MALAYALEE LAWYERS
KERALA INFORMATIONS:
Kerala Government
High Court Of Kerala
Kerala State Human Right Commission
Kerala Womens Commission
Kerala Telephone Directory
Consumer Complaint help
Chief Minister’s Grievance Redressal Cell
Kerala State Legal Services
Kerala Lok Ayukta
Ombudsman
Kerala Police
Vigilance & Anti-corruption Bureau
Kerala Tourism
Malayalee Lawyers
Pravasi Malayalee Welfare Association
Indian Judiciary
thumbphoto Indian Judiciary
Supreme Court of India came into existence on 26th January, 1950 and is located on Tilak Marg, New Delhi. The Supreme Court of India functioned from the Parliament House till it moved to the present building. It has a 27.6 metre high dome and a spacious colonnaded verandah. For a peek inside, you’ll have to obtain a visitor’s pass from the front office.

On the 28th of January, 1950, two days after India became a Sovereign Democratic Republic, the Supreme Court came into being. The inauguration took place in the Chamber of Princes in the Parliament building which also housed India's Parliament, consisting of the Council of States and the House of the People. It was here, in this Chamber of Princes, that the Federal Court of India had sat for 12 years between 1937 and 1950. This was to be the home of the Supreme Court for years that were to follow until the Supreme Court acquired its own present premises.

The inaugural proceedings were simple but impressive. They began at 9.45 a.m. when the Judges of the Federal Court - Chief Justice Harilal J.Kania and Justices Saiyid Fazl Ali, M. Patanjali Sastri, Mehr Chand Mahajan, Bijan Kumar Mukherjea and S.R.Das - took their seats. In attendance were the Chief Justices of the High Courts of Allahabad, Bombay, Madras, Orissa, Assam, Nagpur, Punjab, Saurashtra, Patiala and the East Punjab States Union, Mysore, Hyderabad, Madhya Bharat and Travancore-Cochin. Along with the Attorney General for India, M.C. Setalvad were present the Advocate Generals of Bombay, Madras, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, East Punjab, Orissa, Mysore, Hyderabad and Madhya Bharat. Present too, were Prime Minister, other Ministers, Ambassadors and diplomatic representatives of foreign States, a large number of Senior and other Advocates of the Court and other distinguished visitors.

Taking care to ensure that the Rules of the Supreme Court were published and the names of all the Advocates and agents of the Federal Court were brought on the rolls of the Supreme Court, the inaugural proceedings were over and put under part of the record of the Supreme Court.

After its inauguration on January 28, 1950, the Supreme Court commenced its sittings in a part of the Parliament House. The Court moved into the present building in 1958. The building is shaped to project the image of scales of justice. The Central Wing of the building is the Centre Beam of the Scales. In 1979, two New Wings - the East Wing and the West Wing - were added to the complex. In all there are 15 Court Rooms in the various wings of the building. The Chief Justice's Court is the largest of the Courts located in the Centre of the Central Wing.

The original Constitution of 1950 envisaged a Supreme Court with a Chief Justice and 7 puisne Judges - leaving it to Parliament to increase this number. In the early years, all the Judges of the Supreme Court sat together to hear the cases presented before them. As the work of the Court increased and arrears of cases began to cumulate, Parliament increased the number of Judges from 8 in 1950 to 11 in 1956, 14 in 1960, 18 in 1978 and 26 in 1986. As the number of the Judges has increased, they sit in smaller Benches of two and three - coming together in larger Benches of 5 and more only when required to do so or to settle a difference of opinion or controversy.

The Supreme Court of India comprises the Chief Justice and 30 other Judges appointed by the President of India. Supreme Court Judges retire upon attaining the age of 65 years. In order to be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court, a person must be a citizen of India and must have been, for atleast five years, a Judge of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession, or an Advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession for at least 10 years or he must be, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist. Provisions exist for the appointment of a Judge of a High Court as an Ad-hoc Judge of the Supreme Court and for retired Judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts to sit and act as Judges of that Court.

The Constitution seeks to ensure the independence of Supreme Court Judges in various ways. A Judge of the Supreme Court cannot be removed from office except by an order of the President passed after an address in each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of members present and voting, and presented to the President in the same Session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. A person who has been a Judge of the Supreme Court is debarred from practising in any court of law or before any other authority in India.

