Rajini case

by Sekar Reporter · February 19, 2021

https://youtu.be/uWB3v3FALLQ

Share this post:

Share on X (Twitter) Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on Email

You may also like...

• 

  Justice G. Ilangovan observed that Section 188 of IPC would not stand against the petitioner as the police cannot file the case and investigate the same without getting proper permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned. A detailed guideline had already been issued by the court, the judge said. With regard to the offence under Section 269 of IPC, the petitioner was simply riding his two-wheeler. It was a trivial matter in which no offence of grievous nature was involved.

  September 21, 2021

   by Sekar Reporter · Published September 21, 2021

• 

  [10/10, 13:07] Sekarreporter: #NewsUpdate | கோரிக்கை நிராகரிப்பு கிட்னி முறைகேடு வழக்கில் நாங்கள் பரிந்துரைக்கும் அதிகாரிகளை வைத்து விசாரிக்க வேண்டும் என்ற தமிழக அரசின் கோரிக்கை நிராகரிப்பு சிறப்பு விசாரணைக்குழு அமைத்த சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்ற உத்தரவிற்குள் தலையிட விரும்பவில்லை என்றும் உச்சநீதிமன்றம் திட்டவட்டம் #KidneyTheft #NamakkalKidneyIssue #TamilNaduGoverment #TamilNadu #SupremeCourt #TamilNews #NewsTamil #NewsTamil24x7 [10/10, 13:07] Sekarreporter: 👍

  October 10, 2025

   by Sekar Reporter · Published October 10, 2025

• 

  Justices M.M. Sundresh and S. Ananthi observed that a temple was a place of religious worship, and it was based upon faith. When people go to the temple out of faith, there could not be any difference based upon colour or creed. God does not recognise any community. It only recognises a human being who goes there to pray.

  February 17, 2021

   by Sekar Reporter · Published February 17, 2021