Justice G. Jayachandran criticized Justice G.R. Swaminathan for bias against State police and hasty decision-making in YouTuber ‘Savukku’ Shankar’s detention case. Swaminathan’s failure to consult his bench partner and refusal to allow the State to file a counter affidavit led Jayachandran to declare Swaminathan’s opinion invalid. Swaminathan’s explanations were deemed inadequate.
![[Post-Poll Violence] Calcutta HC Seeks Alternative Venue for Suvendu Adhikari's Planned Dharna Outside Raj Bhavan](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/image-8-1.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Today, On 10th June, Suvendu Adhikari, a BJP leader approached the Calcutta High Court to address the post-poll violence in West Bengal, seeking protection for victims. Alleging attacks orchestrated by the ruling party, TMC, he demands a neutral investigation by the CBI or another independent agency. The court has scheduled hearings on Adhikari’s and another lawyer’s petitions.
Today, On 7th June, The Calcutta High Court has requested a response from the National Testing Agency (NTA) following a PIL alleging irregularities in the NEET UG 2024 examination. Concerns were raised about the fairness of the test, prompting the court to ensure transparency. The NTA has been directed to provide detailed explanations and follow reservation policies for the examination.
The Madras High Court referred the Savukku Shankar case, previously given a split verdict, to a regular division bench, declaring the previous ruling an “anomaly.” The new bench will consider two key questions and review the habeas corpus petition. Justice Jayachandran criticized the delay and lack of judicial integrity in the case.
The Supreme Court of India emphasized the need for litigants to follow the correct legal process when appealing single-judge decisions of High Courts. The Court reprimanded a party for directly appealing to the Supreme Court without first presenting their case to a division bench of the Orissa High Court. This ruling reaffirms the proper hierarchy for appealing decisions.
The Madras High Court authorized the wife of a comatose patient to sell his property for medical expenses. The court appointed her as the guardian, allowing her to manage the property and use the proceeds for the patient’s care. The decision was made under the court’s writ jurisdiction, in absence of statutory remedy for such cases.
Today(on 8th May), The Bombay High Court rejected a PIL seeking FIR against celebrities endorsing tobacco and gutka ads, citing lack of legal merit and suitable pleadings. The petitioner sought withdrawal after the court’s remarks, and it was granted. The Court advised the NGO to approach PILs with more seriousness and thorough research in the future.
On 7th May: The Supreme Court allowed Abbas Ansari to participate in his father’s 40th-day religious ceremony via video conference, showing compassion for his loss and legal entanglements. Ansari’s legal team challenged the accusations, while the UP government accused him of threats. The court has previously granted him opportunities to participate in significant events.
Today(on 6th May), The Gujarat High Court granted permission to former BJP MP Dinu Solanki and six others to appeal against their conviction in the murder case of RTI activist Amit Jethwa. The court noted biased investigation and quashed the CBI court’s life imprisonment sentence, raising doubts about the integrity of the entire process. The case has seen legal scrutiny since 2010.