There was speculation a few months ago that the Supreme Court collegium was considering his name as a judge of the apex court.
Former attorney general Mukul Rohatgi talks about the recent right to privacy judgment, his objections to it, paranoia surrounding the Aadhaar and more.
“I did not mean that, that privacy is nothing. I only placed the position of the Supreme Court judgements.”
The eight-judge bench has been overruled and the Aadhaar issue has been left unresolved. So where is the question of winning?’’, former Attorney General Rohatgi said.
How will the eminent lawyer perform in key matters such as the collegium system for appointing judges, the Aadhaar privacy case and the cattle sale ban case?
While the Centre may choose someone who sees eye to eye with it on pending legal issues, it should remember that the attorney general’s role is conceived as independent and non-political – a principle that Setalvad stood by.
Was TRAI, after consulting with the AG, right in allowing Reliance Jio to extend its tariff promotional offer after it expired?
Rohatgi was appointed as the AG on June 19, 2014 immediately after the BJP government came to power in May that year.
If the aggressive anti-rights stand of the government in the Aadhaar case triumphs, the march towards an authoritarian state will be swift.
The Association of African Students in India held a press conference along with Irom Sharmila to condemn growing racism and violence in India.
The story of Aadhaar is one of coercion, rampant illegality and outrageous contempt of court orders through which the project has built its database.
The apex court appeared concerned regarding the options that would be left to a Muslim man if all forms of talaq were struck down.
In attorney general Mukul Rohatgi’s arguments in favour of Aadhaar, the body is reduced to its exchange value.
In his opening remarks, attorney general Mukul Rohatgi said India was a secular state with no religion and that the constitution protects the rights of minorities.
The bottom line is that the government has not been able to rebut the petitioners’ claim that insisting income tax assessees acquire Aadhaar numbers is inconsistent with the Aadhaar Act, which aims at voluntariness.
Jan Gan Man Ki Baat Episode 46: Citizen’s Right to Their Bodies and Fake News
Senior lawyer K.K. Venugopal had advised the court to ignore Justice Karnan’s orders since no one was taking them seriously and wait till he retires in June. But Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi wanted strict action against the Calcutta high court judge.
Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi defended the Indian army’s use of Farooq Ahmed Dar as a human shield in Beerwah, Kashmir, by saying that “peculiar situations require peculiar measures”.
Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi told the court that they have found people were giving details of PAN cards procured on the basis of fake documents.
The court said that an unexpected rise in the price of coal imported from Indonesia will not absolve the Adanis from performing their part of the contract.
“You can’t arbitrarily exercise the power by closing the window,” the chief justice said.
The recent Delhi high court ruling exempting the attorney general’s office from disclosing information raises questions about how it aids Mukul Rohatgi.
Taking exception to the widespread protests across the state in support of Jallikattu, the Supreme Court observed that such things cannot be permitted in a country governed by the rule of law.
Given previous cases, the Centre’s decision to remove (or not) governors after allegations of cognisable offences seems to depend on their political leanings.
The apex court initiated this as an interim measure to make sure that the BCCI implements Justice Lodha panel recommendations.
If nationalism, the way its sternest adherents argue, is a deep and overwhelming sentiment, then why do we need a disciplining machine to enforce that sentiment in us?
The petitioner submitted that the ministries of environment and science have openly pushed GM mustard and that they shouldn’t be allowed to regulate GMOs.
“Such a view coming from a retired judge of this Court needs to be treated with greatest of respect and consideration” the bench said in its order.
Asking the apex court to recall its order, the Centre said it would set up a technical team to assess the ground realities of the Karnataka-Tamil Nadu water dispute.
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi pleaded for more time and asked that the Supreme Court not issue any notice at the moment.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Arunachal Pradesh is the third consecutive setback for the Modi government, which has used its criticism of the judiciary to divert public attention from its own performance.
The apex court-appointed panel is investigating alleged scuttling of probe into the coal block allocation scam by Ranjit Sinha.
The Kejriwal government had initially moved the Delhi high court, not realising that its claim of Delhi being a state locked in a federal dispute with the Modi government is best heard before the apex court.
This ordinance will ensure that students of state government boards will not have to take NEET on July 24.
As a result, the nine MLAs cannot vote in tomorrow’s floor test in the Uttarakhand assembly.
What the court ended up doing was restore president’s rule, effectively removing the chief minister, and asking the high court to send the order which it had not seen but blindly suspended.
Unlike the Supreme Court which heard the case on Nabam Tuki’s ouster as Arunachal chief minister, the Uttarakhand high court accepted Harish Rawat’s plea that any delay in granting his prayer could make the result infructuous
The Uttarakhand HC is unconvinced by the Centre’s motives in imposing president’s rule, saying that they are “cutting at the roots of democracy”.
New Delhi: In a recent case in the Supreme Court, Kerala Bar Hotels Association vs State of Kerala, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi appeared for a private four star hotel which challenged the validity of the Kerala government’s liquor policy restricting the grant of bar licences to only five […]
Is it morally right or legally permissible for a government to insist on the waiver of fundamental rights for accessing benefits?