So, here is the latest spin from the political carnival: Abhishar Sharma, a YouTuber-Journalist and a major national news channel popular former news langar (who thanks BBC He is now a proud subject of a cedar in Assam to dub it “major” and critical), after he was filed, he questioned the allocation of 3,000 acres of tribal land to a private company – a fact that was stagnant High Court judge Hearing the matter – and suggested that the state and its Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma were involved in communal politics.

Sharma’s remarks were already based on the information available in the public domain, mainly CM’s own comments, but when do the facts come in the way of a good cedar? Sharma has received temporary recurrence from the Supreme Court, but has not dismissed the allegations.

But wait – Daman’s performance was a supportive task in art. BJP MPs Nishikant Dubey, who decided for oblivion, is very close, and thus it has been clearly leaked that Sharma’s income tax returns appear on social media – easely indicating that as soon as Sharma started moving on the streets and misbehaved with Modi/BJP, his income was again increased by Rs 1.2 lakh before the rupee. The context is, of course, for Sharma’s anti -BJP stance.

Confidential tax details, finally, reading bus weekends for MPs, not data protected by privacy laws under India’s Income Tax or Information Technology Acts. Who cares, isn’t it? As it happens, ordinary people to do Care. For evidence, read the comments under Dubey’s post.

Sharma announced that he was filing his own FIR-and tagged the Income Tax Department and Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitarman to ask: Whose desk (or shared USB drive) got this MP access to the top-patched ITR data?

The Central Government on Thursday informed the Supreme Court that the state governments cannot use writ jurisdiction to challenge the work done by the President or a governor belonging to the bills passed by the state assemblies, even if such action allegedly violates fundamental rights.

Representing the Center, during the hearing before the five-judge Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice Bra Gavai, Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, the President demanded the opinion of the apex court whether the state could file a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution based on violation of fundamental rights.

He further stated that the President wants to understand the interpretation of Article 361, which gives the President and the governors immunity to be responsible for the courts to perform their official duties.

Addressing the bench – also included as Justice Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and Chandurkar – Mehta said that although these issues were considered during internal discussions, the President gives a certain verdict from the court, especially when similar questions can be revealed in future.

Mehta said that a Article 32 petition cannot be made against the functions of the state president or governors, stating that no direction cannot be issued to these constitutional authorities.

“Article 32 lies when the constitutional plan leads to fundamental rights and state government violations, it is not a fundamental right in itself. It is a store of tasks to protect the fundamental rights of its people,” said Mehta.

The Supreme Court announced on Friday, August 29, that it will hear petitions filed by RJD (Rashtriya Janata Dal) and AIMIM (All India Majlis-e-Idena-ul-Musslimin), who seek more time for voters, blessing for assembly elections at the end of this year.

For example, the hearing date matches the current deadline to enter such claims and objections – 1 September.

Justice Surya Kant, Jomalya Bagchi and Vipul M. A bench with Pancholi confirmed that the hearing would be held on Monday (1 September). The court was decided after Advocate Prashant Bhushan and senior advocate Shoaib Alam, who representing RJD, informed the bench that several applications were requested to expand the deadline.

Nizam Pasha, representing AIMIM, supported more time requirement due to the large number of claims being filed.

“The number of claims filed is increasing rapidly. The deadline needs to be extended,” Alam told the court.

Pasha said that about 80,000 claims were filed before the court’s 22 August order. The number increased to 95,000 after the order.

“We are requesting to listed these applications as soon as possible,” said Pasha.