A sitting Supreme Court judge should not have delivered a verdict from a moot court podium on a matter listed before his own Court the next morning. That does not make what he said wrong, and the Commission has spent a week proving it.
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.