CJAR Questions State-Sponsored Travel by CJI, Supreme Court Judges: “Justice Must Not Only Be Done, But It Must Also Be Seen To Be Done”

CJAR has raised concerns over the use of state-sponsored and private aircraft for official travel by the Chief Justice of India and several Supreme Court judges. The group warned that such arrangements by governments that frequently litigate in the Supreme Court may raise questions about judicial propriety and public perception of independence.

Centre to Ignore Justice BV Nagarathna’s Dissent: “Will Proceed with Justice Vipul Pancholi’s Elevation”

Centre has decided to move ahead with the elevation of Justice Vipul Pancholi, despite Justice BV Nagarathna’s strong opposition. Sources said the government will proceed with the appointment, making clear that her dissent will not stall the process.

CJAR Urges Supreme Court To Question Centre On Delayed Judge Appointments: “Unconstitutional, Illegal”

The CJAR Today (July 8) strongly criticized the Indian government for delaying the appointment of Swetashree Majumder and Rajesh Datar as High Court judges. They urged the Supreme Court to protect judicial independence and seek answers from the Centre.

SC Collegium Led By CJI Khanna Breaks Tradition: Meets High Court Judgeship Candidates Amid Justice Yadav’s Controversy At VHP Event

The Supreme Court collegium, led by CJI Sanjiv Khanna, conducted interviews for high court judgeships to improve candidate evaluation. This follows controversies involving Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav’s remarks at a VHP event, raising concerns about judicial impartiality. The collegium aims to enhance transparency and integrity in judicial appointments through personal interactions.

[VHP Event] NGO Writes To CJI Khanna Seeks ‘In-house’ Inquiry Against Allahabad HC Judge For His Remarks

Prashant Bhushan, representing the NGO CJAR, criticized Justice Yadav for his comments at a VHP event, claiming they undermine judicial impartiality and erode public trust. The letter requests an in-house inquiry and highlights concerns about the judge’s remarks targeting Muslims, advocating for the Uniform Civil Code, and violating judicial ethics.