The Supreme Court will Today (Dec 5) hear a batch of petitions challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, including those that question the validity of certain provisions of the act. The bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar, also had before it pleas supporting the Act and seeking directions for its proper enforcement.
Today, On 4th December, Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna will preside over petitions contesting the constitutional validity of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, aimed at preserving the religious character of places of worship as of August 15, 1947. The case involves multiple petitioners, highlighting significant constitutional and societal debates.
The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, denied an advocate’s plea to reduce a five-year suspension by the Bar Council of India for misconduct. The Court criticized the advocate for participating in Bar Association elections while suspended, asserting he showed no remorse and deserved no sympathy. The appeal was dismissed.
![[Controversial Job Appointment] 'Unconstitutional': SC rejects Kerala Govt. Plea](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/image-5-1.png?resize=447%2C364&ssl=1)
The Supreme Court upheld the Kerala High Court’s ruling that invalidated R Prasanth’s appointment as an engineer, citing violations of norms and nepotism. The court emphasized the importance of transparency in public appointments and clarified that compassion in hiring should not extend to elected officials’ relatives, ensuring fairness for other candidates.
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) raised concerns in a letter to Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna regarding recent architectural changes at the Supreme Court. They criticized the lack of consultation over glass partitions and the relocation of the National Judicial Museum, fearing these actions could undermine institutional heritage and inclusivity in decision-making.
Today, On 2nd November, Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna will hear a PIL against the Election Commission’s decision to raise the maximum voter count per polling booth from 1,200 to 1,500. Petitioner Indu Prakash Singh argues this could lead to overcrowding and marginalization of disadvantaged groups, prolonging voting times and reducing turnout.
Rasik Chandra Mandal, a 104-year-old man serving a life sentence for a 1988 murder, was granted interim bail by the Supreme Court after years of unsuccessful appeals. His case, prompted by his advanced age and health concerns, will continue to be reviewed by the trial court under specific conditions.
![[Sambhal Stone-Pelting Probe] 3-Member Judicial Commission Formed For Transparent Inquiry](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Sambhal-stone-pelting-incident_-3-member-judicial-inquiry-commission-formed-_-India-News-Business-Standard.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Uttar Pradesh Governor Anandiben Patel has formed a three-member Judicial Inquiry Commission, led by retired Justice Devendra Kumar Arora, to investigate the November 24 stone-pelting incident in Sambhal that resulted in four deaths and multiple injuries. The commission will evaluate the causes, examine law enforcement response, and recommend preventive measures within two months.
![[Chhattisgarh NCP Leader Murder] SC Grants Bail to Two Convicts in 20-Year-Old Case](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/image-74-1.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Today, On 26th November, the Supreme Court granted bail to two convicts in the 2003 politically motivated murder case of NCP leader Ram Avatar Jaggi in Chhattisgarh. This decision followed extensive legal proceedings and a review of the time served. The court’s actions reflect its ongoing reassessment of lengthy cases as hearings continue on related appeals.
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.