Read Time: 01 hours
[Manipur Violence – Editor’s Guild] The fact-finding committee of Editors Guild of India (EGI) sent to Manipur to examine the reporting of incidents across the state by the media, told the Supreme Court that it was invited by the army to do so. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for members of the committee- Seema Guha, Bharat Bhushan and Sanjay Kapoor, told a CJI Chandrachud bench, "We were invited by the Army..please see the letter sent to us by them.. To see how the local media was covering the situation, we have submitted a report, now penal provisions cannot be imposed on us for doing so..". To this, CJI asked, "Why would the army invite you...". Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha & Manoj Misra Case Title: Seema Guha vs. State of Manipur Click here to read more
[Section 6A DPSE Act] A Constitution bench of the Supreme Court ruled that its declaration made in 2014 in the case of Subramanian Swamy vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and Another, that Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1942 is unconstitutional, can be applied retrospectively. In the said judgment, the Constitution Bench had held that Section 6A(1) which required approval of the Central Government to conduct any enquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed under the PC Act, 1988 to be invalid and unconstitutional and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. As a necessary corollary, it was further declared that the provision contained in Section 26(c) of Act No. 45 of 2003 introducing the above provision was also invalid. Bench: Justice SK Kaul, Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S Oka, Vikram Nath and JK Maheshwari Case Title: CBI vs. R.R. KISHORE Click here to read more
[SC Judgment – Telecom Company relief] The Supreme Court has declined to entertain a plea against the Union government's decision to provide major relief to Telecom companies on Adjusted Gross Revenue upto over Rs 90,000 crore by bringing about structural and procedural reforms, after noting the background of measures undertaken including Covid-19 pandemic which engulfed the world, making the governments, courts, education system and corporate sector to depend heavily on them for the virtual functioning. Bench: Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan Case Title: Anshul Gupta Vs. PMO Click here to read more
[Bachchu Yadav Bail] The Supreme Court has granted bail to an alleged henchman of a mining mafia and close aide of Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, Bachchu Yadav in a money laundering case, rejecting Enforcement Directorate's allegation of him having received Rs 30 lakh as proceeds of crime. The bench granted relief to Bachhu Yadav, close associate of Pankaj Mishra, also noting that he has been in incarceration for over one year after being arrested on August 5, 2022 and trial in the case has already begun and five witnesses had been examined. Bench: Justices A S Bopanna and Prashant Kumar Mishra Case Title: Bachchu Yadav vs ED Click here to read more
[SC Judgment] The Supreme Court has declared that when a competent legislature retrospectively removes the substratum or foundation of a judgement to make the decision ineffective, such a move is a valid legislative exercise provided it does not transgress on any other constitutional limitation. The court said such a legislative device which removes the vice in the previous legislation which has been declared unconstitutional is not considered to be an encroachment on judicial power but an instance of abrogation recognised under the Constitution of India. Bench: Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan Case Title: NHPC Vs State of HP Click here to read more
[Hindenburg-Adani Report] SEBI has concealed a January 2014 Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alert about Adani having siphoned off money and invested it in Adani-listed companies through entities based in Dubai and Mauritius, a fresh affidavit before the Top Court in the Hindenburg-Adani case stated. In 2014, DRI was investigating a case of import overvaluation by various entities of the Adani Group, from a UAE-based subsidiary. A letter dated 31.01.2014 was issued to SEBI, alerting stock market manipulation by the Adani Group which was accompanied by a CD containing evidence of siphoning Rs. 2323 crores. It is the allegation of the petitioner that neither any action was taken on this DRI alert nor was it placed by SEBI before the Court, in any of the proceedings. Case Title: Anamika Jaiswal v. Union of India | WP (CIVIL) No. 201 of 2023 Click here to read more