The proceedings of the Supreme Court are conducted in English only. Supreme Court Rules, 1966 are framed under Article 145 of the Constitution to regulate the practic
fullstory
CONSTITUTION OF SUPREME COURT IN INDIA
thumbphoto LAW, COURTS AND THE CONSTITUTION

India has one of the oldest legal systems in the world. Its law and jurisprudence stretches back into the centuries, forming a living tradition which has grown and evolved with the lives of its diverse people. India's commitment to law is created in the Constitution which constituted India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic, containing a federal system with Parliamentary form of Government in the Union and the States, an independent judiciary, guaranteed Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy containing objectives which though not enforceable in law are fundamental to the governance of the nation.

SOURCES OF LAW

The fountain source of law in India is the Constitution which, in turn, gives due recognition to statutes, case law and customary law consistent with its dispensations. Statutes are enacted by Parliament, State Legislatures and Union Territory Legislatures. There is also a vast body of laws known as subordinate legislation in the form of rules, regulations as well as by-laws made by Central and State Governments and local authorities like Municipal Corporations, Municipalities, Gram Panchayats and other local bodies. This subordinate legislation is made under the authority conferred or delegated either by Parliament or State or Union Territory Legislature concerned. The decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all Courts within the territory of India. As India is a land of diversities, local customs and conventions which are not against statute, morality, etc. are to a limited extent also recognised and taken into account by Courts while administering justice in certain spheres.

ENACTMENT OF LAWS

The Indian Parliament is competent to make laws on matters enumerated in the Union List. State Legislatures are competent to make laws on matters enumerated in the State List. While both the Union and the States have power to legislate on matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, only Parliament has power to make laws on matters not included in the State List or the Concurrent List. In the event of repugnancy, laws made by Parliament shall prevail over law made by State Legislatures, to the extent of the repugnancy. The State law shall be void unless it has received the assent of the President, and in such case, shall prevail in that State.

APPLICABILITY OF LAWS
Laws made by Parliament may extend throughout or in any part of the territory of India and those made by State Legislatures may generally apply only within the terrirory of the State concerned. Hence, variations are likely to exist from State to State in provisions of law relating to matters falling in the State and Concurrent Lists.

JUDICIARY
One of the unique features of the Indian Constitution is that, notwithstanding the adoption of a federal system and existence of Central Acts and State Acts in their respective spheres, it has generally provided for a single integrated system of Courts to administer both Union and State laws. At the apex of the entire judicial system, exists the Supreme Court of India below which are the High Courts in each State or group of States. Below the High Courts lies a hierarchy of Subordinate Courts. Panchayat Courts also function in some States under various names like Nyaya Panchayat, Panchayat Adalat, Gram Kachheri, etc. to decide civil and criminal disputes of petty and local nature. Different State laws provide for different kinds of jurisdiction of courts. Each State is divided into judicial districts presided over by a District and Sessions Judge, which is the principal civil court of original jurisdiction and can try all offences including those punishable with death. The Sessions Judge is the highest judicial authority in a district. Below him, there are Courts of civil jurisdiction, known in different States as Munsifs, Sub-Judges, Civil Judges and the like. Similarly, the criminal judiciary comprises the Chief Judicial Magistrates and Judicial Magistrates of First and Second Class.

CONSTITUTION OF SUPREME COURT
On the 28th of January, 1950, two days after India became a Sovereign Democratic Republic, the Supreme Court came into being. The inauguration took place in the Chamber of Princes in the Parliament building which also housed India's Parliament, consisting of the Council of States and the House of the People. It was here, in this Chamber of Princes, that the Federal Court of India had sat for 12 years between 1937 and 1950. This was to be the home of the Supreme Court for years that were to follow until the Supreme Court acquired its own present premises.

The inaugural proceedings were simple but impressive. They began at 9.45 a.m. when the Judges of the Federal Court - Chief Justice Harilal J.Kania and Justices Saiyid Fazl Ali, M. Patanjali Sastri, Mehr Chand Mahajan, Bijan Kumar Mukherjea and
BRITISH JUDICIARY
thumbphoto History of the judiciary
When you see a judge or magistrate sitting in court, you are actually looking at the result of 1,000 years of legal evolution.

