Explore Business Standard
Indian Judiciary
Taking note of the repeated strikes at the Gautam Buddha Nagar district court, the Supreme Court on Thursday asked the committee of judges at the Allahabad High Court to take action against Bar Association officials on receipt of a report from the district judge. A bench consisting of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued the order while hearing a case filed by Virendra Singh. The apex court noted with concern that the Gautam Buddha Nagar Bar Association has continued to pass resolutions for abstaining from work, despite a Supreme Court judgment in December 2024 explicitly restraining district bar associations from doing so. During the proceedings, CJI Kant said that the president of Gautam Buddha Nagar Bar Association has repeatedly ignored the court's direction. While the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice had already formed a three-member committee to look into the matter, the Supreme Court bench emphasised the need for swifter consequences. "We direct the
Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant on Saturday said the judiciary and its allied institutions enjoy deep public trust and it is their responsibility to preserve and strengthen this faith. Addressing a programme organised by the Association of Retired Judges (Rajasthan Chapter) here, he likened former judges to 'baoris' (stepwells), describing them as a reservoir of wisdom that can guide the system during challenging times. "Just as stepwells store water during the rains and serve people in times of scarcity, retired judges are a valuable resource for us. In situations of difficulty -- be it in Lok Adalats, arbitration or advisory roles -- we look up to these experienced judges for guidance on what is right and what is not," he said. Justice Surya Kant laid emphasis on the need for greater awareness and proactive functioning within the judiciary and related bodies, including the National Legal Services Authority and state legal services authorities. He said that former judges
The Supreme Court on Thursday took serious note of seven judicial officials engaged in SIR exercise being taken "hostage" in West Bengal's Malda district, terming it deplorable and seeking responses from the state home secretary, DGP and other officials for their "inaction". A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi permitted the Election Commission to seek either CBI or NIA probe into the unfortunate incident. It said the incident appears to be a "calculated" and "motivated move to demoralise judicial officers" and to stop the ongoing electoral process. Observing that the law and order machinery in the state has "broken down", the CJI came down hard on state officials for their delayed action in the issue. Seven judicial officials, including three women, were taken hostage by the anti-social elements at Malda district, the CJI said, adding that he himself had to monitor the situation till late night on Wednesday. The top court referred
Taking cognisance of a trial court relying on alleged non-existing verdicts that were generated with the help of artificial intelligence (AI), the Supreme Court has said a decision based on such fake judgments would not be an error in decision making but would amount to misconduct. A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe has said it will examine the matter in detail and issued a notice to Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and the Bar Council of India. The court has also appointed senior advocate Shyam Divan to assist it in the matter. "We take cognisance of the trial court deploying AI-generated non-existing, fake or synthetic alleged judgments and seek to examine its consequences and accountability as it has a direct bearing on the integrity of the adjudicatory process," the bench said. "At the outset, we must declare that a decision based on such non-existent and fake alleged judgments is not an error in the decision making. It would be a
The Supreme Court on Thursday imposed a blanket ban on class 8 NCERT book carrying a chapter on corruption in the judiciary, and ordered a seizure of all physical copies, along with takedown of its digital forms. The apex court ordered that the Centre and state authorities comply with its directions immediately, and warned of "serious action" if directions are defied in any form. The top court issued show cause notices to NCERT director, school education secretary to explain why action should be not taken against those responsible. A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant said there seemed to be a calculated move to undermine institution and demean dignity of judiciary. The bench said such misconduct, having everlasting impact on judiciary, would fall within definition of criminal contempt. "We would like to have a deeper probe," the bench said. The court said that if allowed to go unchecked, this will erode people's faith in judiciary. "No one will be allowed to go scot-free."
The NCERT on Wednesday apologised for "inappropriate content" after facing the Supreme Court's ire over a chapter talking about judicial corruption in a Class 8 textbook and said the book concerned will be rewritten in consultation with appropriate authorities. The council, responsible for school education curriculum, also put on hold the circulation of the textbook, hours after it took the book off its website. "It has been observed that certain inappropriate textual material and error of judgement have inadvertently crept into the concerned chapter," a senior official said. The National Council of Educational Research & Training (NCERT) said it "holds the judiciary in highest esteem and considers it to be the upholder of the Indian Constitution and protector of fundamental rights" and termed the error as purely unintentional. "NCERT reiterates that the objective of the new textbooks is to strengthen constitutional literacy, institutional respect, and informed understanding of ...
The Supreme Court is slated to hear on Thursday a suo motu case over the "objectionable" statements about the judiciary in NCERT textbooks. A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi will hear the case titled 'In Re: Social Science Textbook For Grade-8 (part-2) Published by NCERT and Ancillary Issues'. This assumes significance as the CJI on Wednesday strongly objected to a chapter on judicial corruption in NCERT's Class 8 curriculum, saying that nobody on earth will be allowed to defame the judiciary and taint its integrity. After facing the apex court's ire, the NCERT pulled the Class 8 textbook from its website with sources saying the government has not taken kindly to the inclusion of the controversial topic in the book. Earlier in the day, the top court took cognizance of the "objectionable" statements about judiciary in NCERT textbooks after senior advocate Kapil Sibal, alongside Abhishek Singhvi, mentioned the matter for urgent ...
