The Supreme Court was updated on the relocation progress of the Bombay High Court to a new complex. The Advocate General requested an extension for land handover until January 31, citing challenges. Meanwhile, a structural audit of the current building is planned. The Court’s next hearing is scheduled for April to review progress.
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court recognized that the Bar Council of India guidelines do not permit female advocates to appear in court with their faces covered. This was highlighted after a claimant, Advocate Syed Ainain Qadri, refused to remove her covering. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the related case on December 13.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has requested the media to refrain from naming judges in reports about court proceedings, citing their safety. Similar directives came from the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court concerning naming lawyers. Both courts aim to maintain integrity and avoid undue emphasis on individuals in judiciary-related news.
Today, On 18th November, the Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL seeking the release of policy documents for Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana beneficiaries. The court found no merit in claims regarding two-thirds of policyholders missing out on benefits, citing assumptions instead of evidence, and warned against potential fraudulent claims.
Kerala AG Gopalakrishna Kurup criticized the Central government for its persistent interference with the Supreme Court Collegium’s recommendations for judicial appointments, causing significant delays. He highlighted the specific case of Justice PP Krishna Kumar, whose elevation was stalled for nearly a year despite no objections to his integrity.
The Delhi High Court has reassigned over 200 judicial officers, including Special Judge Chhavi Kapoor, who oversaw the Brij Bhushan Singh case. Kapoor will now serve at the Rouse Avenue Court, while Additional Sessions Judge Gomti Manocha will assume her duties. The transfers were effective immediately, with 70 new officers introduced.
Today, On 3rd September, The Supreme Court requested a report after discovering that a former Madras High Court judge issued detailed judgments after retirement. Justice T Mathivanan’s actions prompted scrutiny, with concerns raised about judicial propriety. The Court’s demand for an investigation reflects its commitment to upholding the integrity of the judicial process.
Yesterday, On 27th August, A 25-year-old man sought bail from the Supreme Court after impersonating the former Patna High Court Chief Justice in 2022. He allegedly deceived the Registrar General and obtained Amazon gift cards. The Supreme Court issued notice on the bail plea, returnable on 30th September, 2024. The incident led to an FIR under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act.
Today, On 15th July, The Maharashtra Advocate General informed the Supreme Court that the land for the new Bombay High Court building will be handed over by September 10. This ensures timely progress and marks a significant step forward in judicial infrastructure development. The next hearing is scheduled for August 22. The AG also stated that copies of the plan would be provided to the Presidents of the Bombay Bar Associations.
![[Judges' Desire vs Lawyers' Concerns] Uttarakhand HC Relocation Sparks Controversy](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/image-4-1.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Uttarakhand High Court’s proposal to relocate from Nainital has stirred historical grievances and regional tensions. The plan, temporarily stayed by the Supreme Court, rekindled debates on the state’s formation and revived the longstanding Kumaon versus Garhwal dispute. Legal practitioners grapple with uncertainties, reflecting deep-seated concerns about the proposed move.