<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
     xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/">
<channel>
    <title>Legal Frame &amp; News Magazine &amp; : Supreme court</title>
    <link>https://legalframe.in/rss/category/supreme-court</link>
    <description>Legal Frame &amp; News Magazine &amp; : Supreme court</description>
    <dc:language>en</dc:language>
    <dc:creator></dc:creator>
    <dc:rights></dc:rights>
    <item>
        <title>Supreme Court Quashes Rape and Assault FIRs in Rare Case of Mutual Settlement Post Dual Allegations</title>
        <link>https://legalframe.in/supreme-court-quashes-rape-and-assault-firs-in-rare-case-of-mutual-settlement-post-dual-allegations</link>
        <guid>https://legalframe.in/supreme-court-quashes-rape-and-assault-firs-in-rare-case-of-mutual-settlement-post-dual-allegations</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[  ]]></description>
        <enclosure url="http://legalframe.in/uploads/images/202507/image_870x580_687a4d1c35502.jpg" length="60466" type="image/jpeg"/>
        <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2025 03:31:19 +0900</pubDate>
        <dc:creator>legalframe</dc:creator>
        <media:keywords></media:keywords>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Upheld the use of Urdu alongside Marathi on the signboard of the Municipal Council, Patur, in Akola</title>
        <link>https://legalframe.in/upheld-the-use-of-urdu-alongside-marathi-on-the-signboard-of-the-municipal-council-patur-in-akola</link>
        <guid>https://legalframe.in/upheld-the-use-of-urdu-alongside-marathi-on-the-signboard-of-the-municipal-council-patur-in-akola</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[ On April 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of India in *Mrs. Varshatai W/o Sanjay Bagade v. State of Maharashtra &amp; Ors.* (**2025 INSC 486**) upheld the use of Urdu alongside Marathi on the signboard of the Municipal Council, Patur, in Akola district. The appellant, a former Municipal Council member, challenged the presence of Urdu text, arguing that Marathi alone should be used for official purposes. The Municipal Council had passed a resolution on February 14, 2020, affirming the bilingual signboard due to the significant Urdu-speaking population and longstanding practice since 1956. Although the Collector upheld the appellant’s objection in December 2020 under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Council Act, 1965, this decision was overturned by the Divisional Commissioner on April 30, 2021. The appellant’s subsequent writ petition was dismissed by the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) on June 30, 2021. During the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 13820/2021, the Maharashtra Local Authorities (Official Languages) Act, 2022 came into force, mandating the use of Marathi but not explicitly banning additional languages. After the matter was remanded, the Bombay High Court on April 10, 2024, ruled that the use of Urdu did not violate the 2022 Act. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that language is a medium of communication, not a marker of religion, and recognized Urdu as an Indian language protected under the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution. It cited constitutional provisions, including Articles 345 and 351, and emphasized India’s linguistic diversity, referencing historical support for Hindustani by leaders like Nehru and Gandhi. The judgment underscored that Urdu is widely used across India, including in legal terminology, and condemned linguistic prejudice. In a culturally rich reflection, the Court quoted poetry to personify Urdu’s misunderstood status. Ultimately, it held that the appellant’s objection lacked legal basis and dismissed the appeal, reinforcing the constitutional value of linguistic plurality. ]]></description>
        <enclosure url="http://legalframe.in" length="4096" type="image/jpeg"/>
        <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 22:30:19 +0900</pubDate>
        <dc:creator>Prof Dr Nitin Jaglal Untwal</dc:creator>
        <media:keywords></media:keywords>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Mandatory to provide marks to ensure transparency and fairness in recruitment;SC R</title>
        <link>https://legalframe.in/mandatory-to-provide-marks-to-ensure-transparency-and-fairness-in-recruitmentsc-r</link>
        <guid>https://legalframe.in/mandatory-to-provide-marks-to-ensure-transparency-and-fairness-in-recruitmentsc-r</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[ Reference - Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 2783/2025
The Supreme Court, through a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, recently upheld a decision by the Bombay High Court concerning the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The case involved a petitioner, Shri Onkar Dattatray Kalmankar, who had applied for the position of Junior Clerk in the District Court, Pune. Although shortlisted and called for an interview, he was not selected. Seeking clarity on the selection process, he filed an RTI request for the marks of all candidates involved in the recruitment process. His request was denied on the grounds of confidentiality.
