Besides restrictions on vehicular traffic, the plan envisages many other emergency measures like the closure of schools and power plants, as well as advisories being issued asking people to avoid polluted areas and restrict outdoor movement.
The law commission has engaged a law firm to send questionnaires to stakeholders to determine the feasibility of the Lodha Panel recommendations on legalising betting and bringing the BCCI under the purview of the RTI Act.
Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar led the five-judge constitution bench in the Supreme Court which had struck down the controversial NJAC Act for the appointment of judges.
The outgoing chief justice sided with the majority view because he believed it advances the constitution’s commitment to secularism, which is now recognised as one of its basic features.
The landmark judgment came while the court revisited a judgment from 1995 that called Hinduism a “way of life”.
Seniority is not the ideal norm to determine the appointment of the chief justice of India, but there appears to be no alternative at present.
Parliament must address the flaws in the current process of removing judges from office, which is riddled with systemic flaws such as the inquiry committee becoming invalid if a member retires or is elevated to the Supreme Court, or if the accused judge resigns or retires.
The petition alleged that the Centre took steps in a “completely mala fide, arbitrary and illegal manner to ensure that Asthana was given the charge of CBI director”.
The Supreme Court bench, headed by Chief Justice T.S. Thakur, said that the air pollution situation in Delhi has to be dealt with as a public health emergency.
By finalising a few names recommended by the collegium in accordance with the existing MoP but refraining from considering the rest on the ground that the MoP is not valid, the government is acting inconsistently and without any rationale.
The court was hearing a petition that alleged Gandhi was guilty of violating Section 123 (3) of the Representation of the Peoples Act by appealing for votes on the basis of religion.
The Supreme Court is hearing a petition that alleges Gandhi is guilty of violating Section 123 (3) of the Representation of the Peoples Act by appealing for votes on the basis of religion.
The 1995 judgement on Hindutva will not be reconsidered as the court will restrict itself to deciding whether or not appealing to the religious sentiments of voters amounts to a corrupt practice.
A seven judge bench headed by chief justice, T.S. Thakur, will consider if seeking votes in the name of religion will amount to a corrupt practice.
The apex court said that it would give its verdict on Friday depending on whether or not the Indian cricket board decided to abide by the directives of the committee.
While T.S. Thakur, the Chief Justice of India wants BCCI to follow the Lodha Committee’s suggestions, Justice Katju thinks the committee has “run amok.”
A round-up of news, both bad and good, on the rights front from India.
A letter to T.S. Thakur from activists and former information commissioners says the current state of affairs in the Supreme Court is eroding public trust.
Justice Chelameswar says the practice of not keeping records of collegium meetings hurts the judiciary’s credibility and its relations with the executive.
The organisation has also sought the recusal of Chief Justice of India T. S. Thakur from the five-judge bench that would review the verdict.
T.S. Thakur said he was hoping that there would be a mention of the appointment of judges in Modi’s speech.
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi pleaded for more time and asked that the Supreme Court not issue any notice at the moment.
Had the court chosen to interpret the Act, it could have ruled on the distinction between the illegitimacy of applying the party whip to an expelled legislator and incurring disqualification when the same legislator joins another party.
The recommendations accepted include a bar on ministers and civil servants from holding any post in the organisation, and an age cap of 70 years for every post.
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 court’s rejection of the recent use of Article 356 is a reminder that there is no alternative to strictly adhering to the constitutionally laid down procedures.
Srinagar: Now that the killing of Burhan Wani – described by the national media as “the poster boy” of Kashmir’s new wave of militancy – has unleashed a massive wave of protests across the Valley and led to the death of at least 18 people, we must question […]
The finance minister was wrong to say the courts are destroying the edifice of India’s legislatures “step by step, brick by brick.”
The recommendations, on the face of it, fail to satisfy the criteria mentioned in Supreme Court’s December 16, 2015 judgment, and therefore, raise the question of whether the efforts of the constitution bench to reform the collegium have gone in vain.
Riding the anti-graft wave is a clever strategy that helps the ruling party divert attention from most pressing economic issues, such as the crises in the rural agriculture sector and growing joblessness.
The government should not delay the appointment of judges when there is such a huge pendency of cases, said Justice T.S. Thakur.
Given the high rate of case pendency, Justice T.S. Thakur suggested high courts could authorise the hearing and finalisation of cases during the summer holidays, if the counsel of both the sides were willing.
By hearing only the businessmen guilty of the Uphaar fire—and not the victims or the CBI—in deciding to let the Ansal brothers off without imprisonment, the Supreme Court upended a basic principle of natural justice.