A litigant appearing in person was forcibly removed from the Supreme Court after allegedly abusing the Bench and throwing case papers during a hearing challenging an Allahabad High Court order. The incident before Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Alok Aradhe briefly disrupted court proceedings.
The Supreme Court cautioned lawyers against assuming that filing an adjournment slip automatically postpones proceedings. Stressing that only the Bench decides adjournments, the Court directed advocates to remain fully prepared to argue unless an adjournment is expressly granted by the Court.
The Supreme Court of India held that disciplinary proceedings against judicial officers are invalid unless authorised by the High Court Chief Justice or a committee constituted by him, while upholding reinstatement of a dismissed Uttarakhand civil judge and restricting Registrar General powers.
The Supreme Court of India emphasised that lawyers must disclose both favourable and unfavourable judgments before courts, observing that contradictory rulings create uncertainty and stressing advocates’ duty to ensure judicial consistency by informing courts about relevant and latest legal pronouncements across jurisdictions.
The Allahabad High Court upheld disciplinary action against a clerk accused of misplacing a judicial file, stressing that such misconduct threatens justice, stating the loss of any judicial record is serious and “required to be handled with iron rod.”
A group of senior advocates, academics, and former officials wrote to the Chief Justice of India raising concerns over allegations by Arvind Kejriwal against a Delhi High Court judge, warning such claims without evidence threaten judicial independence.
The Rajasthan High Court’s Division Bench set aside controversial orders that treated a personal writ like a PIL and directed FIR registration. The Court ruled that judges cannot exceed the scope of relief sought in petitions, reinforcing strict judicial discipline.
The Supreme Court of India slammed the Government of Odisha for unexplained delays in filing appeals, calling its conduct lazy and terming the justification a lame excuse. Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma said deadline failures undermined discipline.
The Delhi High Court held that a bail application cannot be rejected merely because it is lengthy or voluminous. It emphasised that even if such an application runs into several hundred pages, its size alone cannot justify dismissal.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court criticised a trial court for refusing to complete hearing of a 2013 civil case within the deadline fixed by it. Calling it a “sad sign” of judicial discipline erosion, the High Court ordered transfer of the case to another court.
