The firebrand trade unionist, lawyer and teacher is under house arrest, charged under the draconian Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, for merely representing the downtrodden and the vulnerable, the Dalits and their legal voices. But Sudha Bharadwaj has mentored so many wide-eyed law students and young lawyers eager to make a difference to our deeply unjust world that the tributes just keep pouring in, even as they wait for her to be exonerated in the court of law.
‘#MeToo is an example of a successful self-correction leading to change of mind sets. Nevertheless, we would still be seeking help from experts to assess if there are any changes required anywhere so that women feel safer in the work places. I am going to set up a body of judges who will act as a Commission . They can hear the complaints and then give us their recommendations.’
The lady former judge has contended that her resignation amounts to “deemed termination”. The relief sought by way of this petition by the ADJ is her re-instatement to the post of ADJ along with seniority as applicable to her tenure, back wages and all other consequential relief.
A three-judge bench consisting of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K M Joseph on October 4, 2018 dismissed an application filed through Advocate Prashant Bhushan praying for the restraint order against deportation of any Rohingya refugee lodged in jails or detention centres in Assam or any other part of the country.
In a more than welcomed judgment pertaining to Indira Jaising v. Registrar General of Supreme Court commonly known as the “live streaming” case, Chief Justice Dipak Misra, and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud conceded to the demand of the petitioner-in-person, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising to allow the live-streaming of court proceedings. Justices Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud authored two separate judgments with Chief Justice Misra siding with Justice Khanwilkar.
In their plea, advocates R P Luthra and Satyaveer Sharma had said they were seeking adjudication of the question of law relying on the contents of the press conference of January 12, called by four senior judges (Justices Chelameswar (since retd), Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph) of the apex court.
Though the Court refused to declare that a candidate with criminal antecedents stands disqualified for contesting an election upon framing of criminal charges, has issued slew of direction with regard to the disclosure of the antecedents of the candidates and the responsibilities of the political parties.
