Today, On 3rd February, Retired Supreme Court judge Hrishikesh Roy expressed concern over the optics of PM Modi’s visit to Chief Justice DY Chandrachud’s home for Ganpati Puja, calling it “disturbing.” He clarified, however, that no court-related discussions took place during the visit. Roy emphasized that such events could have been avoided to prevent any perception of undue influence. The incident raised questions about the separation of powers and judicial independence.
Justice AS Oka raised concerns about media trials and public comments on ongoing cases, saying they affect the justice system. He spoke at a webinar by the All India Lawyers’ Association for Justice, stressing the need for a fair and responsible judiciary. The discussion focused on keeping court cases free from outside influence. He also highlighted the importance of judicial independence and accountability.
Senior advocate KK Venugopal pointed out that in the early years of Independent India, the judiciary was so independent that Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had strong concerns about its actions. Venugopal’s comments highlight how the judiciary was committed to staying free from political pressure. This tradition still shapes India’s legal system, ensuring a clear separation of powers and protecting the rule of law.
The Supreme Court of India, established on January 28, 1950, evolved from historic legal reforms starting with the Regulating Act of 1773. Governed by a collegium system for appointments, it plays a pivotal role in upholding the Constitution’s supremacy. Judges are appointed based on seniority and established eligibility criteria, ensuring judicial integrity.
The All India Lawyers Union (AILU) condemned Justice Shekhar Yadav’s speech at a Vishva Hindu Parishad event, asserting it threatens judicial independence and promotes hate speech against Muslims. They criticized his remarks for violating constitutional values, emphasizing that democracy should not equate to majoritarianism and called for remedial action against him.
![[Breaking] Centre Appoints Justice Manmohan Appointed As Judge Of The Supreme Court of India](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Collegium-picks-Delhi-HC-chief-justice-Manmohan-for-Supreme-Court-elevation-_-Latest-News-India-Hindustan-Times.png?resize=447%2C309&ssl=1)
The President of India has appointed Justice Manmohan, former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, as a Supreme Court Judge, following a Supreme Court Collegium recommendation. With a distinguished legal career, he is recognized for significant contributions in human rights, urban governance, and corporate law. His appointment adheres to Article 124 of the Constitution.
Justice Dipankar Datta, born on August 10, 1960, assumed office in the Supreme Court on December 12, 2022, after serving as Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. With 81 authored judgments, notable cases include media influence in investigations and challenges against restrictive IT Rules. He retires on February 8, 2030.
![[Kapil Sibal Lecture] "Collegium System was intended to protect judicial independence, but has become centralized & arbitrary": SCBA President](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/image-127.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who currently presides over the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Today (Oct 26) delivered a captivating lecture at the Sikkim Judicial Academy. Renowned for his legal acumen and extensive experience, Sibal addressed fundamental issues concerning judicial independence, constitutional principles, and systemic reforms. From his opening statement to the conclusion, Sibal’s address was both a critical analysis and a clarion call for meaningful reforms within the Indian judiciary.
Kapil Sibal, during a Sikkim Judicial Academy lecture, today (26th Oct) criticized the Collegium system for judicial appointments, claiming it lacks merit and creates challenges. He noted that liberal judges often alter their judgments when elevated to Chief Justice due to ambitions for the Supreme Court, leading to a questionable judicial hierarchy that undermines independence.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the appointment of seven judges, dismissing a petition against the appointments. The court found no merit in the arguments presented, reinforcing the validity and lawfulness of the judicial appointments. The Division Bench rejected the challenge based on various grounds, including lack of advertisement and representation, stating that the appointment process adhered to constitutional procedures.