Today, (on April 29),The Supreme Court of India hears a petition challenging the application of Shariat law to non-believers, brought by a former Muslim seeking equal inheritance rights. The court recognizes legal uncertainties and grants the petitioner the liberty to amend her plea for the next hearing in July 2024. The case highlights the conflict between personal and secular laws.
On Wednesday (18th April): The Supreme Court scheduled a hearing for an independent candidate from Banka, Bihar. The candidate contests the cancellation of their Lok Sabha polls nomination, citing arbitrary decision-making by Election Returning Officers. The petition also seeks clarity on the term “defects of substantial character” in the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
On Monday(8th April), The Supreme Court of India is reviewing petitions challenging the appointment of 68 Gujarat judicial officers, claiming a preference for seniority over merit. Advocate R. Basanth argued that candidates with higher suitability test scores were overlooked. The hearings will continue until April 15, 2024. Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud proposed evaluating candidates primarily based on merit.
Former Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, discussed the distinction between judicial activism and judicial overreach, highlighting the judiciary’s responsibility to bring about constructive change while respecting boundaries. He emphasized the transformative impact of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and the need for timely justice to uphold public trust and the rule of law.
At the 2024 ABA-India Conference, Justice Hima Kohli emphasized the Indian judiciary’s commitment to sustainable economic development and the interdependence of economic progress, environmental preservation, and individual rights. She highlighted the potential for collaboration with the United States to enhance economic development and strengthen democratic and legal foundations. The judiciary’s focus on sustainable growth can position India as a global leader in environmentally conscious economic development.
Supreme Court Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gaval stressed the crucial role of judicial review in India’s governance at a Harvard Kennedy School lecture, highlighting its impact on executive accountability and policy shaping. He emphasized the judiciary’s duty to ensure legality and constitutionality of government actions, and the transformative influence of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in empowering citizens and upholding constitutional vitality.
“If not for giving representation to Scheduled Castes, I would have been elevated maybe two years later,” : Supreme Court Justice BR Gavai emphasized the role of reservation and affirmative action in elevating marginalized individuals in India’s government. He credited his own advancement to these principles and highlighted the importance of diversity and inclusion in the judiciary. Justice Gavai also addressed challenges such as media manipulation and emphasized the CJI’s duty to provide equal leadership.
On Tuesday (26th March): Supreme Court Justice BR Gavai highlighted the integral relationship between the right to free speech and the right to information, especially in the context of elections and the Electoral Bonds case. Emphasizing the evolution from colonialism to democracy, he reaffirmed the Court’s commitment to upholding constitutional values and encouraging citizen participation.
On Thursday(14th March), The Bombay Bar Association held a tribute meeting at the Bombay High Court lawns to honor the legacy of Fali Nariman. Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya described Nariman as an inspiration, while senior advocates shared personal anecdotes, highlighting his humanity, pursuit of perfection, bravery, and professional acumen. The tribute served as a reminder of the values at the core of the legal profession.
On March 11th, the Supreme Court of India made a significant decision regarding a same-sex couple from Kerala, emphasizing the importance of respecting individual sexual orientations. The ruling reiterated the decriminalization of homosexuality and discouraged the use of counseling to alter one’s sexual orientation. The Court also dismissed the petition concerning the same-sex relationship case.