The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Delhi high court's order suspending the life sentence of expelled Bharatiya Janata Party leader Kuldeep Singh Sengar in the 2017 Unnao rape case.
Chandrachud said it should be ensured that courts provide safe and accommodating environment for all members of the society.
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that no timelines can be imposed on governors and the president to grant assent to bills passed by state assemblies, clarifying the extent of their powers under Article 200 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court Justice B V Nagarathna dissented against the collegium's recommendation to elevate Patna High Court Chief Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi to the Supreme Court, citing concerns about seniority, regional representation, and the circumstances of his earlier transfer.
The Centre has argued before the Supreme Court that state governments cannot use writ jurisdiction to challenge the actions of the President and Governor regarding bills passed by state assemblies, particularly concerning fundamental rights violations. The President seeks the Supreme Court's opinion on whether states can file writ petitions under Article 32 and the scope of Article 361.
The Supreme Court's opinion on the presidential reference can impact on any number of cases if and when governors, if not the President, take a literary view of the Supreme Court's 'ppinion' on their 'discretionary powers' without reference to the rider on 'reasonable time', points out N Sathiya Moorthy.
A two-judge bench of the top court in 1981 questioned the correctness of the 1967 verdict holding Aligarh Muslim University not to be a minority institution since it was created by a central law and referred the issue to a larger bench for decision.
The Supreme Court has questioned the practice of Governors withholding assent to bills indefinitely, stating that it renders the constitutional provision of 'as soon as possible' meaningless.
'The natural barrier that is Aravalli, you are demolishing it, then who will stop the desert?' 'In future, I predict that people will roam around with oxygen cylinders in Delhi because they won't be able to breathe.'
The Supreme Court of India has scheduled a hearing on February 19 for pleas challenging the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners under the 2023 law. The court emphasized the potential consequences if any action is taken before the hearing. The pleas argue that the 2023 law, which excludes the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel, undermines the independence of the Election Commission and allows for undue influence from the executive branch. The court's earlier verdict in March 2023 called for an independent selection panel comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India to ensure the integrity of the Election Commission. The case highlights concerns about the independence of India's electoral process and the potential for political influence in the appointment of key election officials.
The Centre has opposed the imposition of fixed timelines on governors and the President for decisions on bills passed by state legislatures, arguing that such constraints were intentionally omitted by the Constitution's framers.
The Supreme Court has adjourned pleas challenging the appointments of the chief election commissioner (CEC) and election commissioners (ECs) under the 2023 law. The court indicated the matter would be listed after the Holi festival break due to a paucity of time. Petitioners, including the NGO Association for Democratic Reforms, argued for an urgent hearing, emphasizing the importance of the issue and the potential impact on democratic processes. The appointment of the new CEC and ECs under the 2023 law, which excludes the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel, has been a point of contention, with petitioners alleging it undermines the independence of the election commission.
Calling itself the "custodian of the Constitution", the Supreme Court on Thursday asked if it could "sit idle" if a constitutional functionary like governor failed to discharge duties, as it reserved its verdict on the presidential reference on grant of assent to bills.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments regarding a presidential reference on whether fixed timelines can be imposed on governors and the president for acting on bills passed by state legislatures. The court is considering objections to the maintainability of the reference under Article 143 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a Governor cannot send bills to the President for consideration if the state assembly has already cleared them for a second time. The court was questioning the Centre over the powers of the Governor when it comes to granting assent to bills.
A Constitution bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar, would fix the timelines on July 29 and commence hearing on the presidential reference in mid-August.
The Supreme Court will hear on February 19 pleas challenging the appointments of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners under the 2023 law. The court will take up the matter on a priority basis, after some urgent listed matters. The government has appointed a new CEC and ECs under the new law, which excludes the Chief Justice of India from the selection panel, despite a 2023 Supreme Court verdict directing the inclusion of the CJI in the panel. The petitioners argue that the exclusion of the CJI undermines the independence of the election commission.
The Centre has told the Supreme Court that imposing fixed timelines on governors and the president to act on bills passed by a state Assembly would amount to one organ of the government assuming powers not vested in it by the Constitution and lead to a "constitutional disorder".
A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court will consider review pleas challenging the October 2023 verdict that declined legal sanction to same-sex marriage. The review pleas will be heard in chambers on January 9, with Justice P S Narasimha being the only member of the original bench that delivered the verdict.
It will be court's opinion versus the legislative power to enact law, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said as it posted the pleas challenging the appointment of the chief election commissioner and election commissioners under the 2023 law on February 4.
