Today, On 15th September, The Supreme Court, in an interim order by CJI BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, said no case was made to stay the entire Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, but stayed two provisions pending resolution of validity challenges.
The Supreme Court, while hearing the Presidential Reference on Governors’ powers, clarified it will not examine the contentious question of whether States can approach under Article 32 instead of Article 131 in Union–State disputes.
Today, On 18th August, The Supreme Court raised concerns over the appointment of Naima Khatoon as AMU Vice-Chancellor, remarking, “Husband’s participation in wife’s appointment raises doubts,” stressing that decisions must not only be done properly but also be seen as proper.
The Supreme Court will hear next week a plea challenging the appointment of Anurag Gupta as Jharkhand DGP. The CJI said the matter will be “listed before a three-judge Bench” due to its importance.
At Oxford Union, CJI Gavai described the Constitution as a “quiet revolution empowering the marginalised,” stressing its transformative strength in ensuring justice, equality, and dignity for those historically denied voice, rights, and representation in society.
Chief Justice BR Gavai discussed the Indian judiciary’s efforts to enhance arbitration through progressive Supreme Court rulings while aligning with international standards to boost investor confidence. He emphasized the importance of adopting global best practices and improving local arbitration frameworks to foster a trustworthy business environment, crucial for attracting international investments.
The Supreme Court of India has initiated a suo motu contempt case against journalist Ajay Shukla for allegedly referring to a judge as a “Godi judge” in a recent video. This is the first contempt petition of the year, reflecting the court’s commitment to uphold its dignity against derogatory public remarks.
NEW DELHI: 19th May: The Supreme Court of India has clearly said that all retired High Court judges – whether they were permanent judges or additional judges – must receive equal pension and other retirement benefits. This ruling aims to ensure that there is no unfair treatment among retired judges when it comes to pensions and post-retirement benefits.