The Bombay High Court, in its November 11, 2024 judgment, ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that marks obtained in a public recruitment process are not “personal information” exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act. The court emphasized that such information relates to a public activity and should be available to ensure transparency and fairness in recruitment.
The Supreme Court endorsed this view, reaffirming that disclosure of such information is justified when it serves the public interest. The judgment strengthens the principle that selection procedures for public posts must be open to scrutiny, reinforcing accountability in public administration. ]]></description>
        <enclosure url="http://legalframe.in" length="4096" type="image/jpeg"/>
        <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2025 22:21:44 +0900</pubDate>
        <dc:creator>Prof Dr Nitin Jaglal Untwal</dc:creator>
        <media:keywords></media:keywords>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>MP Mahua Moitra Moves Supreme Court Against Electoral Roll Revision in Bihar, Cites Risk of Disenfranchisement</title>
        <link>https://legalframe.in/mp-mahua-moitra-moves-supreme-court-against-electoral-roll-revision-in-bihar-cites-risk-of-disenfranchisement</link>
        <guid>https://legalframe.in/mp-mahua-moitra-moves-supreme-court-against-electoral-roll-revision-in-bihar-cites-risk-of-disenfranchisement</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[  ]]></description>
        <enclosure url="http://legalframe.in/uploads/images/202507/image_870x580_686d38c329ce7.jpg" length="99788" type="image/jpeg"/>
        <pubDate>Sun, 06 Jul 2025 20:04:53 +0900</pubDate>
        <dc:creator>legalframe</dc:creator>
        <media:keywords></media:keywords>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>Ex&amp;CJI Chandrachud Overstays at Official Residence, Supreme Court Urges Union Government to Reclaim CJI Bungalow</title>
        <link>https://legalframe.in/ex-cji-chandrachud-overstays-at-official-residence-supreme-court-urges-union-government-to-reclaim-cji-bungalow</link>
        <guid>https://legalframe.in/ex-cji-chandrachud-overstays-at-official-residence-supreme-court-urges-union-government-to-reclaim-cji-bungalow</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[  ]]></description>
        <enclosure url="http://legalframe.in/uploads/images/202507/image_870x580_686d38857c041.jpg" length="73229" type="image/jpeg"/>
        <pubDate>Sun, 06 Jul 2025 18:35:00 +0900</pubDate>
        <dc:creator>legalframe</dc:creator>
        <media:keywords></media:keywords>
    </item>
    <item>
        <title>NEET&amp;UG 2025 : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Results &amp;amp; Answer Key</title>
        <link>https://legalframe.in/supreme-court-dismisses-plea-neet-ug-2025-results</link>
        <guid>https://legalframe.in/supreme-court-dismisses-plea-neet-ug-2025-results</guid>
        <description><![CDATA[ The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the final answer key and results of the NEET-UG 2025 exam. The case, filed by Shivam Gandhi Raina, alleged an error in the answer for a specific question. The Court emphasized that changing the results at this stage could cause significant disruptions, and therefore upheld the integrity of the examination. ]]></description>
        <enclosure url="http://legalframe.in/uploads/images/202507/image_870x580_68682505d7094.jpg" length="103959" type="image/jpeg"/>
        <pubDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2025 01:03:27 +0900</pubDate>
        <dc:creator>Inamdar Muddasir</dc:creator>
        <media:keywords>Supreme Court, NEET-UG 2025, National Testing Agency, NTA, Shivam Gandhi Raina, exam results, final answer key, petition, Court dismissal, NEET challenge, error in answer, all-India exam, legal ruling, exam integrity, Supreme Court ruling, NEET plea rejection.</media:keywords>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>