Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
U>You must visit the police station for the statement. It is a part of their investigation. Dont worry about it. Take a local support rather than taking an advocate with you. Advocate charge you almost 5-10k for this simple visit. At least visit the police station with your father or some middle-aged person who can speak well with police
Don’t be afraid when you are clean.This comment is an important lesson to anyone who is reading this absurd comment.
Dont take advice from people who say not to take legal help, in a legal situation.
UThis is one sub I don’t shit talk. People come here with genuine problems. I prefer to help them instead of wasting there time.Anycase, having a dress code is a standard practise in any court anywhere in the world. Nothing to do with us being in 1925 or 2025. In fact, since it is 2025, and having access to so many resources apart from internet and chatgpt, it’s surprising how ridiculous it is to post something like that without taking a moment to search on this on your own.
U*sigh* the matter before the court was should judge grant him interim relief based on the FIRs which were regarding public obscenity. Lawyer agreed it was vulgar but questioned is it to the level of criminal offence. Judge made a counter remark that if his statements are not obscene than what is obscene. Lawyer did not counter that. What do you expect then? There is a concept of “reasonable person” when looking into criminal offences.Lawyer was suppose to defend that. He couldnt. Judge is correct in asking the reasoning from the lawyer himself that will any “reasonable person” make such remarks. But inspite of that Judge gave him interim relief. What more do you want?
UWhat bias? Those judges heard those recordings and made their remarks based on their vast experience of handling such cases. Even the lawyer agreed that those remarks were uncivilized. So what bias is there?I am actually concerned that you are wasting your time on this issue when there are better things for you to do. Now tell me am I being biased because I personally dislike such youtubers or is it justified based on the multiple posts you are creating, notwithstanding the current comments that “you are not convinced”? Even the article you linked does not justify your stand.
UYes, jeans is not allowed. I had created a post earlier on this – https://www.reddit.com/user/iamjkdn/comments/1iq3h95/steps_for_filing_consumer_complaint/You can check the last para.
UDidn’t I just say SC is yet to hear that case? It has not even listed the case for hearing, let alone pass a judgement.State always has power over you. That’s what state is. What state can’t do is violate your constitutional rights.
USupreme Court did not make a judgement. It made some observations. SC is yet to hear the case. But, why be so bothered about some youtuber, who invited his trouble onto himself?
