Supreme Court Justice Ujjal Bhuyan raised concerns over the low conviction rate under UAPA, questioning prolonged detentions without chargesheets. He stressed that Viksit Bharat cannot be achieved without tolerance for dissent, judicial independence, and equality for Dalits.
CJI Surya Kant said Artificial Intelligence should support the judiciary by reducing delays and handling data, but must not replace judges in decision-making. He stressed that the final judgment must always remain in human hands to protect judicial independence and accountability.
The Supreme Court said that criticism of its judgments is not an insult to the judiciary and people have the right to express different views. The Court clarified that criticism of judgments is different from allegations of corruption against the judiciary.
Supreme Court Justice Dipankar Datta said the Collegium did not always protect judges who showed courage and integrity in the past. He warned that lack of protection may discourage judges from choosing ethics over career growth.
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 Allahabad High Court Bar Association opposed remarks by the Supreme Court of India on a High Court judge’s bail orders in dowry death cases, with President Rakesh Pandey calling them inappropriate and harmful to judicial independence.
CJI Surya Kant suggested removing black robes and uniforms for judges, lawyers, and even police in family courts to create a more child-friendly environment. He emphasized making courts less intimidating and more focused on resolving emotional family disputes.
The Delhi High Court sought responses on ED’s plea to remove trial court remarks made while discharging Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, saying, “Nobody can stop me from passing an order… see how much strain you put on the judge.”
Supreme Court Justice B.V. Nagarathna said judges must honour their oath and judicial dharma even when unpopular decisions risk their elevation or extensions. She stressed that judicial review must balance transformative constitutionalism with the basic structure through courts.
Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi said a lawyer’s vigilance is society’s early warning system against the slow erosion of democratic values. He added that the sudden proposal may reflect an agenda to weaken or intimidate the judiciary, which only judges can address.