[Sedition Challenge] The Supreme Court has decided to refer the challenge to Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code that contains Sedition Law, to a bench of at least five judges. This order has been passed in light of the fact that the Kedarnath Singh judgment whereby the validity of Section 124A was upheld, was heard by a five-judge bench. "We direct registry to place the papers before the CJI so that a decision can be taken on the administrative side to hear this batch of cases by a bench of at least five judges", a bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud has ordered. Refusing to accept the Union's submission that the reference be deferred in light of the new law being framed, the bench observed that the new law would not obviate the prosecutions pending under the old one. Bench: Justices Pardiwala and Manoj Misra Case Title: SG Vombatkere Vs. Union Of India | Editors Guild of India and Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Click here to read more
[Lawyer Accused of PFI Links] The Supreme Court ordered for translation of audio evidence submitted against Madurai based Advocate M Mohammed Abbas, who is accused under UAPA, on charges of being an important core team leader of the banned organisation Popular Front of India (PFI). The benchl has posted the matter now for hearing on September 27. Court was hearing a plea filed by NIA challenging the Madras High Court order granting bail to Abbas. ASG SV Raju appeared before the Court on behalf of NIA. He submitted a pend drive with evidence before the court. Noting that there was some controversy over the translation the bench directed the Registry to submit the tapes to the Registrar General of the Madras High Court for translation. Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal Case Title: Union of India vs. M. Mohamed Abbas Click here to read more
[Krishna Janmabhoomi Dispute] A plaintiff in a suit filed before Civil Judge, Mathura, on issue involving the Krishna Janmbhoomi- Shahi Idgah dispute has approached the Supreme Court seeking impleadment in the plea filed by the Mosque committee challenging the Allahabad High Court's decision to transfer all suits relating to the dispute to itself. The plaintiff, one Naresh Kumar Yadav in his impleadment application has stated that the High Court has rightly exercised the discretionary power envisaged under section 24[1] [C] of CPC as well as suo motu, considering the graph of the civil suits and reliefs claimed therein by the respective parties. Case Title: Committee of Management, Trust Shahi Masjid Idgah Vs. Bhagwan Shrikrishna Virajman & Ors. Click here to read more
[Asaram Bapu] A division bench of the Supreme Court refused to allow bail to Asaram Bapu in a 2013 case against him for raping a minor. Asaram had challenged a July 2022 Rajasthan High Court order denying him bail. A division bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti said that Bapu could approach the High Court with a fresh plea for suspension of sentence if his appeal against conviction by the trial court is not heard expeditiously. Accordingly, Senior Advocate Devadutt Kamath chose to withdraw the petition. A lower court sentenced Asaram Bapu to life imprisonment in the year 2018 for committing rape against a minor at his Ashram in Jodhpur in 2013. Bench: Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti Case Title: Asharam @ Ashumal vs. State of Rajasthan Click here to read more
[LIC’s policy transfer fee] The Supreme Court has rejected the Life Insurance Corporation of India's (LIC) claim to levy a fee of Rs 250 for recording assignment or transfer of an insurance policy, noting that the law does not authorise for it. The bench said that if the law requires certain things to be done in a certain manner, it can't be done in other manner, as the rule making power was not exercised for the purpose here. Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol Case Title: LIC Vs Dravya Finance Click here to read more
[MHA Guidelines – Press Briefs] A CJI DY Chandrachud led bench of the Supreme Court has issued directions to the Ministry of Home Affairs to prepare comprehensive guidelines for media briefings by the police. These guidelines are to be prepared within a period of three months. The bench has further directed Director Generals of Police (DGPs) of all states to submit their suggestions for the said manual. Court has noted that the nature of the disclosure could not be uniform since it would depend upon the nature of the crime and the participating stakeholders, including victims, witnesses and accused. Bench: CJI Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra Case Title: PUCL vs. State of Maharashtra Click here to read more
[LMV Vehicle Constitution bench hearing] The Supreme Court directed the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to revisit the law allowing a person holding a driving license for light motor vehicles (LMV) being entitled to drive a unladen transport vehicle upto 7,500 kg in weight. Accordingly, a five-judge Constitution Bench has asked the government to complete the exercise by two months. "It is necessary for this court to have a re-look of the matter by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways..In view of the far-reaching implications that may arise, we hold that matter needs to be taken up at policy level, and this constitution bench will continue once we have heard back from the government..We request the Union to wrap up the exercise by two months..", the bench has ordered. Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud along with Justices Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha, Pankaj Mithal and Manoj Misra Case Title: M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs. Rambha Devi & Ors Click here to read more
