AIBA has urged President Droupadi Murmu to carefully review Justice Yashwant Varma’s resignation during ongoing impeachment proceedings. It warned that accepting the resignation now could weaken accountability and disrupt the constitutional process.
Justice Abhay Oka, in his retirement speech, criticized the Supreme Court’s emphasis on the Chief Justice while advocating for democratic reform and greater attention to trial courts. He emphasized the need for transparency and collaboration among judges, highlighting the challenges faced by lower courts and expressing hope for change under the new Chief Justice, BR Gavai.
Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna has announced that he will no longer take up cases that require reserving verdicts or writing detailed judgments. With his retirement approaching on May 13, he emphasized the need to manage time efficiently. This statement came during a hearing involving the Kerala government and the state’s governor over pending bills.
West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to cancel over 25,000 teacher appointments, citing unfair treatment towards Bengal compared to other states. She expressed commitment to supporting affected candidates and called for transparency in the selection process, highlighting significant irregularities identified by the Court in the recruitment.
The UAPA Amendment 2019 has long been a controversial piece of legislation in India, designed to combat terrorism and unlawful activities threatening national security. It has sparked significant debate due to the expanded powers it grants the government, especially regarding the designation of individuals as terrorists. This change, particularly under Section 35, has raised questions about the impact on individual rights, including freedom of speech, due process, and reputation. The Supreme Court of India has recently clarified that High Courts are allowed to continue hearing petitions challenging these amendments.
The Gyanvapi-Kashi Vishwanath dispute in Varanasi is a complex blend of historical claims, religious sentiments, and legal debates. Centered on allegations of a demolished temple, the controversy gained renewed attention with Supreme Court interventions under the Places of Worship Act, 1991. Recent judgments highlight efforts to balance communal harmony, historical narratives, and constitutional values amid escalating litigation.