The Madras High Court criticized the CBI for biased investigations, highlighting a decline in public trust. To restore credibility, it issued directives for better supervision, legal support, and technological advancements in investigations. The Court condemned unfair prosecutions and emphasized the need for integrity and professionalism within the CBI to regain public confidence.
The Karnataka High Court directed the Central Government to block Proton Mail due to concerns over anonymous vulgar emails posing national security risks. The court highlighted privacy loopholes and the email service’s lack of cooperation. The case emphasizes issues surrounding user privacy, internet safety, and the regulation of encrypted services.
The Supreme Court of India annulled the Delhi High Court’s review of a contempt ruling, deeming it legally impermissible. It upheld a single judge’s finding of “intentional and malafide” disobedience regarding a contempt case. The Supreme Court emphasized that such rulings must be respected and cannot be reviewed without proper legal grounds.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that merely liking a social media post does not equate to sharing it, thus cannot be penalized under Section 67 of the IT Act, which pertains to obscene content. The decision dismissed charges against Imran Khan, emphasizing that liking does not constitute publication or transmission.
Today, On 28th March, The Centre notified the transfer of Justices Yashwant Varma and Chandra Dhari Singh to the Allahabad High Court. This decision is part of the latest judicial reshuffle, impacting high-ranking judges. While the transfers are officially administrative, they have drawn attention due to recent controversies. The move highlights ongoing changes within the Indian judiciary.
A fire broke out in the outhouse of Justice Yashwant Varma’s home, On March 14, where a large amount of cash was reportedly found. This incident has led to many doubts and concerns about what really happened. Officials have not yet explained where the money came from or why it was there. As more questions arise, the issue is getting a lot of attention from the public and legal experts.
Today, On 19th February, The Supreme Court strongly criticized a lawyer for seeking an adjournment due to a senior advocate’s absence. The bench made it clear that merely naming a senior counsel would not be a valid reason for delaying proceedings. Emphasizing the need to curb this practice, the court asserted that such tendencies among lawyers must stop. The remark highlights the judiciary’s firm stance on ensuring the smooth and timely functioning of cases.
Former Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, addressed questions on the judiciary’s composition in a BBC HARDtalk interview, where veteran journalist Stephen Sackur asked whether it is dominated by elite, Hindu, male judges. In response, Chandrachud highlighted ongoing efforts toward inclusivity and judicial reforms, emphasizing the need for diversity. His remarks have sparked discussions on representation within India’s legal system.
The Supreme Court of India, established on January 28, 1950, evolved from historic legal reforms starting with the Regulating Act of 1773. Governed by a collegium system for appointments, it plays a pivotal role in upholding the Constitution’s supremacy. Judges are appointed based on seniority and established eligibility criteria, ensuring judicial integrity.