[Delay in remission – Gujarat Govt] The Supreme Court has directed release of a life term convict on parole, noting a one year delay by the Gujarat government in deciding his plea for premature release, on account of administrative lapses. The bench expressed court's displeasure, saying that the state government has not complied with its previous order for deciding the matter within two weeks. "The State Government has taken one year to consider the prayer for premature release of the petitioner. We, therefore, direct that the petitioner shall be forthwith enlarged on parole on appropriate terms and conditions," the bench said, dealing with a plea filed by Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar. Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal Case Title: Mafabai Moti Bai Sagar Vs State of Gujarat Click here to read more
[Firecrackers] The Supreme Court told the Delhi Police that filing cases against people who burn firecrackers may not help in curbing sale of firecrackers. The bench was hearing a case pertaining to the issue of firecrackers' ban. When the matter was taken up, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan appearing for the petitioners, told court that it was the poor people who were suffering from the issues of pollution. "..people living on streets suffer while the rich burn crackers worth lakhs of rupees and go back to their homes with air purifiers...", he added. Sharing from personal experience, the senior counsel added that he tried ordering firecrackers online and it were available in bulk. Bench: Justices AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh Case Title: Arjun Gopal and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. Click here to read more ALSO READ: Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With Delhi NCR's Firecracker Ban
[Manipur Violence] The Supreme Court provided a clarification on its earlier order whereby it had allowed trial in cases being probed by Central Bureau of Investigation, relating to Manipur Violence, to be conducted in Assam. "We are not asking the victims to go to Assam, the evidence will be recorded in Manipur only..", the Court had further ordered on August 25, 2023. A query was posed on this order, asking if a Magistrate in Manipur had to record the statement, or the one in Assam will do it virtually. CJI DY Chandrachud provided clarification stating, "It can be recorded by the Magistrate in Manipur and the witness will sign it. It can then be sent to Assam. The 164 CrPC statement once recorded in Manipur, the digital record shall be remitted to Assam." Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Pardiwala & Manoj Misra Case Title: Dinganglung Gangmei Vs. Mutum Churamani & Ors. Click here to read more Also Read: Editors Guild Issue: "Show Us How Fact-Finding Committee's Report Promoted Enmity": Supreme Court Directs Complainant To File Response In EGI's Plea
[Sanatana Dharma Row] A CJI DY Chandrachud led bench of the Supreme Court refused to urgently hear a PIL filed against Tamil Nadu Minister Udhayanidhi Stalin over his recent remarks made on 'Sanatan Dharma'. The CJI refused to hear the plea filed by a Madras High Court lawyer saying that he had not come under the urgent mentioning list and he had to follow the Standard Operating Procedure circulated by the court. In his plea, the lawyer has sought that the participation of the State Ministers in the meeting titled “Sanatana Dharma Eradication conference” held on September 2, 2023 be declared as unconstitutional & violative of Articles 25 & 26 of the Constitution of India. Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Pardiwala & Manoj Misra Case Title: B Jagannath vs. State of Tamil Nadu Click here to read more
[MHA Guidelines] Justice Sanjiv Khanna of the Supreme Court of India remarked that media reports on cases being argued before court, does not affect the judges. "It does not affect us..we have to get used to it..", said the judge. It is to be noted that the bench of the Supreme Court had issued directions to the Ministry of Home Affairs, asking it to prepare comprehensive guidelines for media briefings by the police. Court had further directed Director Generals of Police (DGPs) of all states to submit their suggestions for the said manual. The Court had made this observation on media reports while hearing the bail plea filed by former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister and Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia in a case registered against him by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with the Delhi excise policy scam case. Bench: Justices Sanjiv Khanna & SV Bhatti Case Title: Manish Sisodia vs. Enforcement Directorate Click here to read more
