During a defamation case against CM Atishi, the complainant’s counsel argued before Justice Vikas Mahajan that the special judge acted like a political analyst. He sought a stay on the judge’s remarks, claiming they unfairly portrayed Atishi as a whistleblower. The counsel contended that her statements were “per se” defamatory. The Delhi High Court was urged to intervene and review the observations.
The Calcutta High Court expressed disapproval of trial courts offering unwanted advice in divorce proceedings. It emphasized that only the couple involved can decide on reconciliation. This follows a case where a trial court suggested a couple reunite for their child’s sake, which the High Court deemed inappropriate and beyond the court’s jurisdiction.
The Chief Justice of India (CJI) is empowered to handle complaints against Supreme Court judges, while High Court Chief Justices manage complaints regarding their judges, as stated by Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal. Advocates from Karnataka High Court raised concerns about judicial inefficiencies and the Chief Justice’s punctuality affecting case resolutions and public trust.
The Advocates’ Association of Bengaluru (AAB) has called a meeting on December 11 to address serious concerns regarding the Karnataka High Court’s functioning, particularly under Chief Justice NV Anjaria. Issues include late court starts, early adjournments, administrative lapses, and a lack of transparency affecting timely case resolutions and public trust in the judiciary.
New delhi: The recent statement “We will rip you apart” by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah sparked a debate about judicial decorum. Judges expressed concern over the appropriateness of such language for a high judicial position, citing the need for impartial discussions and maintaining sobriety in court proceedings. Past rulings emphasize the high standards of behavior expected from judges.