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.
Supreme Court Collegium comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justices A K Sikri and Justice S A Bobde in a meeting of the Collegium held on February 12, 2019, took certain decisions for the appointment of judges in the five High Courts- Allahabad High Court, Kerala High Court, Calcutta High Court, Madhya Pradesh High Court and Orissa High Court. The Collegium agreed to relax the income criterion to a reasonable extent in cases where such recommendees belong to categories of SC/ST/OBC or represent Government in their capacity as Standing /Panel Counsel before the Courts.
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 Bench emphasised that the issue was about a good judicial officer who seeks to join service again. Justice Sikri, in the first of its kind order, the bench passed an order requesting the High Court to hold a full court enquiry and come back within a week, with a decision on her reinstatement with seniority. They pointed out that video conferencing facilities were available in the High Court and there should be no logistical problem in taking a decision as soon as possible. If indeed the High Court agrees to reinstate her with seniority but without back wages, it will indeed set a precedent for women in the judiciary and ensure a working environment free form discrimination.
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.
A vindictive state continued to push for custody in a bid to imprison and even possibly torture Teesta and Javed, in their relentless attempt to silence these fearless human rights defenders. After exposing the criminal activities of a section of the Gujarat Police and of powerful politicians during the 2002 anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat, CJP has been attacked time and time again.
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.
To defend the rights of the imprisoned and to prevent further illegal detentions, we, a group of social justice activists and scholars, came together and formed an association called “Fresh Perspectives, USA.” We have reached out to public intellectuals, critical thinkers and scholars outside India to collect their voice condemning those illegal arrests and the violation of human rights in India. We were amazed by the response from scholars around the world. Some of the signatories are the most influential thinkers of late 20th and 21st Century. Here’s our public statement.
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”.