[Congress Leader Remarks] The Supreme Court on September 11, refused to quash an FIR registered against UP's Youth Congress Secretary, Sachin Chaudhary, over his alleged remark on Prime Minister Narendra Modi's "love affair" with Industrialist Gautam Adani. Chaudhary had approached the top court by way of an SLP challenging the Allahabad High Court's order whereby it had refused to quash the FIR registered against him noting that the offence alleged in the FIR would fall within the ambit of Section 153-A and Section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code which were cognizable offence and hence, the FIR, could not be quashed. Bench: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela Trivedi Case Title: Sachin Chaudhary Vs. The State of UP & Ors. Click here to read more
[Stray Dog Attacks] The Supreme Court has been urged to take suo motu cognizance of the rise in attacks on humans by stray dogs across the country. A CJI DY Chandrachud led bench remarked that it would look into the situation. This issue came to light when a counsel with a bandage on his hand appeared before the bench. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was also present in court submitted that stray dogs had become a big menace. He referred to a recent incident and added, "..just two days back a video was circulated on social media, a child was bitten by a dog and he did not get the requisite medical treatment, when they went to the doctor, the parents were told nothing can be done now, it was heart wrenching to watch, the child was in his father's arms, the father was crying..". Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Pardiwala & Manoj Misra Click here to read more
[Section 482 CrPC] The Supreme Court has said that the high courts have to exercise their power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code sparingly but not when an apparently false case is lodged as a counterblast to a criminal case. Court allowed an appeal filed by one Ram Murti Shukla and another person against the Allahabad High Court's order rejecting their plea for quashing of summons issued against them by Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area/III Additional Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in complaint case under Section 392 of IPC. The complaint case was filed against appellant Shukla by his son-in-law. Upon an application filed under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, summons were issued against them by the special court. Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia Case Title: RAM MURTI SHUKLA & ANR vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. Click here to read more
[Irretrievable breakdown of marriage] The Supreme Court said that a court cannot resort to the principle of irretrievable breakdown of marriage without recording a finding on the aspect of cruelty by either of the parties while deciding divorce matters. "We are of the opinion that the high court has committed error of law by relying on the principle of irretrievable breakdown of marriage to dissolve the marriage between the parties in a contested divorce proceeding. The high court, however, did not return any finding on allegations of cruelty on the part of the wife, on which the Family Court came to a specific conclusion," the bench said. The Top Court opined that a decision on that count was necessary for proper adjudication of the appeals. Bench: Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi Case Title: V.E. MAYA V. K.S. VETRIVEL Click here to read more
[Defense of Insanity] The Supreme Court has said that an appellate court can't reverse the trial court's verdict on reappreciation of evidence by merely taking a different view. With this view, court has set aside the Sikkim High Court's judgement which held a man guilty of killing his 81-year-old grandfather even though he suffered from insanity. A bench noted, in the instant case, the High Court had reversed the finding of acquittal and convicted the appellant mainly on reappreciation of evidence by holding that the trial court erred in extending the benefit of Section 84 of IPC, without even recording a conclusion that the view is perverse. Bench: Justices JB Pardiwala and Prashant Kumar Mishra Case Title: RUPESH MANGER (THAPA) vs. STATE OF SIKKIM Click here to read more
[Killing of women due to witchcraft] The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed on two men and others for killing a woman in 1993 in West Bengal's Purulia district, for allegedly practicing witchcraft. A division bench dismissed appeals filed by Bhaktu Gorain and Bandhu Gorain, relying upon ocular testimony of family members of the deceased Keshari Mahato and the medical evidence. The court, however, allowed the two convicts to seek remission as per the prevailing policy since they have served over 15 years in jail. Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mitha Case Title: Bandhu Gorain & Anr Vs State of Gujarat Click here to read more
