In a historic step for judicial transparency, the Supreme Court has published full details of judge appointments to High Courts and the Supreme Court from November 2022 to May 2025, making the entire process public.
![[Religious Conversion Remarks Row] 'Inappropriate' Remarks Should Not be Used in Any Other Case": Supreme Court Expunges Allahabad High Court Ruling](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/image-2024-09-27T134843.255.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Supreme Court today (27th Sept) expunged remarks from the Allahabad High Court about potential religious conversion effects on India’s majority population, deeming them inappropriate. The Court emphasized that such general statements should not be referenced in other cases. The decision came while granting bail to an accused previously denied bail based on these remarks.
Today, On 10th September, The Supreme Court Collegium recommended the elevation of three judicial officers, initially proposed by the Madras High Court, to serve as judges in the Madras High Court. The elevation of these officers, including Augustine Devadoss Maria Clete, aims to increase minority representation and strengthen the judiciary in Tamil Nadu, addressing vacancies and enhancing efficiency.
![[BREAKING] "How Can House Be Demolished Because Somebody Is An Accused?": SC To Frame Pan-India Guidelines On 'Bulldozer Actions'](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/DJETRHFM.jpg?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Supreme Court Today (Sept 2) came down heavily on ‘bulldozer justice’, questioning how a house can be demolished just because it belongs to an accused or even a convict in a criminal case. The court also said that it proposes to lay down guidelines on the issue. “Even if he is a convict, still it can’t be done without following the procedure as prescribed by law.”
The Allahabad High Court rejected a bail plea under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, expressing concern that continued religious conversions could lead to the majority population becoming a minority. The court emphasized that while the Indian Constitution guarantees religious freedom, it doesn’t permit forced conversions. The accused’s bail was denied.
Today (5th April), The TN Bar Council urged the Madras High Court Chief Justice to recommend more lawyers from minority communities and women for judicial appointments, emphasizing diversity and equal opportunities. Senior Counsel S Prabakaran advocated for a merit-based selection process, stressing the importance of fairness and inclusivity. The letter highlighted the need for integrity and expeditious case resolution in judicial appointments.
The Haldwani Municipal Corporation in Uttarakhand demolished a madrasa and a mosque in Banbhoolpura, sparking clashes. The structures’ owners claimed legal rights, but the corporation proceeded, citing absence of a stay order. The demolition raised concerns about procedural irregularities and motives behind the action, with political implications in the upcoming elections.
The Supreme Court of India On Day 8 has reserved its verdict on the status of AMU Aligarh Muslim University as a minority institution. The case raises fundamental questions about minority rights and the interpretation of Article 30 of the Constitution. The decision is anticipated to set a precedent for minority educational institutions in India and has far-reaching implications for minority rights in the country.
The Kerala government submitted an affidavit to the Supreme Court, stating it had no plans to conduct a caste survey and emphasized the responsibility of the Central government in conducting such surveys. The government refuted allegations of intentional disobedience and highlighted the challenges in utilizing socio-economic data for policymaking. This case has significant implications for the identification and support of backward classes in Kerala.
The Supreme Court expressed surprise at the Central Government’s refusal to recognize the 1981 amendment granting minority status to Aligarh Muslim University. The Court emphasized the government’s obligation to stand by parliamentary actions, while the Solicitor General cited a high court verdict striking down the amendment. The discussion will continue on January 30.