Is it not more urgent to investigate the four Supreme Court judges’ disquiet than to make noises of disapproval about their alleged breach of conduct?
In conversation with Arun Shourie on dissenting judges, judicial independence and the ‘established’ media.
Vinod Dua discusses the judge Loya case in light of his son Anuj Loya’s press conference and the recent crisis in the Supreme Court of India.
The apex court said if an adult man and woman marry, no khap panchayat, individual or group can question them.
The constitution bench, formed earlier to hear the Aadhaar matter, comprises CJI Dipak Misra and Justices A.K. Sikri, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan.
Urmilesh discusses the implications of the unprecedented press conference by four SC judges with Bhadra Sinha, senior assistant editor at Hindustan Times, and Siddharth Varadarajan, founding editor of The Wire.
Karan Thapar interviews former Union Minister of Law and Justice Ashwani Kumar about the unprecedented press conference by the four Supreme Court Justices, its implications and repercussions.
“I had suspicions earlier, but now have no doubts,” Anuj Loya told a press conference, requesting the media “not to harass the family.”
Two days after Supreme Court justices J. Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph held a press conference to discuss administrative issues plaguing the apex court, four former judges have written an open letter to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Deepak Misra urging him to set up […]
It was — and remains — the duty of the chief justice of India to give confidence to the entire judicial fraternity that no magistrate across the land need feel unsafe under his watch.
‘Jan Gan Man Ki Baat’ Episode 180: SC Judges’ Press Conference And Challenges Before The Indian Judiciary
Vinod Dua discusses the historic press conference by four rebel Supreme Court judges and the challenges before the Indian judiciary.
‘Dark Day for Democracy’: Radio Silence from BJP over SC Row, Cong Calls for Probe into Loya’s Death
Political parties reacted cautiously to the concerns raised by four SC judges over judicial interference and ‘selective assignments’.
A look at how the case progressed.
Siddharth Varadarajan, founding editor of The Wire, discusses the implications of today’s historic press conference by four top justices of the Supreme Court.
“Democracy won’t survive without a free judiciary.”
Full text of the letter four senior Supreme Court Justices submitted to the CJI several months ago. A press conference on the same issue was held on Friday.
The SC on Thursday set up a three-member special investigation team headed by former Delhi high court judge SN Dhingra to probe the 1984 cases.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud today took note of the submission seeking urgent hearing on the plea for a probe into the case.
In a relief for 1984 anti-Sikh riots victims, the SC has decided to reopen 186 cases not investigated further by the Union government’s SIT.
“It would not be inaccurate to say that one of our most powerful and respected institutions is not keen or able to look after its own – its judges”.
The Supreme Court asked the Valsad Parsi Trust to apprise it by December 14 whether it could allow the complainant to attend the last rites of her parents.
“A judicial probe at this point, at least to respond to the queries of raised by the family, and to uphold the image of the judiciary in the eyes of the people of India, is absolutely necessary.”
“It’s a very sad day in the history of the judiciary which is certainly going to undermine the image of the judiciary and even public confidence in the judiciary.”
The larger bench on Friday took strong exception to the order passed by the two-judge bench and said no bench can take up a matter unless allocated by the CJI who “is the master of the court”.
The collegium said that it would consider the Intelligence Bureau’s inputs on integrity only if they are corroborated with material evidence.
Ultimately, the bench decided to leave it to the government to decide whether its order needs to be diluted or further cemented.
The government should take into account the “dynamic progress” made in modern science to adopt painless methods of carrying out the death sentence, the chief justice-headed bench said.
The Supreme Court has said that now that the deadline has been extended, it will hear a batch of Aadhaar-related petitions in November.
The apex court set aside a Gujarat high court order that asked the state government to pay for the reconstruction and repair work on religious structures.
Justice Misra was part of the bench that confirmed the death sentence of the convicts in the December 16 rape case and passed the order for mandatory singing of the national anthem in cinema halls.
Misra will take over from CJI J.S. Khehar, who will retire on August 27.
Given the allegations of impropriety against him, should Justice Dipak Misra become the next CJI just because he is the senior-most judge in the Supreme Court?
A three-member committee of high court judges set up to probe two Odisha judges had to halt their inquiry last month when Justice Misra’s name cropped up.
An intervener in the case has argued that decisions like making the singing of the national anthem compulsory should rest with parliament and not the judiciary.
The collegium appears divided on the issues of transparency and government influence in the judge selection process, further aggravating the burden on the Supreme Court.
For the Supreme Court, the question of interim stay on Tamil Nadu’s Jallikattu Amendment Act is still open.
The apex court initiated this as an interim measure to make sure that the BCCI implements Justice Lodha panel recommendations.
The Supreme Court has missed a chance to bring the criminal defamation law within the frameworks required of a liberal, egalitarian state.
Though a draft of judgement has been prepared but it was not possible to deliver it before Saturday – when Jallikattu is to be organised.
Although a law exists that criminalises insulting the national flag, national anthem and the constitution, it does not make it mandatory for a citizen to stand up when the anthem is played. The apex court has thus created a new offence without any legislation to back it.