Yesterday, On 25th October, the Supreme Court issued a contempt notice to Andhra Pradesh’s Chief Secretary for alleged violations regarding the Kolleru Lake wetlands protection. The court highlighted non-compliance with a 2006 order mandating the restoration of the sanctuary, including demolishing illegal fish tanks. The Chief Secretary must explain the disregard for these directives.
On September 23, Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud began construction on a new Bombay High Court complex, while the Supreme Court directed Maharashtra’s chief secretary to arrange a meeting about redeveloping an annexe building. Urgent repairs are needed, and plans for temporary relocation of court facilities are in motion, reflecting the court’s historical importance.
Today, On 6th September, The Supreme Court issued notices to Jharkhand’s Chief Secretary and Acting DGP Anurag Gupta in response to a contempt of court petition challenging Gupta’s appointment. The petitioners argue that his appointment violates established legal guidelines, including previous Supreme Court rulings, and seek its quashing. The respondents must submit their replies within two weeks.
The Delhi High Court directed the Chief Secretary to address complaints of selective CCTV camera installation in Laxmi Nagar following allegations by BJP MLA Abhay Verma. The MLA claimed bias in the installation process, accusing the AAP-led government of favoring areas represented by their party. The petition seeks equitable distribution of cameras and challenges the current approval process.
BJP MLA Abhay Verma today filed a petition in the Delhi High Court, alleging that the AAP-led Delhi government is showing bias in the installation of CCTV cameras by prioritizing areas represented by AAP members and neglecting those under BJP’s jurisdiction. The case, set to be heard on August 27, aims to ensure fairness and improve security in Laxmi Nagar.
Today, On 7th August, the Supreme Court reprimanded the Maharashtra government for prioritizing freebies over compensating citizens whose properties were acquired. The Ladli Behna scheme was specifically mentioned. The court warned against disregarding its orders and criticized the government for not submitting an affidavit regarding compensation. Failure to do so could result in the chief secretary appearing in person.
![[Breaking] CJI Extends Stay on Notices Issued by LS Pivileges Panel to West Bengal Officials Till Jul 19](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/image-40-2.png?resize=400%2C300&ssl=1)
The Supreme Court today extended the stay on notices summoning West Bengal officials until July 19 due to the unavailability of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. The notices were related to an alleged breach of privilege by them regarding their response to a complaint filed by a BJP MP. The court will continue addressing the plea on July 19.
The Supreme Court of India addressed the inhumane conditions in Indian prisons, urging states and union territories to take comprehensive measures to improve inmate well-being. The Court emphasized the protection of prisoners’ fundamental rights and directed officials to submit detailed affidavits addressing capacity, logistics, and enhancement efforts. The apex court set a deadline for these submissions and called for urgent action.
Today, On 5th May, The Delhi High Court directed the chief secretary to address a plea for a door-to-door survey to determine senior citizen numbers and build elderly homes in Delhi’s districts. The court stressed prompt resolution, emphasizing a comprehensive and inclusive approach involving multiple stakeholders. This step aims to strengthen the support system for the elderly by providing accurate data for effective measures.
![[Breaking] Uttarakhand Gov. Slammed By the SC Over "Lackdaisical Approach" To Control Forest Fires](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/MicrosoftTeams-image-67.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Today (15th May): The Uttarakhand Government faced criticism from the Supreme Court for its ineffective response to forest fires. The court summoned the Chief Secretary to appear and highlighted the serious consequences of the lack of action. The government claimed that only 0.1% of wildlife areas were affected, but the court emphasized the need for immediate and proactive measures.