On the issue of the appointment of regular CBI director, the court held “In case the due process has not been followed in the appointment, it is always open to any incumbent, if so advised, to question the appointment in accordance with law but not in the routine manner and undue haste as shown in the petition”. Further, on the issue of lack of transparency, the court noted that petitioner has not taken recourse the procedure for appeal under the RTI Act, and therefore no ground to interfere in the matter is made out
On February 19, 2019, the Court refused to interfere with the decision of the high-powered committee comprising Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Leader of single largest opposition party in Lok Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge and Justice A K Sikri, to appoint M Nageswara Rao as Interim Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna today, February 18, 2019 refused to entertain a petition challenging a circular dated August 7, 2018 issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to all private satellite TV channels asking them to “refrain from using the nomenclature Dalit” and, instead, use only the Constitutional term, "Scheduled Caste".
Student leader Veewon Thokchom, who is a former president and now advisor to Manipur Students’ Association Delhi, was critical of the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 and was very vocal about his opinions on the same on social media. The Manipur Police alleged Veewon for spreading “provocative messages” regarding the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2019 which led to protests in Imphal, Manipur. A local court in Delhi issued the transit remand to a team of Manipur police against which Veewon’s brother filed an appeal in the Delhi High Court. After hearing the appeal, Justice Sunil Gaur dismissed the plea challenging Veewon’s transit remand order.
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices A K Sikri and Abdul Nazeer has issued slew of directions on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by noted RTI activists Anjali Bhardwaj, Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd.) and Amrita Johri seeking filling up of the vacancies at Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and also the direction to adhere to the transparent process in the selection process of the Information Commissioners.
two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices A K Sikri and Abdul Nazeer has issued slew of directions in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by noted RTI activists Anjali Bhardwaj, Commodore Lokesh Batra (Retd.) and Amrita Johri seeking filling up of the vacancies at Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and also the direction to adhere to the transparent process in the selection process of the Information Commissioners.
The arrested human rights activists will not get a release from the benefit of ‘default bail’ and now will have to seek regular bail from the Court. The case arose out of the Bombay High Court’s order which held that the report as envisaged by the Section 43D of UAPA, 1967 did not comply with the law and therefore the extension granted for the filing of charge-sheet was held to be patently illegal. Resultantly, it paved way for the bail of the first set of five arrestees — the human rights activists Advocate Surendra P Gadling, journalist Sudhir Dhawale, Shoma Sen, JNU scholar Rona Wilson and former PMRDF fellow Mahesh Raut.
Judgment is to be pronounced tomorrow, February 13, 2019, by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul of the Supreme Court, which will pronounce judgment on the appeal file by Maharashtra government against the Bombay High Court decision refusing the cops a 90-day extension to file a chargesheet against the Bhima Koregaon arrestees, including Surendra Gadling, Mahesh Raut, Rona Wilson, Professor Shoma Sen and Sudhir Dhawale.
AMU and the then Central government had approached the Supreme Court way back in 2006 challenging Allahabad HC's decision that took away the minority status of the AMU. After SC’s order passed today, now the appeals claiming for minority status will be placed before the CJI on the administrative side to list them before a seven-judge bench for the authoritative determination of the issue whether AMU is a minority institution.
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justices L Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna held former interim director M Nageswara Rao and Director of Prosecution Bhasuran guilty of Contempt of Court, the Court imposed a fine of rupees one lakh on each of them and sentences them to sit in a corner of the Chief Justice’s Court till the rising of the Bench today.
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna today, February 11, 2019 dismissed a petition filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) challenging a notification issued by the West Bengal government in 2013 thereby use of loudspeakers in residential areas and near educational institutions from three days before the secondary and higher secondary examinations till they last has been prohibited.
After hearing Attorney General for India K K Venugopal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on February 6, 2019, in a contempt petition against advocate Prashant Bhushan initiated by the former and the Central Government, a bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra of the Supreme Court is all set to decide “whether in a matter which is sub-judice, it is open to criticise the court proceedings to affect the public opinion by litigants and lawyers and protection of various other rights of the litigants are also involved; what are the rights of the litigants and what may amount to interference in the course of administration of justice”.