<?xml version="1.0"?>
<oembed><version>1.0</version><provider_name>Law Times Journal</provider_name><provider_url>https://lawtimesjournal.in</provider_url><author_name>Nirali Jain</author_name><author_url>https://lawtimesjournal.in/author/nirali-jain/</author_url><title>'Excludes Young Successful Advocates; Arbitrary &amp; Discriminatory': SC - Law Times Journal</title><type>rich</type><width>600</width><height>338</height><html>&lt;blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="c2bNg3Ykhk"&gt;&lt;a href="https://lawtimesjournal.in/excludes-young-successful-advocates-arbitrary-discriminatory-sc/"&gt;&#x2018;Excludes Young Successful Advocates; Arbitrary &amp; Discriminatory&#x2019;: SC&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;iframe sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" src="https://lawtimesjournal.in/excludes-young-successful-advocates-arbitrary-discriminatory-sc/embed/#?secret=c2bNg3Ykhk" width="600" height="338" title="&#x201C;&#x2018;Excludes Young Successful Advocates; Arbitrary &amp; Discriminatory&#x2019;: SC&#x201D; &#x2014; Law Times Journal" data-secret="c2bNg3Ykhk" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" class="wp-embedded-content"&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;&lt;script type="text/javascript"&gt;
/* &lt;![CDATA[ */
/*! This file is auto-generated */
!function(d,l){"use strict";l.querySelector&amp;&amp;d.addEventListener&amp;&amp;"undefined"!=typeof URL&amp;&amp;(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&amp;&amp;!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),c=new RegExp("^https?:$","i"),i=0;i&lt;o.length;i++)o[i].style.display="none";for(i=0;i&lt;a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&amp;&amp;(s.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message?(1e3&lt;(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r&lt;200&amp;&amp;(r=200),s.height=r):"link"===t.message&amp;&amp;(r=new URL(s.getAttribute("src")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&amp;&amp;n.host===r.host&amp;&amp;l.activeElement===s&amp;&amp;(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener("message",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),r=0;r&lt;s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute("data-secret"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+="#?secret="+t,e.setAttribute("data-secret",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:t},"*")},!1)))}(window,document);
/* ]]&gt; */
&lt;/script&gt;
</html><thumbnail_url>https://lawtimesjournal.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/supreme-court-1-1-696x364-2-1.jpg</thumbnail_url><thumbnail_width>1200</thumbnail_width><thumbnail_height>628</thumbnail_height><description>The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the majority of 2:1 held that the minimum age limit of 50 years that is prescribed by the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalization and Conditions of Service) Ordinance 2021 for the appointment of members in various tribunals are arbitrary and discriminatory.</description></oembed>
