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.
The Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), dismissing a petition by Anil Babura Baile, linked to the Elgar Parishad case. The court concluded that the law’s provisions are constitutional despite criticisms regarding misuse to suppress dissent.
Justice DY Chandrachud, the former Chief Justice of India, is known for his powerful and progressive judgements that have made a significant impact on India’s legal system. His dissents are also one of the most highlighted moments of his tenure. These are not just disagreements; they reflect his strong beliefs in individual rights, equality, and justice. Often challenging traditional views and questioning majority decisions, his opinions stand out for their clarity and deep understanding of the law. These dissents have sparked important discussions and have the potential to change how laws are interpreted in India.
In April 1976, Justice H.R. Khanna dissented in the ADM Jabalpur case, arguing personal liberty cannot be suspended during emergencies. His principled stand against the Indira Gandhi government led to his bypassing for Chief Justice, marking a pivotal moment for judicial independence. His legacy continues through his nephew, Justice Sanjiv Khanna.
Advocate Balraj Singh Malik, representing one of the accused in the Parliament security breach case, argued before a Delhi court on Monday that the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) should not be applied to young individuals who express frustration with the government’s authoritarian behavior. NEW DELHI: On Monday(9th Sept), the Patiala House Court reserved its […]
The Supreme Court of India today rejected a PIL seeking to declare the caste system unconstitutional. Chief Justice Chandrachud stated that the Constitution acknowledges Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes, dismissing the plea. Additionally, a recent landmark decision revised the framework for SC and ST reservations, allowing states to create sub-classifications within these groups.