An ancient system
When you see a judge or magistrate sitting in court, you are actually looking at the result of 1,000 years of legal evolution.

It’s doubtful that anyone asked to design a justice system would choose to copy the English and Welsh model. It’s contradictory in places, and rather confusing. However, the judiciary is still changing and evolving to meet the needs of our society, and despite its oddities it is widely regarded as one of the best and most independent in the world.

A real ordeal
Justice for the Anglo-Saxons and even after the Norman invasion of 1066 was a combination of local and royal government. Local courts were presided over by a lord or one of his stewards. The King’s court – the Curia Regis – was, initially at least, presided over by the King himself.
Today, going on trial in an English and Welsh court is not exactly a comfortable experience. But it’s far better than trial by ordeal, used until almost the end of the 12th century to determine guilt or innocence in criminal cases.
Under this system, the accused would be forced to pick up a red hot bar of iron, pluck a stone out of a cauldron of boiling water, or something equally painful and dangerous.
If their hand had begun to heal after three days they were considered to have God on their side, thus proving their innocence. The number of ‘not guilty’ verdicts recorded by this system is not known.
Another, extremely popular ‘ordeal’ involved water; the accused would be tied up and thrown into a lake or other body of water. If innocent, he or she would sink.
There were two problems with this method, which was often used to try suspected witches: the accused was tied right thumb to left toe, left thumb to right toe, which made it almost impossible to sink; and opinion is divided as to whether those who did sink were fished out afterwards.
William II (1087-1100) eventually banned trial by ordeal – reportedly because 50 men accused of killing his deer had passed the test – and it was condemned by the Church in 1216.

Fighting for freedom?
Criminal and civil disputes could also be decided by trial by combat, with a win held to prove either innocence or the right to whatever property was being disputed. Either side could employ their own champions, so the system wasn’t perhaps as fair as it might be.
Trial by combat gradually fell into disuse for civil cases, although it wasn’t until someone involved in a dispute in 1818 tried to insist on it that it was realised this was still, technically, an option. Trial by combat was quickly banned, forcing litigants to rely on more conventional routes.

The earliest judges
During this period judges gradually gained independence from the monarch and the government. The very first judges, back in the 12th century, were court officials who had particular experience in advising the King on the settlement of disputes. From that group evolved the justices in eyre, who possessed a mixed administrative and judicial jurisdiction.
The justices in eyre were not, to put it mildly, popular. In fact, they came to be regarded as instruments of oppression.
The seeds of the modern justice system were sown by Henry II (1154-1189), who established a jury of 12 local knights to settle disputes over the ownership of land. When Henry came to the throne, there were just 18 judges in the country – compared to more than 40,000 today
. In 1178, Henry II first chose five members of his personal household – two clergy and three lay - "to hear all the complaints of the realm and to do right”.
This, supervised by the King and “wise men” of the realm, was the origin of the Court of Common Pleas.
Eventually, a new permanent court, the Court of the King’s Bench, evolved, and judicial proceedings before the King came to be seen as separate from proceedings before the King’s Council.