[Remission] The Supreme Court has directed release of a life term convict on parole, noting a one year delay by the Gujarat government in deciding his plea for premature release, on account of administrative lapses. "The State Government has taken one year to consider the prayer for premature release of the petitioner. We, therefore, direct that the petitioner shall be forthwith enlarged on parole on appropriate terms and conditions," the bench said, dealing with a plea filed by Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar. Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal Case Title: Mafabai Moti Bai Sagar Vs State of Gujarat Click here to read more
[Reinstatement] The Supreme Court has upheld a decision to discharge a probationer Punjab police constable from the services after he failed to report back to the training centre while returning from a special duty as security guards. The authority found that the probationer constable has no interest in training, and no sense of responsibility, hence, he cannot prove himself a good, efficient police officer, it said. Bench: Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Vishwanathan Case Title: THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS vs. JASWANT SINGH Click here to read more
[ Bail] The Supreme Court has declined to consider a plea by directors of beleaguered PACL India Ltd. seeking bail in cases related to alleged siphoning off over Rs 40,000 crores, lodged by scores of depositors. The recovery has just been of a paltry sum, despite efforts by the investigating agencies and recommendation of Justice R M Lodha committee. Court said the applicants have to approach the jurisdictional court for bail instead of seeking omnibus relief from this court. The court pointed out some of the accused who approached the jurisdictional court and have got the relief. Bench: Justices A S Bopanna and M M Sundresh Case Title: PACL Vs CBI Click here to read more
[Tenancy-Ownership] The Supreme Court has said mere living in a particular house by itself would not mean that the said house is under ownership of the person residing over there in his individual capacity. Court has thus dismissed a petition filed by Purushottam Bagh Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd against the Allahabad High Court's order which set aside a decision to cancel allotment of a residential plot in Agra to Krishna Pal Singh and others on the ground that they already had a house in the area of the society. Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal Case Title: Purushottam Bagh Sahkari Awas Samiti Vs. Shobhan Pal Singh Click here to read more
[Delay in filing FIR] The Supreme Court has said that when there is a delay in lodging an FIR without proper explanation, the courts must be on guard and test the evidence meticulously, to rule out possibility of embellishments in the prosecution story, as it gives opportunity for deliberation and guess work. Accordingly, the bench has allowed appeals filed by Harilal and Parsaram alias Rangnath who were held guilty of the offence of murdering Ellahabadiya alias Vijay in 1989 and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court at Bilaspur in 1991. The HC had in 2010 confirmed the trial court's judgement. Bench: Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra Case Title: Harilal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Click here to read more
[NJDG] The Supreme Court has onboarded the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) portal, the flagship project of the e-Courts project. The NJDG portal is a national repository of data relating to cases instituted, pending and disposed of by the courts across the length and breadth of the country. CJI DY Chandrachud announced the launch of the portal referring to it as an historic moment. "Now on a click of a button, one may access case related information, statistics such as institution, pendency and disposal of cases, case-types, year-wise break-up of the Supreme Court of India", the CJI said. Click here to read more
[Teaching staff-NLUs] The Supreme Court has deprecated the practice in which the National Law University, Nodhpur, a pioneer in legal education in the country, is being managed by contractual teaching staff only, terming the situation as "unacceptable and undesirable". Noting that the National Law University, Jodhpur is not having a Vice Chancellor and the Registrar was contractual too, a division bench said the situation should be remedied by the institute itself instead of court being called upon to do so. Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia Case Title: NLU Jodhpur Vs Prashant Mehra Click here to read more
[Assam NRC] Union of India has placed a request before the Supreme Court of India for issuing procedural directions in the matter pertaining to Assam's National Register of Citizens (NRC), which is a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, when it will be taken up by a Constitution Bench on September 20, 2023. "Let it be on board that day, we already have an SOP in place, it makes it very easy for compilations to be filed..we can take up the matter on that day and issue directions, whatever may be required..", Court said in response. Notably, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the petitioner side told the bench that she would be making preliminary submission on Wednesday, when the matter will be taken up. Bench: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices Pardiwala & Manoj Misra Case Title: Assam Public Works vs. Union of India Click here to read more
