Follow:
- Next story Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, Aniruddha Bose and V. Ramasubramanian observed that the substantial issues that arose in common for both the islands have already been answered in Vaamika Island (supra) and therefore it is not inclined to take a different view in these cases. It said:
- Previous story Today click our former judges Akbar ali ,ak rajan.Shanmugam.and advts s duraisamy elango with former cm Valgavalamudan https://t.co/x8BRdT3RYR
Recent Posts
- Tasmac சோதனை தொடர்பாக மேற்கொண்டு எந்த நடவடிக்கையும் எடுக்கவில்லை திங்கட்கிழமை (மார்ச் 24) வரை மேற்கொள்ள வேண்டாம் என அமலாக்கத் துறைக்கு ஐகோர்ட் வாய்மொழி அறிவுறுத்தல்
- MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN W.A.Nos. 567, 1458 and 1460 of 2024 and CMP Nos.3936, 10380 and 10389 of 2024 WA No.567 of 2024 S.Selvaraj
- MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR W.P.No.35158 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.38070 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.2306 of 2025 Kavitha Anand
- Justice S. Sounthar held, “Therefore, Section 21(g) of the ART Act creates a legal right for woman above the age of 21 years and below the age of 50 years to demand ART services as a matter of right, subject to conditions prescribed under Act…In other words, the woman outside the age bracket prescribed under the section, though may desire for ART services,
- Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima held that the fundamental right of privacy included spousal privacy also and the contours of spousal privacy included a woman’s sexual autonomy. Highlighting that self pleasure was not a forbidden fruit
More
Recent Posts
- Tasmac சோதனை தொடர்பாக மேற்கொண்டு எந்த நடவடிக்கையும் எடுக்கவில்லை திங்கட்கிழமை (மார்ச் 24) வரை மேற்கொள்ள வேண்டாம் என அமலாக்கத் துறைக்கு ஐகோர்ட் வாய்மொழி அறிவுறுத்தல்
- MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. ARUL MURUGAN W.A.Nos. 567, 1458 and 1460 of 2024 and CMP Nos.3936, 10380 and 10389 of 2024 WA No.567 of 2024 S.Selvaraj
- MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR W.P.No.35158 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.38070 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.2306 of 2025 Kavitha Anand
- Justice S. Sounthar held, “Therefore, Section 21(g) of the ART Act creates a legal right for woman above the age of 21 years and below the age of 50 years to demand ART services as a matter of right, subject to conditions prescribed under Act…In other words, the woman outside the age bracket prescribed under the section, though may desire for ART services,
- Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice R Poornima held that the fundamental right of privacy included spousal privacy also and the contours of spousal privacy included a woman’s sexual autonomy. Highlighting that self pleasure was not a forbidden fruit
