Two questions have become tangled in the debate over the Supreme Court’s September 23 order in Medha Roopam v. Akriti Chaudhary: whether Justice Satish Chandra Sharma ought to have sat on the matter, and whether the stay he passed was legally sound. The answers, this analysis argues, point in opposite directions, the propriety concern deserves an institutional answer, but the stay on the compensation and strictures was close to inevitable on settled precedent.
The Supreme Court’s order in Pawan Khera v. State of Assam is not just another anticipatory bail order it is a quiet but firm reminder that the criminal process cannot be allowed to become a vehicle of political rivalry. The Chief Minister’s own words, the Court found, were a part of the record it could not ignore.
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud spoke out against a doctored video that misrepresented his actions, leading to online harassment. He used the incident to highlight the need for improved facilities for women in district courts. Chandrachud also emphasized mentorship for younger judges. The event showcased discussions on judiciary challenges and advancements.
Former Finance Secretary Subhash Chandra Garg highlighted that while the State Bank of India (SBI) had access to details such as who bought electoral bonds and when, matching each bond with its recipient party was deemed impossible. He criticized SBI’s request to the Supreme Court for more time to provide data as a “cooked up […]
Calcutta High Court Judge, Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay, has resigned to potentially enter politics. Known for uncovering corruption in West Bengal’s education sector, his departure sparks debates and reflects his disillusionment with the judiciary’s limitations. His transition raises questions about the link between law and politics, with many curious about his future impact.