Today, On 3rd November, The Supreme Court declined to entertain a plea seeking a nationwide ban on social media use by children aged 14–18. CJI BR Gavai remarked, “Do you know what happened when Nepal tried such a ban? Anyway, thank you.”
Justice Sanjiv Khanna, named the 51st Chief Justice of India, is adapting his routine to adhere to the strict protocols that accompany his new role. This has resulted in the cancellation of his daily 10-kilometer morning walks and limits on his mobility, as he prioritizes security while maintaining connections with old friends.
Today, On 21st October, Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud announced a two-week extension for an expert panel reviewing NEET-UG reforms. The Supreme Court’s decision allows the panel to finalize its comprehensive report, addressing key issues in the exam’s administration and highlighting security lapses, while ensuring improvements in transparency and efficiency.
![[Landmark ADM Jabalpur Case] A Shared Legacy of CJI Chandrachud & Justice Sanjiv Khanna](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/image-33-1.png?resize=447%2C360&ssl=1)
CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Sanjiv Khanna are linked through the ADM Jabalpur case, where their predecessors delivered a controversial verdict in 1976. Justice H.R. Khanna’s dissent emphasized the rule of law. Chandrachud later overruled that decision, highlighting progress in India’s legal interpretation of fundamental rights, marking a poetic justice moment.
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.
A letter to CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, drafted by senior lawyers Harish Salve and Adish Agarwala, aimed to address alleged corruption in the apex court’s electoral bond decision. The AILU claims it defends the judiciary’s independence but has faced criticism for remaining silent when the government challenged constitutional fundamentals. The AILU refutes accusations against responsible lawyers and legal bodies.