review (2) Rigorous imprisonment (2) Road (2) SBI (2) SC/ST (2) SHRC (2) Sale (2) Samacheer Kalvi (2) Sanjay Dutt (2) Self-defence (2) Sikkim (2) Sonia Gandhi (2) State Bar Concil (2) State Govts. (2) TADA (2) TNEB (2) Tamil New Year Act (2) Temples (2) Tobacco firms (2) Trafficking (2) University (2) Video (2) Vigilance (2) Vodafone (2) Wages (2) Water (2) West Bengal (2) Woman Judges (2) backlog of cases (2) bail (2) customs duty (2) laptops (2) legislature (2) practitioners (2) service (2) service tax (2) sessions judge (2) tiruchi (2) 100 RUPEE (1) 11 weeks imprisonment (1) 18 Years (1) 2001 (1) 2006 (1) 2009 (1) 2011 (1) 2015 (1) 2016 (1) 5 Judges Bench (1) 6th Pay Scale (1) AIIMS (1) Aadal Paadal (1) Aadhar Card (1) Abuse (1) Accountable (1) Act (1) Adjournments (1) Adverse possession (1) Advocate Cyril Mathias Vincent (1) Advocate M.Kumaran (1) Advocate M.S.Maruthupandiyan (1) Advocate P.S.Amalraj (1) Advocates' Welfare Fund Act (1) Agreement (1) Air India (1) Alien Species (1) Allahabad (1) Allergy (1) Allopathy (1) Amusement parks (1) Anbumani Ramadoss (1) Answer Sheets (1) Apartments (1) Appearance (1) Arguments (1) Arrears (1) Arunachal Pradesh (1) Ashok Kumar (1) Assembly Speaker (1) Assets case (1) Association (1) Attendance (1) Attention Please (1) Auditors (1) Australia (1) Autopsy (1) Ayodhya (1) BJP (1) Babri Masjid (1) Baby (1) Baggage missing (1) Bank Account (1) Banners (1) Bar Association (1) Bar Council of Tamil Nadu (1) Batco Roadways' case (1) Bhavani Singh (1) Bhopal gas tragedy (1) Bhullar's mercy plea (1) Big TV (1) Bihar (1) Bihar Prohibition Act (1) Bill (1) Biscuits (1) Black Sea (1) Bofors case (1) Bonus (1) Boycott (1) Brain-mapping (1) Brothers (1) Burqa (1) Buses (1) Business Line (1) Bye-laws (1) CAT (1) CEC (1) CITY CIVIL COURT (1) CTV (1) Calcutta (1) Cambodian (1) Camera (1) Canada (1) Cargo Ship (1) Caste (1) Cauvery (1) Cauvery Tribunal Award (1) Censor Board (1) Central Crime Branch (1) Certificates (1) Chennai (South) Forum (1) Chhattisgarh State Bar Council (1) Chief Judicial Magistrate (1) Chief Justices of India (1) Christian (1) Civic Election (1) Civic Elections (1) Common facilities Block (1) Commonwealth Games Panel (1) Communal harmony (1) Compounding Offences (1) Condoms (1) Contract labour (1) Conversion Formula (1) Cooperative Societies (1) Copying (1) Corporation (1) Cosmetic (1) Costumes (1) Court Buildings (1) Creche (1) Cricket (1) Criminalisation (1) Culcutta High Court (1) Current Tamil Nadu Cases (1) Custodial death (1) DGP (1) DK (1) DMDK (1) DRT (1) Dalits (1) Dasavatharam (1) Daughter-in-law (1) Death (1) Debarring (1) Deccan (1) Defamation (1) Defaulters (1) Degree (1) Departmental Enquiry (1) Derogatory remarks (1) Desertion (1) Designation (1) Destruction (1) Detergent Soap (1) Dharmapuri (1) Directory (1) Disabled person (1) Disconnection (1) Dispensary (1) Don Bosco Matriculation School (1) Don Bosco School (1) Download Links (1) Dozing (1) Dr.Ramadoss (1) Dress Code (1) Driver (1) Drunk driving (1) Dying Declaration (1) EPIC (1) ESI Act (1) EU (1) Education Department (1) Education Loan (1) Elevation (1) Emergency (1) Employment (1) Engineering College (1) Enquiry (1) Entertainment tax (1) Environment (1) European Court (1) Events to Remember (1) Exam Cheaters (1) Exit Polls (1) Experts Committee (1) Expulsion (1) Facebook (1) Fair Criticism (1) False (1) Fat (1) Father's identity (1) Father-in-law (1) Film (1) Fire (1) Flats (1) Flexi Boards (1) Food (1) Framing of Charges (1) France (1) French Civil Code (1) French Regime (1) Fringe Benefit Tax (1) Frivolous Petition (1) GOs (1) Garments (1) Gauhati HC (1) Gender Bias (1) Gingee Court (1) Gingee-TV Malai NH (1) Girlfriend (1) Goa (1) Gondas (1) Goods (1) Goons (1) Government Offices (1) Government Officials (1) Govt. Servants' Conduct Rules (1) Govt. sites (1) Grandchildren (1) Gratuity (1) Green Card (1) Guardian (1) Gubernatorial (1) Gudalur Janmam Estates (1) Guidelines (1) Guilty (1) HC Calendar (1) HIV Patient (1) HRCE Act (1) Hamam Soap (1) Handcuff (1) Haryana (1) Hawkers (1) Heroin (1) Hewlett Packard (1) High Court Bench for Pondicherry (1) Highways (1) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (1) Hindu Succession Act (1) Hindus (1) Hindustan Lever Limited (1) Hindustan Unilever Limited (1) Hoardings (1) Holiday Court (1) Holidays (1) Hostel (1) Hutchison Essar (1) Hyderabad (1) ICJ (1) ICSE (1) IMDT Act (1) IPL (1) IT Tax Tribunal (1) Identity Cards (1) Illegitimate (1) Images (1) Immoral (1) Impotent (1) Imprisonment (1) Incest (1) Infiltrators (1) Interest rates (1) Interview (1) Invalid (1) Investigation (1) Invitation (1) Jammu and Kashmir (1) Jats Reservation (1) Jharkhand (1) Journal Section (1) Judicial Discretion (1) Judicial Officers (1) Judicial Staffs (1) Junction (1) Justice A.P.Shah (1) Justice Bhagwati (1) Justice F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla (1) Justice G Rajasuriya (1) Justice P.Sathasivam (1) Justice Rajasuriya (1) Juvenile Justice Board (1) K.R.Narayanan (1) K.Veeramani (1) KFC (1) Kabil Sibal (1) Kachatheevu (1) Karaikal (1) Katchativu case (1) Kathi (1) Kerala (1) Kerla (1) Khushboo (1) Kidney (1) Kingfisher (1) Kodak (1) LIC (1) Lakes (1) Land Owners (1) Larger Bench (1) Laundry (1) Law College (1) Lawyer Notice (1) Leave (1) Legal Practitioners Act 2010 (1) Leprosy Patient (1) License Fees (1) Lift (1) Links (1) Live-in-relationship (1) Local Bodies (1) Lok Sabha (1) MCOCA (1) MLAs (1) MNC (1) Malaria (1) Malaysian Airlines (1) Malpractice (1) Mangalore Express (1) Manupatra (1) Marriage Registration Certificates (1) Married (1) Mediation (1) Medical College issue (1) Meghalaya (1) Mercy Petition (1) Mizoram (1) Mobile Court (1) Money Lending licence (1) Mosquito Bite (1) Mother (1) Movies (1) Mutual Consent (1) NDPS Act (1) NDTV (1) NH 31A (1) NHRCs (1) NI Act (1) NOTA (1) NPT (1) NRI (1) NSA Act (1) Nagaland (1) Nallathambi (1) Narco Analysis (1) National Taxation Tribunal (1) Natural Justice (1) Navarasu murder case (1) Negative Voting (1) Nepal (1) News Today (1) Nivedita Sharma (1) No-confidence motion (1) Non-Karnataka Vehicles (1) Non-signatory (1) None of the Above (1) Norms (1) North Carolina (1) Notary Public (1) Notifications (1) Nursing College (1) Office Bearers (1) Official Language (1) Oil Companies (1) Online (1) Oral (1) Ordinance (1) Origin (1) Orissa High Court (1) PBA (1) PD Act (1) PEC (1) PF (1) PHCs (1) PIB (1) PNDT Act (1) PTO (1) Panorama view (1) Parle Marie (1) Partnership (1) Paternity (1) Patta (1) Pending case (1) Pondicherry Code (1) Pondicherry Courts (1) Pondicherry Engineering College (1) Pondicherry University (1) Port (1) Possession (1) Post Office (1) Posters (1) Postmortem (1) Power (1) Prabha Sridevan (1) Preamble (1) Premarital sex (1) Press Trust of India (1) Prestige (1) Presumption of Death (1) Prisoners (1) Private (1) Private Defence (1) Prize Draw Contest (1) Profession (1) Profile (1) Promotion (1) Prosecution (1) Protest (1) Provident Fund (1) Public Prosecutor (1) Puducherry Code (1) Pulipaarvai (1) Quash (1) Quattrocchi (1) Quick Links (1) RCOP (1) RDBFI Act (1) RIM (1) RPF (1) Railway Budget (1) Railway Tribunal (1) Railways Act (1) Rajasthan High Court (1) Rajasuria (1) Rajeswari case (1) Rajya Sabha (1) Re-name (1) Recovery (1) Refund (1) Regional SC Bench (1) Registration (1) Regulations (1) Reinstatement (1) Relatives (1) Reliance (1) Religion (1) Religious Functions (1) Remanding (1) Removal (1) Rename (1) Repeal of Local Laws (1) Resident (1) Respondent (1) Retired Judges (1) Retired Staffs (1) Revaluation (1) Rexona Soap (1) Right to Information Act (1) Right to Sleep (1) Rin (1) Romania (1) Rural (1) SMS (1) SPP (1) Sachar Commission (1) Safai Karamchari Andolan case (1) Sanction (1) Saree (1) Satta Padhukappu (1) Scam (1) Secretary (1) Section 102 CPC (1) Section 125(3) (1) Section 66A (1) Sections 499 and 500 (1) Security (1) Senior Advocate (1) Septic Tank (1) Serials (1) Service matters (1) Settlement (1) Sewerage works (1) Shankaracharya case (1) Sheristadar (1) Ship (1) Shivaji Ganesan Statue (1) Sivaji Ganesan Statue (1) Sleeping (1) Soap (1) Son (1) Special Marriages Act (1) Sri Lanka (1) Sri Lanka Supreme Court (1) Sri Meenakshi Sundareswarar Temple (1) Suicide (1) Sukanya (1) Surgery (1) Syllabus (1) TNPSC (1) TV (1) Tamil Links (1) Telecom (1) Telegraph Act (1) Thanthai Periyar (1) Third Party (1) Thirukural (1) Thirunelveli (1) Ticket Bookings (1) Ticket less Journey (1) Tide (1) Time-barred matters (1) Title suit (1) Toronto (1) Trademarks (1) Traffic (1) Transfer Certificate (1) Transport Authority (1) Travels Agent (1) Trees (1) Tripurar (1) Turban law (1) USE Act (1) Ukraine (1) Unauthorised layouts (1) Unauthorised plots (1) Unconstitutional (1) Union Carbide Corporation (1) Union Minister (1) Universities (1) Unruly Advocates (1) Unwed mother (1) Uttarakhand (1) Uttaranchal (1) VAO (1) VRS (1) Vacuum Cleaner (1) Vakalat (1) Vaseline (1) Verbal (1) Video Poker (1) Video-conferencing (1) Vijayakant (1) Visa (1) Voters (1) Voting (1) Wakf (1) Watchman (1) Who's Who (1) Widow (1) Will (1) Word (1) Workmen Compensation Act (1) Wrong Provision (1) Yahoo (1) architects (1) azhagiri (1) british airways (1) churidar (1) deccan herald (1) delh (1) double taxation (1) e-Library (1) eBay (1) eCourt (1) ebc (1) farmers loan waiver (1) germany citizen (1) guideline value (1) guruvayur devaswom (1) hMatrimonial case (1) india (1) law and order (1) nawaz sharif (1) pakistan (1) pakistan supreme court (1) practical lawyer (1) pratiba (1) promise (1) rules (1) sand mining (1) southern districts (1) uk (1) warrants for cash scam (1) தி இந்து (1) தூக்கம் (1)