Today, On 1st May, In the Chhattisgarh coal levy scam case, the Supreme Court questioned why all ED matters are burdened on ASG Raju. “Real issue is that all ED cases are being placed on ASG,” said the bench.
Today, On 16th December, Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna urged petitioners opposing the ‘Dharam Sansad’ in Ghaziabad to request an expedited hearing. The petition, led by Prashant Bhushan, claims the event advocates “genocide of Muslims.” Organized by Yati Narsinghanand, it raises concerns over hate speech and potential communal unrest, reflecting past controversies.
The Supreme Court asked Uttar Pradesh (UP) government to propose suitable amendments to the laws governing cooperative societies and other such legal entities to stop conferring ex officio positions on the spouses or family members of the State bureaucrats. The Court directed the government to prepare and place an appropriate draft proposal before it by February 10, 2025.
![[Coal Levy 'Scam'] Apex Court Extends Interim Bail For Former Chhattisgarh CM's Deputy Secretary In ED Case](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Former-Chhattisgarh-Civil-Service-Officer-Saumya-Chaurasias-Bail-Plea-Rejected.jpeg?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Supreme Court today (28th Nov) extended the interim bail of Saumya Chaurasia, former deputy secretary to Chhattisgarh’s ex-CM, linked to a coal-levy scam. She had been in custody for over a year without charges. The trial has not started, and the next hearing is set for late January. The ED opposes her bail.
The Supreme Court addressed gender discrimination faced by elected women representatives, particularly regarding the arbitrary removal of a female Sarpanch in rural areas. Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan highlighted entrenched biases and systemic prejudice against women, calling for urgent reform and emphasizing the need for empowering female leadership in governance.
Yesterday, On 26th November, the Supreme Court of India invalidated preferential land allotment policies favoring MPs, bureaucrats, and journalists, labeling them arbitrary and discriminatory. The court emphasized these practices perpetuate inequality and violate the Constitution’s equality principles. The ruling annulled previous government orders, prioritizing fair resource distribution and public interest.