The Supreme Court upheld a decision of the Bombay High Court setting aside the order condoning the delay of over 4 years and observed that the litigant should not be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief. The Petition, before the Apex Court, arose from the Order of the Bombay High Court allowing the petition filed by the original plaintiff (respondent no.1) thereby setting aside the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge condoning the delay of 4 1⁄2 years in filing the written statement.
The Supreme Court granted a final opportunity to respond to petitions challenging a Calcutta High Court order invalidating the appointment of 25,753 teachers and staff in West Bengal. The court set a two-week deadline for all parties to submit their filings, emphasizing the need for digitized records. The next hearing is scheduled in three weeks.
The Delhi High Court criticized the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee for not providing legal aid to an economically disadvantaged litigant, despite repeated requests. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh demanded an explanation for the committee’s negligence and appointed a counsel for the litigant. The court emphasized the role of Legal Service Authorities in ensuring access to justice for underprivileged citizens.
The Bombay High Court directed litigant Nixon D’Silva to present EVM manipulation prevention suggestions to the Election Commission, emphasizing the court’s limited jurisdiction. This reflects the court’s respect for the separation of powers and highlights the importance of involving the appropriate authorities in addressing concerns related to EVM manipulation effectively.