The Supreme Court of India has demoted an Andhra Pradesh officer for violating a High Court order, emphasizing that disobedience undermines democracy. The Court asserted that such actions threaten judicial authority and public trust in the justice system, warning all public officials to adhere to court rulings or face serious consequences.
The Supreme Court of India ruled that the seniority of Civil Judges should be based on their appointment date rather than selection. This judgment arose from a case regarding Civil Judges in Chhattisgarh, confirming that delays in appointments should not disadvantage candidates, thereby clarifying seniority rules within the judiciary.
The Supreme Court of India expressed strong discontent towards an Andhra Pradesh official for breaching a 2013 court order banning slum demolitions in Hyderabad. Despite legal pleas citing family responsibilities, the court emphasized the importance of adhering to judicial directives and warned against undermining its authority amidst criticism from BJP leaders regarding perceived judicial overreach.
The Supreme Court, led by Justice Surya Kant, warned against irregularities in bar elections, particularly in Karnal, after the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the Bar Council of India’s order allowing Advocate Sandeep Chaudhry to contest upcoming elections amid pending misconduct inquiries against him. The court emphasized accountability and oversight.
The Supreme Court strongly criticized J&K officials for failing to comply with a High Court order on regularisation benefits for employees. Calling it a “glaring and textbook example of obstinacy,” the court condemned the officials for disregarding legal directives. The bench emphasized that state authorities are not above the law and must follow judicial orders. The ruling reinforces the importance of accountability in government actions.
Today, On 21st January, The Supreme Court dismissed a plea challenging the High Court’s decision to quash the FIR against BJP MPs in an airport violation case. However, a bench of Justices A S Oka and Manmohan allowed the state government to send the evidence from the investigation to the authorized officer.
The Supreme Court ruled that candidates cannot be denied experience marks for working as outsourced personnel if their duties match those of a sanctioned post. The decision upheld a High Court ruling favoring a respondent’s experience claims, emphasizing equality and relevance in the selection process, irrespective of employment status.
Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar defended Chief Minister Siddaramaiah against allegations following the High Court’s approval for an investigation into a site allotment case. He accused the BJP of orchestrating a political conspiracy and asserted that Siddaramaiah is innocent. The state government plans to appeal the High Court’s ruling.
The Supreme Court condemned lawyer strikes, warning of consequences for the Faizabad Bar Association for abstaining from work. The court emphasized the negative impact of strikes on the justice system and demanded undertakings from all members to never strike again. This precedes a panel takeover and elections by December 2024. The court’s stance upholds its past disapproval of lawyer strikes.