Seeds of change
In 1166, Henry issued a Declaration at the Assize of Clarendon (an assize was an early form of the King´s Council; the term later became the name for a sitting of a court).
The Assize of Clarendon ordered the remaining non-King's Bench judges to travel the country – which was divided into different circuits – deciding cases.
To do this, they would use the laws made by the judges in Westminster, a change that meant many local customs were replaced by new national laws. These national laws applied to everyone and so were common to all. Even today, we know them as the ‘common law’
. The system of judges sitting in London while others travelled round the country became known as the ‘assizes system’. Incredibl
AMERICAN JUDICIARY
thumbphoto The Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and such number of Associate Justices as may be fixed by Congress. The number of Associate Justices is currently fixed at eight (28 U. S. C. §1). Power to nominate the Justices is vested in the President of the United States, and appointments are made with the advice and consent of the Senate. Article III, §1, of the Constitution further provides that "[t]he Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
Court Officers assist the Court in the performance of its functions. They include the Counselor to the Chief Justice, the Clerk, the Librarian, the Marshal, the Reporter of Decisions, the Court Counsel, the Curator, the Director of Information Technology, and the Public Information Officer. The Counselor is appointed by the Chief Justice. The Clerk, Reporter of Decisions, Librarian, and Marshal are appointed by the Court. All other Court Officers are appointed by the Chief Justice in consultation with the Court.
Constitutional Origin. Article III, §1, of the Constitution provides that "[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The Supreme Court of the United States was created in accordance with this provision and by authority of the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789 (1 Stat. 73). It was organized on February 2, 1790.
Jurisdiction. According to the Constitution (Art. III, §2): "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Appellate jurisdiction has been conferred upon the Supreme Court by various statutes, under the authority given Congress by the Constitution. The basic statute effective at this time in conferring and controlling jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be found in 28 U. S. C. §1251 et seq., and various special statutes.
Rulemaking Power. Congress has from time to time conferred upon the Supreme Court power to prescribe rules of procedure to be followed by the lower courts of the United States. See 28 U. S. C. §2071 et seq.
The Building. The Supreme Court is open to the public from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. It is closed Saturdays, Sundays, and the federal legal holidays listed in 5 U. S. C. §6103. Unless the Court or the Chief Justice orders otherwise, the Clerk’s Office is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on those holidays. The Library is open to members of the Bar of the Court, attorneys for the various federal departments and agencies, and Members of Congress.
The Term. The Term of the Court begins, by law, on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October of the next year. Approximately 10,000 petitions are filed with the Court in the course of a Term. In addition, some 1,200 applications of various kinds are filed each year that can be acted upon by a single Justice.
JUDICIARY IN AUSTRALIA
thumbphoto The Australian legal system is based on a fundamental belief in the rule of law, justice and the independence of the judiciary. All people—Australians and non-Australians alike—are treated equally before the law and safeguards exist to ensure that people are not treated arbitrarily or unfairly by governments or officials.

Principles such as procedural fairness, judicial precedent and the separation of powers are fundamental to Australia’s legal system. The common law system, as developed in the United Kingdom, forms the basis of Australian jurisprudence. It is distinct from the civil law systems that operate in Europe, South America and Japan, which are derived from Roman law. Other countries that employ variations of the common law system are the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Malaysia and India. The chief feature of the common law system is that judges’ decisions in pending cases are informed by the decisions of previously settled cases. The Australian Constitution of 1901 established a federal system of government, under which powers are distributed between the federal government and the states. It defined exclusive powers (investing the federal government with the exclusive power to make laws on matters such as trade and commerce, taxation, defence, external affairs, and immigration and citizenship) and concurrent powers (where both tiers of government are able to enact laws). The states and territories have independent legislative power in all matters not specifically assigned to the federal government. Where there is any inconsistency between federal and state or territory laws, federal laws prevail. Federal laws apply to the whole of Australia. In effect, Australia has nine legal systems—the eight state and territory systems and one federal system. However, it is the state and territory criminal laws that mainly affect the day-to-day lives of most Australians.

Each of the federal and state systems incorporates three separate branches of government—legislative, executive and judicial. Parliaments make the laws, the executive government administers the laws, and the judiciary independently interprets and applies them.