[CIRP process] The Supreme Court has said that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy code mandates a time bound process and a creditor cannot be allowed to make a delayed claim on the ground that it was unaware of resolution plan announced through newspapers. "Section 15 of the IBC and Regulation 6 of the IBBI Regulations mandate a public announcement of the CIRP through newspapers. This would constitute deemed knowledge on the appellant. In any case, their plea of not being aware of newspaper pronouncements is not one which should be available to a commercial party," the bench said. Bench: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia Case Title: M/s. RPS INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. vs. MUKUL KUMAR & ANR. Click here to read more
[GNCTD (Amendment) Ordinance 2023] The Supreme Court has dismissed a PIL challenging the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance 2023, which is said to "wrest" control over civil servants from the Delhi government to the Lieutenant Governor. At the outset court questioned locus of the petitioner appearing in person and expressed its inclination to impose costs. "We read these papers and come, infrastructural costs are involved..who are you to challenge this ordinance?", said the bench. At this juncture, the petitioner requested the bench to tag his plea with the Delhi government's challenge. Court refused to allow the same. The petitioner accordingly went on to withdraw his plea. Bench: CJI Chandrachud, Justice Narasimha and Justice Manoj Misra Case Title: Mukesh Kumar vs. LG, Delhi Click here to read more
[NEET PG] A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court against the New NEET PG Counselling Scheme 2023 stating that it deprives the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) candidates from their valid right of reservation. “The New NEET PG Counselling 2023 is the complete departure from the aforesaid objectives. This scheme deprives the PwD candidate from their valid right of reservation”, the plea stated. The plea filed through Advocates Rohit Singh and Ritu Reniwal stated that for academic year 2023-24, the Ministry of health and family welfare (MoHFW) and National Medical Commission (NMC) have not lowered the minimum qualifying percentile criteria in any of the category of PwD Candidates. This decision of MoHFW & NMC is also a clear the departure from their last 6 years trend, it said. Case Title: Mohd. Faisal & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. Click here to read more
[Editors Guild] The Chief Justice of India on Friday remarked that incorrect things are reported by journalists all across the country every day, but they could not be prosecuted for it.CJI DY Chandrachud made this observation while extending the interim relief granted to the Editors Guild President Seema Mustafa, and the fact-finding committee comprising journalists Seema Guha, Bharat Bhushan and Sanjay Kapoor, which had submitted a report on misreporting of the Manipur Violence situation. "Making a false statement in an article is not an offence under Section 153A. It may be incorrect. Incorrect things are reported all across the country every day. Will you prosecute journalists for 153A?...", the CJI said. Case Title: Seema Guha vs. State of Manipur Click here to read more
[Pendency] The Supreme Court on Thursday noted that if members of Bar do not cooperate with Trial Courts, it will be very difficult for Courts to deal with the huge arrears of cases. "While a trial is being conducted, the members of the bar are expected to act as officers of the court. They are expected to conduct themselves in a reasonable and fair manner. The members of the bar must remember that fairness is a hallmark of great advocacy...", a division bench has said. Bench: Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal Case Title: Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited vs. Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Click here to read more
[Hybrid hearings] Chief Justice of India today issued notice to all High Court across the country, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) and National Green Tribunal (NGT) seeking a response from them over the functioning of video conferencing facilities. Is the hybrid mode still functioning or has the virtual conferencing facility been disbanded fully, a CJI DY Chandrachud led bench remarked today. This response has been sought in a plea moved by one Sarvesh, against the Punjab and Haryana High Court completely shutting down its virtual court facilities. Bench: CJI, with Justices Paardiwala and Misra Case Title: Sarvesh Mathur vs. The Registrar General, Punjab and Haryana High Court Click here to read more
Please Login or Register
