Today, On 14th August, In the WB Migrant Workers case, the Supreme Court observed, “A nodal agency is needed to coordinate between the state of origin and the state of work,” while hearing allegations of wrongful detention and deportation of Bengali Muslims as “Bangladeshis.”
The Supreme Court of India is deliberating on a petition for financial compensation for COVID-19 victims’ families, asserting it as a legal obligation under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The Court has mandated states to respond within four weeks, while also approving Rs. 50,000 assistance for each death caused by the virus.
New Delhi, 3rd February 2025: The Supreme Court of India has ordered the Central and State governments not to take any action that would decrease forest areas. This decision will remain in place until further notice.A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K Vinod Chandran was hearing multiple petitions challenging the changes made to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 2023.
The Supreme Court instructed governments to establish clear timelines for filling vacancies in the Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions. Emphasizing the Right to Information Act, it mandated actions to expedite appointments and compliance affidavits from Chief Secretaries, addressing delays particularly in states like Jharkhand.
The Supreme Court, concerned with the menace of unlicensed arms and ammunition, has ordered the constitution of a committee headed by the Chief Secretary in each state and Union Territory to formulate an action plan for the implementation of the Arms Act and Rules. In its Order, the Court notes that despite the existence of laws and rules, there is a proliferation of factories and workshops manufacturing unlicensed arms and ammunition and the use of such weapons to commit crimes is on the rise.
![[Judiciary & Climate Change] "States Not Using Huge Funds Allotted By Centre For Afforestation": Justice BV Nagarathna](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/image-130.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Supreme Court judge Justice BV Nagarathna bemoaned that funds supplied by the Centre to States for compensatory afforestation were not being utilised by State governments. The judge highlighted that out of the total Rs 57,325 crores of compensatory afforestation funds received and transferred to States, nearly Rs 38,698 crores remained unutilised. She added that the judiciary must be alive to the legal questions bought about by climate change and must live up to the challenge by creative interpretation of laws.
![[BREAKING] Supreme Court Upholds States' Authority to Regulate Industrial Alcohol as 'Intoxicating Liquor'](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/image-96.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Supreme Court of India, in an 8:1 majority decision on October 23, ruled that states have the authority to regulate denatured spirit or industrial alcohol. The judgment broadens the definition of “intoxicating liquor” under Entry 8 of List II in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, to include industrial alcohol. This expands state regulatory powers over alcohol beyond just those meant for human consumption
Yesterday, On 22nd October, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, agreed to hear a petition for adopting hybrid mode hearings in family courts across India. The petition highlights delays in case resolutions affecting women and children, advocating for timely justice through a combination of virtual and physical appearances, addressing logistical challenges.
The Supreme Court, addressing concerns over child trafficking, ordered states and union territories to report on missing children since 2020. Highlighting a network of abductions in Uttar Pradesh, the court mandated details about missing children cases and the establishment of anti-human trafficking units, with follow-up hearings scheduled for October.
The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, issued notices to all States and Union Territories regarding a non-compliance petition for online Right to Information (RTI) portals, which must respond by October 21. The court emphasized the need for operational RTI portals, citing failures in several states since a 2023 directive.