The courts
The High Court of Australia interprets and applies the law of Australia, decides cases of special federal significance, including challenges to the constitutional validity of laws, and hears appeals (by special leave) from the federal, state and territory courts. The High Court has a Chief Justice and six other judges who can preside either individually or together. It is the highest court of appeal on all matters, whether decided in the federal or state jurisdictions.
The other federal courts are the Federal Court of Australia, the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia. Under the Constitution, state and territory courts may be invested with federal jurisdiction.
The Federal Court’s jurisdiction is broad, covering almost all civil matters arising under Australian federal law and some summary criminal matters. The court also has substantial and diverse appellate jurisdiction, including over the decisions of single judges of the Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Court (in non-family-law matters) and some decisions of the state and territory courts.
The Family Court is Australia’s superior court in family law. Through its specialist judges and staff, the court helps to resolve complex family disputes. It also covers specialised areas such as cases relating to the Hague Convention on International Child Abductions (which came into force in Australia in December 1998) and the international relocation of children by parents or guardians.
The Federal Magistrates Court was established by the federal parliament in 1999 and conducted its first sittings in July 2000. Its jurisdiction includes family law, bankruptcy, unlawful discrimination, consumer protection and trade practices, privacy, migration, copyright and industrial law. Nearly all of its jurisdiction is shared with the Family Court or the Federal Court.
Australian state and territory courts have jurisdiction in all matters brought under state or territory laws. They also handle some matters arising under federal laws, where jurisdiction has been conferred by the federal parliament. State and territory courts deal with most criminal matters, whether arising under federal, state or territory law. Each state and territory court system operates independently. All states have supreme courts and some also have courts of criminal appeal, which are the highest appellate courts at the state level. Courts known as ‘district’ or ‘county’ courts hear the more serious cases, with a judge presiding over the court to interpret and determine the law. For more serious charges it is usual for a jury (usually of 12 people) to determine the guilt or innocence of defendants. Serious offences such as murder, rape and
The Judicial System of Pakistan
thumbphoto 1. General

The roots of the current judicial system of Pakistan stretch back to the medieval period and even before. The judicial system that we practice today has evolved over a long period of time,

spanning roughly over a whole millennium. The system has passed through several epochs covering the Hindu era, Muslim period including the Mughal dynasty, British colonial period and post-independence period. Notwithstanding the successive changes i.e. one rule/dynasty substituted by the other, which naturally resulted in the socio-economic and political transformation of the Indian society, the judicial system generally maintained a steady growth and gradual advance towards consolidation and improvement/refinement, without indeed, having to undergo any major disruption or substantial change. All in all, the system experienced and passed through 3 distinct stages of historical development, namely, Hindu Kingdom, Muslim Rule and British Colonial administration. The 4th and current era, commenced with the partition of India and the establishment of Pakistan as a sovereign and independent State. The system, thus, has evolved through a process of reform and development. This conclusion enjoys near unanimity among historians and commentators of Indian legal history. During this process of evolution and growth, the judicial system did receive influences and inspirations from foreign doctrines/notions and indigenous norms/practices, both in terms of organising courts’ structure and hierarchy, and adopting procedures/practices in reaching decisions. Therefore, the present judicial system is not an entirely foreign transplant, as is commonly alleged, but has acquired an indigenous flavour and national colour. And whereas the system may not fully suit the genius of our people or meet the local conditions, its continued application and practice has made it intelligible to the common man. The very fact that increasing number of people are making

resort to the courts for the resolution of their conflicts/disputes, indicates that the system enjoys a degree of legitimacy and acceptance.

2. Historical Retrospect

2.1 Hindu Period

The Hindu period roughly extends from 1500 BC until 1500 AD. Information on the judicial system during Hindu period has been somewhat sketchy, gathered mostly from scattered sources, such as ancient books like Dharamshastra, Smiritis and Arthashastra, and commentaries of the same by historians and jurists. These sources construct a well-defined system of administration of justice during the Hindu period. The King was regarded as the fountain of justice who also discharged judicial functions. In this task, judges as well as his ministers and counsellors assisted him. He was the final judicial authority and court of ultimate appeal. At the Capital, besides the King’s Court, the Court of Chief Justice existed. This Court, in hierarchy, was next to the King’s Court and appeal against its decisions lay to the King’s Court. The judges were appointed on the basis of their qualifications and scholarship but the choice was mostly restricted to upper caste i.e. Brahmins. At the village level, tribunals dispensed justice, consisting of the assembly of the village, or the caste or the family1. The village Headman acted as Judge/Magistrate for the community. Decisions by such tribunals were usually through conciliation. The decisions of village/town courts/tribunals were appealable in the higher courts and final appeal lay before the King’s Court. Besides, judgment by the courts, the system of arbitration was also invoked. As regards the procedure followed in the courts/tribunals, no formal rules existed, as the law applicable was not statutory but customary or moral. The determination of truth and punishment of the wrong-doer was regarded as a religious duty. Civil proceedings commenced with the filing of a claim which was replied to by the opposite party. Both parties were allowed to produce witnesses so as to prove their respective claims. On the conclusion of the trial, decision was pronounced which was duly enforced. It appears thus, that the system of administration of justice, as it operated in ancient India, was not substantially different from 1 Law Commission of India’s 14th Report, 1958, Vol1, p 26 what it is in the modern times. In a sense, the current system seems to be a continuation of the former practices and procedures.