The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a batch of pleas seeking to review its October 2023 verdict declining legal sanction to same-sex marriage.
Aligarh Muslim University is not a minority educational institution, Supreme Court's Justice Dipankar Datta said on Friday and noted had it not been a "race against time" he would have articulated better in his dissenting opinion. The judge also flagged a non-exchange of ideas and opinions in a "true democratic spirit" to build a consensus.
The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly criticized the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for exceeding its authority and misusing its powers. The latest rebuke came on Thursday, when the court accused the agency of 'crossing all limits' in a money laundering probe against a Tamil Nadu state-run liquor retailer. This follows a string of similar observations by the Supreme Court and high courts across India, raising concerns about the ED's investigative practices and the potential for misuse of its powers.
The CJI, who hails from Andhra Pradesh, had said in the last hearing that he belonged to both the states and suggested 'mediation' to Andhra Pradesh and Telangana for settling their dispute, saying it did not want to interfere 'unnecessarily'.
The Supreme Court on Friday deferred the question of Aligarh Muslim University's minority status to a fresh bench and overruled the 1967 judgment that said the university cannot be considered a minority institution since it was created by a central law.
The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act related to the grant of Indian citizenship to illegal immigrants in Assam by a majority verdict of 4:1.
The Supreme Court of India has stayed a Lokpal order that allowed complaints to be filed against a sitting high court judge. The court termed the order "something very, very disturbing" and a concern for the independence of the judiciary. The bench issued notices to the Centre, the Lokpal registrar, and the complainant, directing them to keep the identity of the judge confidential. The court will hear the matter again on March 18.
The Supreme Court of India will examine the jurisdiction of the Lokpal, India's anti-corruption ombudsman, in entertaining complaints against sitting high court judges. The court is considering a suo motu proceeding initiated over the Lokpal's January 27 order on the issue. The case involves two complaints filed against a sitting additional judge of a high court, alleging that he influenced a judge of the subordinate judiciary and a judge of the same high court set to deal with a suit filed against the complainant by a private company.
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has criticized the government's decision to appoint Gyanesh Kumar as the new Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) in the middle of the night, arguing that it is "disrespectful" and "discourteous" given the ongoing Supreme Court challenge to the selection process. Gandhi presented a dissent note to the selection committee, stating that the process violates the Supreme Court order and undermines the integrity of the electoral process.
The Supreme Court has taken cognisance of the Lakhimpur Kheri incident in which eight people were killed in violence during a farmers' protest, with a bench headed by Chief Justice of India N V Ramana scheduled to hear the matter on Thursday.
Kejriwal, who was arrested on March 21 by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the same case and later by the CBI which was probing corruption charges, stepped out after spending 155 days in Tihar jail. The AAP supremo, who was earlier granted three-week interim bail in the ED case, was given a resounding welcome by his party leaders and supporters who were drenched in heavy rain. Addressing party workers from the top of an SUV, Kejriwal, sporting a half-sleeve blue shirt, raised 'Inquilab Zindabad' and 'Vande Mataram' slogans.
In a viral video of the court proceedings, the judge was seen reprimanding a woman lawyer on Thursday and reportedly made some objectionable comments.
Section 6A, which was incorporated in the Citizenship Act 1955 following the signing of the 1985 Assam Accord, was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Highlights of the judgment pronounced by a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court that on Monday unanimously upheld the Centre's decision to abrogate provisions of Article 370 of the Constitution bestowing special status on the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir.
A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud considered the pleas in chambers and dismissed applications for listing of the review petition in open Court.
Four special benches will start functioning in the Supreme Court from next week to hear criminal appeals, direct and indirect tax and land acquisition matters and motor accident claim cases, Chief Justice of India Justice D Y Chandrachud said on Wednesday.
On February 1, grappling with the intractable issue of the AMU's minority status, the top court said the 1981 amendment to the AMU Act, which effectively accorded it a minority status, only did a "half-hearted job" and did not restore the institution the position it had prior to 1951.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday expunged the observations made by a single judge bench of the Punjab and Haryana high court against the apex court in a contempt case, saying they were "scandalous" and "unwarranted".
Hailing the Supreme Court's verdict upholding the government's decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution as "historic", Prime Minister Narendra Modi asserted on Monday that it is not just a legal judgment, but a "beacon of hope" and a testament to the collective resolve to build a stronger and more united India.
The bench posed questions to senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for one of the petitioners Soayib Qureshi, who has challenged the Centre's August 5, 2019 decision to abrogate the provision.