The Supreme Court on Wednesday took suo motu cognisance of the contents of Class 8 NCERT textbook referring to the corruption in the judiciary and termed it a matter of "grave concern." A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi was urged by senior advocate Kapil Sibal that "children of class 8 are taught about corruption in the judiciary. This is a matter of grave concern." The CJI said, "I will not allow anybody to defame the institution. Law will take its course." He added, "As head of the institution, I have done my duty and have taken cognisance This seems to be a calculated move. I won't say much." Justice Bagchi said the book seemed to be against the basic structure of the Constitution. The CJI said, "Please wait for a few days. Bar and Bench all are perturbed. All high court judges are perturbed. I will take up the matter suo motu. I will not allow anybody to defame the institution. Law will take its course." Later, Just
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Saturday said access to justice cannot remain an abstract ideal reserved for the legally empowered and must translate into real outcomes for marginalised citizens. Speaking at the 11th biennial meeting of the Commonwealth Judicial Educators (CJE) here, CJI Kant said judicial leadership cannot be confined to administrative authority or institutional hierarchy and must be understood as an intellectual and ethical orientation. "Access to justice cannot remain an abstract ideal reserved for the legally empowered. It must translate into real outcomes for the last person standing in the line, the marginalised citizen whose faith in the justice system rests upon its accessibility, responsiveness and humanity," the CJI said. While placing stress on integration of technology into the justice system, he said that AI must assist, and not replace, judicial reasoning. CJI Kant said judicial leadership demands not only administrative foresight but deep empath
The Supreme Court has said fidelity to the rule of law requires the court to remember that the process itself can become the punishment if this responsibility is not exercised with care as it quashed the charges of caste-based violence against a whistleblower in the Madhya Pradesh VYAPAM examination scam. Anand Rai had challenged the Madhya Pradesh High Court order upholding the framing of charges in a case of caste-based atrocities arising from alleged violence and abuse against an MP, MLA and government officials during a rally in 2022. A bench of justices Sajay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh which quashed the charges under SC/ST Act against Rai said the court must consciously distinguish between a genuine case that warrants a trial and one that rests only on suspicion or assumption or for that matter without any basis. "To allow a matter to proceed despite the absence of a prima facie case is to expose a person to the strain, stigma, and uncertainty of criminal proceedings without ..
Transfer of judges is an internal matter of the judiciary and the government has no role to play in the process, Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said here on Saturday. Independence of judiciary was "non-negotiable", he said, delivering G V Pandit Memorial Lecture at the ILS Law College here. "Transfer of a judge is always for the better administration of justice. It is an internal matter of the judiciary. The government can have no say in that," Justice Bhuyan stated. "By the very nature of things, the Centre can have no say in the transfer and posting of judges. It cannot say that such and such a judge should not or should be transferred, or if transferred, to such and such High Court," he added. Independence of the judiciary is a basic feature of the Constitution, Justice Bhuyan further said. "It is non-negotiable. It is for the judiciary, or rather the members of the judiciary, to see to it that its independence is maintained at all costs in order to ensure its contin
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Monday said that the Supreme Court has entered into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the apex court of Bhutan to facilitate the exchange of young legal professionals. The CJI, at the outset of the proceedings, said that under the MoU, two law clerks from Bhutan will be engaged by the Supreme Court here for a period of three months. The clerks will receive the same honorarium as Indian law clerks, and their travel expenses will be borne by the Supreme Court, the CJI said. Introducing the law clerks to the packed courtroom, the CJI described them as young and bright and said they would be assigned to work in different courts during their tenure. We have entered into an MOU with the Supreme Court of Bhutan and on the basis of which there will be two law clerks who will be paid on the basis of our honorarium and will be there for period of three months, we will be taking care of their travelling, both will be working in different courts, both
The Union Law Ministry took a crucial step this year to help the central government shed the tag of being the "biggest litigant", but at the same time, efforts towards promoting mediation, which can eventually help in reducing court pendency, have fallen short. The year 2025 also saw the appointment of Gyanesh Kumar as the new Chief Election Commissioner under a new law, which has been dubbed by the opposition as "non-inclusive". As part of the Modi government's agenda to clean up statute books of obsolete laws, the ministry brought a bill to repeal over 70 such Acts that had lost their relevance over the years. The bill received Parliament's nod in the Winter session. While 65 of these laws were amendment Acts, which were brought to tweak existing laws, six were principal laws that had become outdated. At least two laws repealed were of the British era. Since May 2014, the Modi government has been consistently repealing colonial-era, archaic and obsolete laws to declutter statute