2.2 Muslim Period

The Muslim period in the Indian Sub-continent roughly begins in the 11th century A.D. This period may be divided into two parts i.e. the period of early Muslim rulers who ruled Delhi and some other parts of India and the Mughal Period, which replaced such Muslim and other rulers in 1526 A.D. The Mughal Dynasty lasted until the middle of 19th century. During the period of Muslim rulers, the Islamic law generally held the
വിചാരണത്തടവുകാരെ കൈവിലങ്ങിടുന്നതില്‍ നടപടി വേണമെന്ന് കോടതി
thumbphoto മുംബൈ: വിചാരണത്തടവുകാരെ കൈവിലങ്ങുകളോടെ കോടതിയില്‍ കൊണ്ടുപോകുന്ന പോലീസുകാരെ കണ്ടെത്താന്‍ ബോംബെ ഹൈക്കോടതി അധികൃതര്‍ക്ക് അവസാന അവസരം നല്‍കി.

ഇവര്‍ക്കെതിരെ നടപടി സ്വീകരിക്കണമെന്നും ചീഫ് ജസ്റ്റിസ് എസ്.എ. ബോബഡെ, മൃദുല ഭട്കര്‍ എന്നിവരടങ്ങിയ ഡി&#
fullstory
അന്തർദേശീയ നീതിന്യായ കോടതി
thumbphoto ഐക്യ രാഷ്ട്ര സംഘടനയുടെ പ്രമുഖ നീതിന്യായ വിഭാഗമാണ്‌ അന്തർദേശീയ നീതിന്യായ കോടതി അല്ലെങ്കിൽ ലോക കോടതി (ഐ.സി.ജെ) എന്നറിയപ്പെടുന്നത്. നെതർലന്റിലെ ഹേഗിലുള്ള പീസ് പാലസാണ്‌ ഇതിന്റെ ആസ്ഥാനം. രാജ്യങ്ങൾ തമ്മിലുള്ള നിയമ പോരാട്ടങ്ങളെ ഒത്തുതീർപ്പാക്കുക, അō
fullstory
കോടതിയലക്ഷ്യം
thumbphoto കോടതിയോ, നിയമ നിർമ്മാണസഭയോ പോലുള്ള പൊതു അധികാരസ്ഥാനങ്ങളുടെ പദവിയേയോ, അധികാരത്തെയോ, വിശ്വാസ്യതയേയോ ഇടിച്ചുതാഴ്ത്തുന്ന തരത്തിലോ, അവയുടെ ഉത്തരവുകളയോ, നടപടികളെയോ, നിയമങ്ങളേയോ ബോധപൂർവ്വം ലംഘിക്കുന്ന തരത്തിലോ ആരെങ്കിലും പെരുമാറുന്നതിനെ കോടതി &
fullstory
മനുഷ്യാവകാശം
thumbphoto എല്ലാമനുഷ്യരുടേയും അർഹതയായി കരുതപ്പെടുന്ന അടിസ്ഥാന അവകാശങ്ങളും സ്വാതന്ത്ര്യങ്ങളുമാണ് മനുഷ്യാവകാശം എന്നറിയപ്പെടുന്നത്. മനുഷ്യാവകാശങ്ങളായി പൊതുവേ കണക്കാക്കപ്പെടുന്നവയിൽ ജീവനും സ്വാതന്ത്ര്യത്തിനുമുള്ള അവകാശം, ആശയവിനിമയത്തിനുള്ള അവ
fullstory
മനുഷ്യാവകാശങ്ങളും ആംനസ്റ്റി ഇന്റർനാഷണലും
thumbphoto . അഖിലലോക മനുഷ്യാവകാശവിളംബരത്തിലും മറ്റു അന്താരാഷ്ട്ര രേഖകളിലും പറയുന്ന എല്ലാവിധ മനുഷ്യാവകാശങ്ങൾക്കും വേണ്ടി പൊരുതുന്ന ഒരു അന്താരാഷ്ട്ര സർക്കാരേതരസംഘടനയാണു് ആംനസ്റ്റി ഇന്റർനാഷണൽ

