He wrote on X:“Heartiest greetings on Constitution Day. Today, India is celebrating the 75th anniversary of the Constitution with great enthusiasm. To honor the contributions of all the architects of the Constitution, including Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar, PM Modi initiated the celebration of Constitution Day. NEW DELHI: On Constitution Day, Union Home Minister Amit Shah […]
Prime Minister Narendra Modi will celebrate the 75th Constitution Day today (26th Nov), at the Supreme Court of India, where he will release the Indian Judiciary’s annual report and deliver a speech. The year-long campaign, ‘Hamara Samvidhan, Hamara Swabhiman,’ aims to promote constitutional values nationwide, emphasizing Dr. Ambedkar’s role and notable contributions in drafting the Constitution.
Former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud warned against the influence of pressure groups and social media on judicial outcomes, urging judges to maintain independence and focus on constitutional values. He noted the dangers of forming opinions based on brief social media content, emphasizing the judiciary’s role in democracy and the complexities of law interpretation.
The Supreme Court of India will deliver a judgment on November 13, 2024, regarding petitions challenging the “bulldozer actions” by state governments, where properties of crime-accused individuals are demolished. The case, presided over by Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, has attracted attention due to concerns over property rights and due process. Critics argue these demolitions violate legal rights by bypassing proper judicial procedures, while supporters view them as a deterrent against crime. The verdict is expected to set an important precedent on balancing state powers with individual rights.
The Calcutta High Court denied bail to Dr. Sandip Ghosh, former Principal of RG Kar Medical College, in a financial irregularities case and directed him to approach the lower court. Concurrently, the CBI is investigating Ghosh for the alleged rape and murder of a junior doctor amidst ongoing probes into multiple irregularities at the institution.
The Supreme Court upheld the premature retirement of Uttar Pradesh judge Shobh Nath Singh due to a poor service record, emphasizing the high ethical standards required for judicial officers. The Court dismissed Singh’s appeal, reinforcing that judges must demonstrate integrity and accountability, reflecting the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining rigorous conduct.
The Kerala High Court ruled that public prosecutors must independently evaluate cases before seeking withdrawal under Section 321 of the CrPC, rather than merely following government directives. Justice K. Babu emphasized the importance of assessing evidence to ensure public interest is served. The court dismissed a petition challenging a trial court’s decision to continue prosecution.
A Delhi court today (28th Oct) has postponed its ruling on Engineer Rashid’s regular bail application in a terror funding case, now set for November 19. Rashid, a Lok Sabha MP, was granted interim bail in September to campaign for elections but has since surrendered to Tihar Jail as this bail expired. His defense claims he faces political persecution.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta Yesterday (Oct 25) informed a bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Vishwanathan that the Auliye-e-Deen Committee had withheld crucial information in its petition challenging the demolition of nine Muslim religious sites, graveyards, and hutments, some of which were protected ancient monuments in Gir Somnath, Gujarat. He noted that the removal of encroachments on the same land began five months ago and pointed out that the court was not told that similar actions, including the demolition of several temples, had been ongoing since 2020.
Bollywood actress Swara Bhaskar criticized Chief Justice DY Chandrachud’s comments on the Ayodhya Ram Temple decision, calling them “terrible.” She questioned his reliance on divine intervention for judicial resolutions, echoing sentiments from the Shiv Sena (UBT). The controversy highlights concerns over the intersection of faith and legal decision-making in the judiciary.
