Today, On 15th April, The Supreme Court of India stayed the Telangana High Court order granting transit anticipatory bail to Pawan Khera, observing he relied on a forged document to invoke jurisdiction. The Bench said, “We are surprised [by the High Court’s order],”.
Supreme Court Justice Aravind Kumar said the belief that Delhi is India’s legal pinnacle is a false, manufactured impression, stressing that Delhi is not India and warning against equating the capital’s prominence with nationwide legal excellence and ability.
The Delhi High Court framed criminal contempt charges against a Delhi advocate for scandalous allegations in court and a similar LinkedIn post. The court said he lowered its authority and interfered with judicial proceedings by uploading the post.
Former Calcutta High Court judge Sahidullah Munshi, now heading the West Bengal Board of Auqaf, was shocked to find his name deleted from the electoral roll, while the names of his wife and elder son remain under adjudication despite ongoing verification.
Orissa High Court held that orders passed by a Bench in matters outside the roster assigned by the Chief Justice are per se illegal. The Court said entertaining cases beyond allocation amounts to jurisdiction without authority, rendering such decisions fundamentally invalid.
Supreme Court ruled that High Courts cannot disturb the finality of Apex Court orders. It added that non-parties affected by a judgment in rem may seek appropriate remedies in service matters.
Today, On 9th February, Supreme Court questioned the Himachal Pradesh High Court, asking “What is the problem if some offices are shifted? Who are you to tell the elected government where to have the offices?” while directing it to finally decide the OBC Commission relocation plea
Justice G R Swaminathan of the Madurai Bench expressed anguish over repeatedly summoning officials for contempt. He said citing law and order to defy court orders is unacceptable and reflects a serious breakdown of the legal framework system.
The Supreme Court held that a woman’s statement recorded by police under Section 161 CrPC can be treated as a valid dying declaration. The Court also summoned the husband’s relatives for further proceedings in the case before it.
Today, on 20th November, in the Presidential Reference row, As the Supreme Court rules that there can be no deemed assent and no fixed timelines for the Governor or the President on State Bills, it reinforces boundaries and stresses that authorities must act with transparency and restraint.
