CJI Ranjan Gogoi categorised the CVC report as: (1) very complimentary to petitioner on some charges, (2) not complimentary to some charges, (3) not very complimentary to some charges and (4) further probe required in some charges. CJI Gogoi also informed that Justice Patnaik had said that findings in CVC report are not by him. He has just supervised the probe as directed by the Court.
The Union Government has not yet implemented the directions issued by the Supreme Court of India that required the Central Government to give wide-scale publicity to the Supreme Court judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India.
The apex court has reserved the judgment on a clutch of four Public Interest Litigations filed by six persons, namely — the first two by Advocates M L Sharma and Vineet Danda, a third by AAP MLA Sanjay Singh, and the last one jointly filed by former finance minister Yashwant Sinha, former telecom minister Arun Shourie and lawyer Prashant Bhushan.
Through a notice issued by the Registrar, Supreme Court of India, views/suggestions from stakeholders have also been solicited regarding the published names of the advocates aspiring to obtain the senior designation. Stakeholders have been requested to do the same within 15 days hence. Of 105 advocates who have sent in their applications, 15 are are women.
Now the matter will be heard on January 22, 2019 in the open court to enable the petitioners in the review petitions to present oral arguments to make out the case for the review of the decision of the Supreme Court permitting women’s into Sabarimala temple.
The Petitioner through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) had stated that the Fundamental Rights guarantee equality in protection and safeguarding measures, and ensures no discrimination on the basis of sex, life with human dignity, to equality, bodily integrity and privacy.
A three-judge bench comprising of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, Justices U U Lalit and K M Joseph has today, October 31, 2018, directed the Government of India to place before it in a sealed envelope the pricing and strategic details related to the Rafale deal within 10 days.
The Court noted that investigation is at very crucial stage, and thus accused are not entitled to be released on bail.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, and K M Joseph has agreed to examine the legality of the order passed by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) on October 23, 2018, whereby Alok Kumar Verma had been divested of his powers, function and duties as CBI Director in respect of cases already registered and /or required to be registered and/or being inquired/enquired /investigation under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Stressing the provision available to the arrestees under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPc), Justice Mridula Bhatkar says that the provision as contemplated by Section 167 of the Code is a “laudable provision” vindicating the right of the accused to be released after the stipulated period and an incomplete investigation beyond 90 days cannot be a ground to deny the accused bail.
This order has come on an appeal filed by RTI applicant and Indian Forest Service officer Sanjiv Chaturvedi who sought regarding corruption charges against Cabinet Minsters/IAS officers etc. including details of various projects such as ‘Make in India’, ‘Skill India’, ‘Swachh Bharat’and ‘Smart City Project’, etc. from the PMO.
Court has noted that ‘5133 posts out of the total of 22036 posts as on date are vacant. The information collected by the Registry of this Court from the Registries of different High Courts indicates that recruitment process/processes to fill up 4180 posts are presently underway and the said recruitment processes are poised at different stages in different States. The information collected also indicates that total of 1324 posts out of the 5133 vacancies are yet to be subjected to any recruitment process’.