The Supreme Court Collegium recommended Advocate Bibhu Datta Guru and Advocate Amitendra Kishore Prasad for judgeship in the Chhattisgarh High Court, citing their suitability based on age and standing at the Bar. The recommendation followed the Chief Justice of the Chhattisgarh High Court’s endorsement, with the Chief Minister and Governor of Chhattisgarh in agreement.
![[Defamatory Remarks] "Calcutta HC's Restraining Order Against CM to be Challenged": Mamata Banerjee's Lawyer](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/image-2024-07-18T142955.687.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Mamata Banerjee’s lawyer announced plans to challenge the Calcutta High Court’s restraining order against the Chief Minister. The issue arose after Governor Bose filed a defamation case against Banerjee on June 28. Calcutta: After the Calcutta High Court‘s ruling to prohibit West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee from making ‘defamatory‘ remarks against Governor C.V. Ananda […]
Today, On 16th July, The Calcutta High Court restrained West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and others from making defamatory statements against Governor CV Ananda Bose, citing harm to his reputation. This comes in response to a defamation suit filed by the Governor. Banerjee’s counsel plans to substantiate her statements with relevant documents, with the next hearing scheduled for August 14.
![[BREAKING] "Against Article 200 of the Constitution": Bengal Govt Moves Supreme Court Against Governor for Withholding Assent for Bills](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/image-64-1.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The West Bengal government challenged the Governor’s withholding of assent for eight bills in the Supreme Court, citing it as a violation of the Constitution and an impediment to governance and welfare. Tensions between the government and the Governor have escalated, leading to a defamation case and legal action to uphold constitutional provisions.
Today, On 14th June, The Calcutta High Court allowed Suvendu Adhikari and post-poll violence victims to visit Raj Bhavan after their initial entry was impeded by police. The court questioned the governor’s “house arrest” status and directed Adhikari to seek permission for the visit. Allegations and denials were presented, and the court ordered a fresh request for the visit.
Today, On 27th May, Ramesh Chennithala filed a petition in the Kerala High Court, challenging recent amendments to the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, which he believes weaken the anti-corruption body’s independence. The amendments shift decision-making power and alter the qualifications for the Lok Ayukta, undermining its effectiveness. Chennithala contends these changes violate constitutional principles.
![[BREAKING] WB Governor Accused of Sexual Harassment | Does Article 361 Provides Immunity?](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/MicrosoftTeams-image-79.jpg?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Allegations of sexual harassment against West Bengal’s Governor, CV Ananda Bose, by a staff member of Raj Bhavan have sparked a heated dispute. The Governor’s claim of immunity under Article 361 is being debated, drawing parallels to past cases. The Supreme Court has upheld absolute immunity for Governors, even in cases of personal misconduct. Such immunity was recognized in a 2017 case involving Kalyan Singh, and historical resignations have occurred amidst similar allegations.
The Rajasthan High Court criticized the state government for a slow response to petitions, labeling it as “lethargic” and failing to fulfill welfare obligations. Highlighting delays in addressing unemployed individuals’ claims, the court urged the Governor’s intervention to safeguard the state’s interests in the litigation system and court judgments.
![[Delhi Excise Policy Scam] ED Opposes Arvind Kejriwal's Interim Bail Plea In Delhi Court](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/image-292.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Today (28th March): The Delhi High Court rejected a PIL aiming to oust Arvind Kejriwal as Delhi Chief Minister after his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate. The Court affirmed that the issue falls under the executive and should be addressed by the President or Governor. It emphasized the separation of powers and refused to intervene in the matter.