Former Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud highlighted the complexities of judicial appointments in India, emphasizing the collaboration between the judiciary and government. He addressed concerns over delays, stressing the importance of a robust dialogue and acknowledging the role of multiple stakeholders. Chandrachud maintained that this multi-layered process ensures fairness and upholds judicial independence.
Today, On 6th November, the Supreme Court criticized Uttar Pradesh for unlawfully demolishing a house in 2019, ordering Rs 25 lakh in compensation to the homeowner. The court emphasized the need for lawful procedures in property demolition and directed an investigation into the involved officials, reinforcing citizens’ rights against arbitrary state actions.
Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud noted that a Supreme Court report on prisoner issues was inspired by President Murmu’s speech on inmates’ challenges. He emphasized the importance of judicial reforms for prisoners’ rights, revealed new publications marking the Supreme Court’s 75th anniversary, and addressed issues like menstrual equity and caste discrimination in prisons.
![[Coal Scam] Setback for Former Jharkhand CM Madhu Koda; Supreme Court Rejects Plea To Contest Upcoming Election](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/image-1-4.jpg?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Today, On 24th October, the Supreme Court will hear Madhu Koda’s plea for a stay on his 2017 conviction concerning the coal scam. Koda, convicted for corruption in coal block allocations, aims to contest upcoming Jharkhand Assembly elections. The Delhi High Court previously denied similar requests, citing disqualification from public office for convicted individuals.
![[Bahraich Violence] "Is State Misunderstood Intent of Previous Order on Demolition Notices?": Allahabad HC Slams UP Govt. For not Filing Response](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/image-2-6.png?resize=447%2C251&ssl=1)
Today, On 23rd October, the Allahabad High Court criticized the Uttar Pradesh government for not responding to a case regarding demolitions in Bahraich. The court expressed frustration over delays and instructed the state to provide detailed information about the road’s category. Affected residents were given 15 days to respond to demolition notices.
Today, On 23rd October, the Delhi High Court scheduled a January 22 hearing for Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s plea against Enforcement Directorate summons related to the excise policy case. Kejriwal seeks legal relief amid investigations into alleged irregularities and money laundering, arguing the process is politically motivated and unconstitutional.
![[Bribery Cases] SC Permits ED Officer Ankit Tiwari to Travel from Tamil Nadu to Madhya Pradesh](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/image-9-4.png?resize=300%2C153&ssl=1)
Today, On 23rd October, the Supreme Court allowed Enforcement Directorate officer Ankit Tiwari to travel from Tamil Nadu to Madhya Pradesh, following his arrest in 2023 on bribery charges. Tiwari had been granted bail in March with travel restrictions. The case, under scrutiny, involves ongoing legal proceedings and potential CBI investigation.
Today, 22nd October, the Supreme Court temporarily halted bulldozer actions linked to the Bahraich violence case, agreeing to review challenges against demolition notices. The Uttar Pradesh government assured no action will be taken until the next hearing. Concerns about sensitive demolition practices prompted this temporary stay for further examination.
Today, On 16th August, The Bombay High Court criticized the Maharashtra government for not activating the state advisory board on disabilities, despite previous court orders. The court emphasized the importance of implementing the board’s functions and expressed concern over the government’s inaction. This issue arose during the court’s consideration of challenges faced by disabled individuals, highlighting the broader issue of compliance with disability rights.
Today, On 14th August, The Supreme Court criticized the Gujarat government for appealing a High Court ruling favoring a sweeper, questioning the decision and demanding details about the officials involved. This stern stance emphasizes adherence to judicial rulings impacting lower-level employees’ livelihoods, stressing responsible government decision-making. Additionally, it warns against unnecessary delays or challenges, reinforcing the importance of justice and efficiency in governance.