Main Page

From Advocates Pedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Advocates Pedia,
A Project of Advocates Pedia Foundation(Regd).
53,191 articles in English language

Today's Featured Advocate

Sharwan Kumar Ray,2016.jpg

Sharwan Kumar Ray is born on 10 October 1981. He is one of the practicing lawyer, in the areas of civil, criminal and Matromonial laws. He practices at Samastipur Civil Court of Bihar in India, but also appears in various District Courts and in Patna High Court. Sharwan Kumar Ray joined LNMU University and then C.M Law College for law education in 2007. After getting his membership from Bar Council of Bihar in 2016 he started his legal practice at Samastipur Civil Court. He is specialized in various field of law, some of them are Civil law, Criminal law, Commercial law etc.

Did you know...

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

Decreed a slave was his master's property and African Americans were not citizens; struck down the Missouri Compromise as unconstitutional.

Civil Rights Cases (1883) A number of cases are addressed under this Supreme court decision. Decided that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (the last federal civil rights legislation until the Civil Rights Act of 1957) was unconstitutional. Allowed private sector segregation.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) The Court stated that segregation was legal and constitutional as long as "facilities were equal"—the famous "separate but equal" segregation policy.

Powell v. Alabama (1932) The Supreme Court overturned the "Scottsboro Boys'" convictions and guaranteed counsel in state and federal courts.

Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) The justices ruled that a court may not constitutionally enforce a "restrictive covenant" which prevents people of certain race from owning or occupying property.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) Reversed Plessy v. Ferguson "separate but equal" ruling. "[S]egregation [in public education] is a denial of the equal protection of the laws."

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964) This case challenged the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court ruled that the motel had no right "to select its guests as it sees fit, free from governmental regulation."

Loving v. Virginia (1967) This decision ruled that the prohibition on interracial marriage was unconstitutional. Sixteen states that still banned interracial marriage at the time were forced to revise their laws.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) The decision stated that affirmative action was unfair if it lead to reverse discrimination.

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) The decision upheld affirmative action's constitutionality in education, as long it employeed a "highly individualized, holistic review of each applicant's file" and did not consider race as a factor in a "mechanical way."

1. Brown v. Board of Education, 2. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 3. Gibbons v. Ogden, 4. Gideon v. Wainwright, 5. Marbury v. Madison, 6. McCulloch v. Maryland, 7. Miranda v. Arizona, 8. Plessy v. Ferguson, 9. Roe v. Wade, 10. Texas v. Johnson

Today's Featured Law Student

Raveena Tandon,2016.jpeg

Raveena Tandon is a part of Punjabi family, born and brought up in Delhi NCR. Presently She is living in Kaushambi, Ghaziabad. Raveena Tandon has done her schooling from DLF public school affiliate by CBSE Board and further she decided to pursue B.A.,LL.B from Lloyd Law College affiliated by CCS University Meerut, presently she is in 5th year of her professional course and is 1st generation of her family to become an advocate. Raveena have deep interest and compassion for animals which she is using in ingenuous way by blogging for SGACC SANJAY GANDHI ANIMALS CARE CENTER with collaboration to PFA people for animal. In spite of traveling, blogging and exploring new dimensions of the legal world she has worked in Patiyala house court in guidance of Adv. R K Rajput and handled cases in almost all district courts of Delhi as well as in Delhi high court, further she has interned in DSLSA Delhi Legal State Service Authority.

Legal Article of the day...

In the news...

Judges don't need certificates, says Supreme Court

Judges do not need certificates from anybody, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said while rejecting a PIL seeking setting up of a "public body", independent of the executive and judiciary, to ensure fair appointment of judges in High Courts and the apex court. "We don't need a certificate from anyone on earth," a bench comprising justices Arun K Mishra and U U Lalit said. The observation came when it was alleged that there has been nepotism in the appointment of judges in High Courts and the apex court. The bench disagreed with the plea of National Lawyers' Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms that a body independent of executive and judiciary to select Judges to the higher judiciary was needed, as those talented amongst a vast majority of lawyers were never considered by the collegium for selection as Judges. "We are dismissing it. We see no merit in this petition ...Your ideas may be good or bad, we are not commenting. But what all you are asking cannot be done without quashing certain constitutional provisions," the bench said. When advocates Mathew J Nedumpara and A C Philip, appearing for the lawyers' body, referred to the ongoing vetting by the Centre of the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) to govern judges' appointments, the bench said "we will not comment on MoP. Can a proposed MoP be questioned? Let it be crystallised. Let it come out ...then we will see".

The bench said the setting up of such a body would amount to amending the Constitution which cannot be done by the apex court. The lawyers' body has contended that an independent judge selection body was needed to end the alleged control of the "elite section" over judiciary. The selection of kith and kin of serving and former judges and senior advocates as Judges in higher judiciary should and must stop, the lawyers' body said in its plea. The PIL has alleged that the "common deserving lawyers" are usually not considered for appointment as judges in the higher judiciary and only those close to the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts or politicians or big industrial houses got chosen. The PIL has also alleged that the existing system has appointed the "kith and kin of sitting and former Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, their juniors, celebrated lawyers, Chief Ministers, Governors and a few first generation lawyers who are all politically connected or are close to big industrial houses." The plea also said there was no effective mechanism to address complaints of misconduct against judges.

The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2012 introduced in Parliament, remained in "cold storage" as the judges were not "forthcoming to welcome" it, the PIL has claimed.

Cauvery row: Tamil Nadu hails SC verdict as historic, Karnataka CM says order 'unimplementable'

Political parties and farmers in Tamil Nadu on Tuesday termed as historic, the Supreme Court verdict directing the Centre to constitute Cauvery Management Board and urged the Union government to set up the body sans delay.The response was completely different in Karnataka with CM saying the order is unimplementable.

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa came in for praise for her pursuit of legal measures over the Cauvery issue, which eventually led to the ruling. President of Tamil Nadu All Farmers' Federations, P R Pandian said "I welcome the verdict whole heartedly, all the farmers are very happy." "We thank Chief Minister Jayalalithaa for the legal measures she undertook to secure the Apex Court verdict," he told PTI,adding the ruling also comes after a slew of protests over several years by Tamil Nadu farmers, supported by all sections of people, political parties and traders. He said farmers are now confident that the Cauvery Board would order release of water to ryots in accordance with the needs and without any political interference.


From today's featured list

Featured picture 

Retrieved from ‘