Today, On 24th March, The Supreme Court asked whether the Enforcement Directorate can seek relief from the West Bengal government after Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee allegedly obstructed its raid at I-PAC, raising broader concerns over accountability and legal recourse.
Surya Kant recused himself from hearing petitions challenging the law on appointment of Election Commissioners. A Bench including Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi was scheduled to hear the matter.
The Supreme Court resolved an ambiguous Chandigarh law officer exam question after conflicting High Court rulings. Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra held that determining which constitutional schedule is immune from judicial review is unsuitable for multiple-choice evaluation.
The Supreme Court of India ruled Air Force Group Insurance Society is “State” under Article 12, restoring employees’ pay parity plea and setting aside Delhi High Court’s 2023 ruling, with Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi.
The Supreme Court said key questions arise over validity of Fact-Check Units targeting misleading news about the government online, with Chief Justice Surya Kant stressing the need to balance regulation and constitutional values while referring the matter to a three-judge bench.
Supreme Court Justice B.V. Nagarathna said judges must honour their oath and judicial dharma even when unpopular decisions risk their elevation or extensions. She stressed that judicial review must balance transformative constitutionalism with the basic structure through courts.
Supreme Court ruled that High Courts cannot disturb the finality of Apex Court orders. It added that non-parties affected by a judgment in rem may seek appropriate remedies in service matters.
The Delhi High Court held that holding a passport and travelling abroad is integral to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav quashed impounding orders, citing violation of natural justice principles.
Today, On 17th February, The Supreme Court declined to entertain another plea seeking fresh rules for regulating public speeches by constitutional authorities, noting its reluctance to repeatedly revisit issues already settled in earlier judgments. It said speech begins in thought, urging discipline.
The Supreme Court of India refused to order reservation for OBC advocates in the appointment of government pleaders in Madhya Pradesh, citing absence of any statutory mandate. However, the Court strongly urged the MP Advocate General to ensure fair representation of marginalised communities and women in future appointments.
