Rami Solitaire is a skill game: The Kerala High Court lifted its ban on online Rami Solitaire and found it unconstitutional
On Monday, the Kerala High Court revoked the government notice amendment issued under Article 14A of the Kerala Gaming Act of 1960, prohibiting online rummy card games in the state, bringing significant relief to the online skill gaming industry. Judge TR Ravi pointed out that the notice was arbitrary and violated the trade and commercial rights guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution, and...
The Supreme Court stated on Thursday that we will not rule on the ruling of the coordinating court and refuse to accept the "judicial legitimacy" argument in the Bilkisbano case. The court stated that the 2021 ruling allowed the Gujarat government to consider the application for relief, but would not prohibit judicial review of the subsequent relief order. Judges BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan are hearing a series of requests for amnesty from 11 criminals who were sentenced to life imprisonment for multiple murders and violent sexual assault during the 2002 Gujarat community riots.
On Independence Day last year, after the government of Gujarat approved the prisoner's application for commutation, they were allowed to walk freely. Deputy Attorney General SV Raju, who represented the criminal and earlier represented the state government in court, stated that after the Supreme Court made an earlier decision to demand that Gujarat dispose of its rapists, Birkis Bano's rapists were able to receive a reduced sentence. The application for early release does not entitle the court to reconsider any issues related to state jurisdiction from now on - "This issue has been resolved by this court. Your Honor cannot and should not judge the decision of the coordinating court," senior defense lawyer Rishi Malhotra told the judge today, opposing the request for early release of the offender. His argument is that in coordinating court proceedings, relief orders are unquestionable as they have already reached the final outcome. However, this argument did not receive the support of the judges. Judge Nagarathna explained that the petitioner was able to question these orders, It's not because they just used the previous Supreme Court ruling as the 'starting point' - 'The judgment of this court is (relief)' The starting point of. The review has been submitted and rejected, but this is different from the questioning of the relief order.
The reasons for their actions are different. One is the litigation grounds for criminals seeking to fulfill their duties in order to consider commutation applications. Another reason for action is that they question these amnesty orders. You cannot say that due to last year's decision, these reduction orders will not be questioned by anyone. This is the starting point. But this is the end The senior lawyer cited the Supreme Court's ruling on the principle of precedent in the Rupa Ashok Hurra (202) case, repeating, "But you cannot rule on the ruling of the coordinating court. This is the event held in Rupa Ashok Hurra," Judge Buyan interrupted at this time. The judge clarified that our review is limited to commutation orders. We will not make a judgment on the ruling of the coordinating court.
This is based on a reduction order. The reasons for the action are different. This is very clear to us, "Judge Nagaratna added. Malhotra insisted on working hard to persuade the judge, pointing out that Bano sought a review of the May 2022 verdict in his petition (which was subsequently rejected by the Supreme Court) and recently questioned the reduction of 11 convicts' sentences. He argued, "Look at the reasons for both petitions. They are both