(എ.ഐ.). ചുരുക്കത്തിൽ ആംനസ്റ്റിയുടെ പ്രവർത്തനങ്ങൾ ഇവയെല്ല&
fullstory
നിയമം
thumbphoto വ്യവസ്ഥാപിത സമൂഹത്തിന്റെ സുസ്ഥിര നിലനില്പിനായി അതിലെ അംഗങ്ങളായ വ്യക്തികളുടെ സ്വഭാവം, പെരുമാറ്റം, പ്രവൃത്തി, സ്വാതന്ത്ര്യം, അവകാശം തുടങ്ങിയവയ്ക്കുമേൽ ബാധകമാക്കപ്പെടുന്ന നിയന്ത്രണം, അതിര്, വിലക്ക് എന്നിവയുടെ സമാഹാരമോ സംഹിതയോ സംഘാടനമോ ആണ് നി
fullstory
ഇന്ത്യൻ ഗതാഗതനിയമങ്ങൾ കൊലനടത്താനുള്ള അവകാശമോ ?
thumbphoto സഞ്ചാര സ്വാതന്ത്ര്യം നിഷേധിക്കുമ്പോള്‍ ഇല്ലാതാവുന്നത് മനുഷ്യാവകാശങ്ങളാണ് .ലൈസെന്സും നിയമവ്യവസ്ഥയെയും വിലക്കുവങ്ങുന്നതുകൊണ്ടു മാണ് ഓരോ സെക്കണ്ടും ലക്ഷകണക്കിനു മനുഷ്യാവകാശധ്വംസനങ്ങൾ റോഡില്‍ നടക്കുന്നത് കാരണം അടിസ്ഥാന ഗതാഗത നിയമങ്ങř
fullstory
ട്രാഫിക് അടയാളങ്ങള്‍
thumbphoto ഒരു പ്രദേശത്തെ കാല്‍നടക്കാരുടേയും വാഹനങ്ങളുടേയും ഗതാഗതം സുഗമവും അപകട രഹിതവുമാക്കുന്നതിനുവേണ്ടി സ്ഥാപിക്കുന്ന അടയാളങ്ങള്‍. ഓരോ അടയാളവും ഒരു നിര്‍ദേശത്തെയോ മുന്നറിയിപ്പിനെയോ സൂചിപ്പിക്കുന്നു. ഡ്രൈവര്‍മാരും കാല്‍നടക്കാരും ഈ അടയാളങ്ങളു!
fullstory
ജില്ലാ ജഡ്ജി എന്‍.തുളസീഭായി വിരമിച്ചു
thumbphoto തലശ്ശേരി: 29 വര്‍ഷത്തെ സേവനത്തിന് ശേഷം ജില്ലാ ജഡ്ജി എന്‍.തുളസീഭായി വിരമിച്ചു. വിരമിക്കല്‍ദിവസംതന്നെ രണ്ട് കേസില്‍ രണ്ടുപേര്‍ക്ക് ജീവപര്യന്തം ശിക്ഷ വിധിച്ചു എന്നുള്ളതും ഔദ്യോഗികരംഗത്തെ അപൂര്‍വതയായി. സാഹചര്യത്തെളിവുകള്‍ മുന്‍നിര്‍ത്തി, വിക
fullstory
INDIAN INFORMATIONS:
Constitution of India
Government Of India
Parliament of India
President of India
Vice President of India
Prime Minister's Office
Council of Ministers
Supreme Court of India
Lok Sabha
Rajya Sabha
Ministries/Departments
Cabinet Secretariat
Legislative Assembly
Courts in India
States/UT Governments
Indian Missions Abroad
Foreign Missions in India
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Central Information Commission
Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)
Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG)
Election Commission of India
National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC)
National Commission for Minorities (NCM)
National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST)
National Commission for Women (NCW)
National Commission on Population
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC)
Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser
Planning Commission
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)
Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
Telephone Directory
Government Contacts
STD Codes
ISD Codes
PIN Codes
Visa/Migration
Copyright 2009 malayaleelawyers. All rights reserved.