Maintaining that "constitutional morality" is a restraining factor on the state, Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud on Saturday said it allows for conditions that respect diversity, promote inclusion and pursue tolerance. He said that India does not exist only in large cities, but it goes down to the smallest village and the smallest taluka across the nation, connected or not, accessible or otherwise. CJI Chandrachud said "constitutional morality", unlike morality, which he said is a restraint on the rights of citizens, is a restraining factor on the state. Constitutional morality addresses itself to every component of society and allows for conditions which "respect diversity, promote inclusion and pursue tolerance, he said, delivering the keynote address at the two-day East Zone II regional conference of the National Judicial Academy. The CJI said it also imposes a duty on the state to facilitate the achievement of the kind of society that the Constitution envisages. "The ..
Espousing the importance of implementing Constitutional Morality' in Indian jurisprudence, Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud on Saturday insisted on the commitment of courts to ensure diversity, inclusion and tolerance. Speaking at the inaugural session of the two-day East Zone II Regional Conference of the National Judicial Academy, the CJI also focused on the importance of technological advancements in the justice delivery system. CJI Chandrachud elaborated on the notion of Constitutional Morality' as a restraining factor on the state that should derive from the Preambluar values of the Constitution. Underlining the country's federal structure that's marked by a great deal of diversity, the CJI focused on the role of judges in preserving the diversity of India. I am reticent when people call courts a temple of justice. Because that would mean the judges are deities which they are not. They are instead servers of the people, who deliver justice with compassion and empathy, CJ
A vacation bench of Justices Manoj Misra and SVN Bhatti issued a notice and sought the NTA's response by July 8, the date of the next hearing
Allaying apprehension of any interference of the legislature, Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud has said he never faced any political pressure from any government in his 24-year stint as a judge. Responding to a question during a session organised by the Oxford Union, he said judges in India are trained to decide disputes in a manner that allows for courts to decide on the basis of settled traditions based on constitutional scheme as opposed to the passions of the moment. "Political pressure, in the sense if you ask me in the sense of pressure from the government, I would tell you that in the 24 years that I have been a judge, I have never faced a sense of political pressure from the powers that be. Some of the democratic traditions that we follow in India include that we lead lives which are isolated from the political arm of the government. "If you mean 'political pressure' in a broader sense of a judge realising the impact of a decision which may have political ramifications, ...
Campaigners in India await a crucial Supreme Court decision on criminalising marital rape amid criticism for its exclusion from upcoming criminal law reforms
The ED on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that the trial court judge was in a "hurry" and did not afford a reasonable opportunity to the prosecutor to oppose Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's bail in a money laundering case linked to the alleged excise scam. The federal probe agency said the June 20 order of the trial court granting regular bail to Kejriwal was "perverse" for non-compliance of prerequisite mandatory conditions under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). A vacation bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice SVN Bhatti took on record the Enforcement Directorate's reply affidavit filed in Kejriwal's plea challenging the interim stay granted by the Delhi High Court on June 21. The bench also allowed Kejriwal to withdraw his plea after senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for him, said he would file a substantial appeal as the high court has pronounced the final order on June 25, staying the bail order. The top court granted liberty to
Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal withdrew from the Supreme Court on Wednesday his plea challenging the Delhi High Court order granting an interim stay on the operation of the trial court's bail order in a money laundering case linked to the alleged excise scam. A vacation bench of Justices Manoj Misra and SVN Bhatti, which allowed Kejriwal to withdraw his plea, was told by the AAP leader's counsel senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi that since the high court has passed a detailed order on June 25, he would like to file a substantial appeal. Singhvi informed the bench that new developments were taking place every day and Kejriwal has now been arrested by the CBI. "We would like to file a substantial appeal to bring on record all relevant details and challenge the June 25 order of the high court in which bail order was finally stayed," he said. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), said he has filed the reply to Kejriwal's plea which may be
The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) on Tuesday said it disagrees with the Delhi High Court order staying the bail granted to Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal by the trial court and will challenge it in the Supreme Court. The Delhi High Court earlier in the day stayed the trial court order granting bail to Kejriwal in the money laundering case stemming from the alleged excise policy scam in Delhi. A vacation bench of Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain said the trial court failed to appreciate the material placed before it by the Enforcement Directorate and did not apply its mind while deciding the AAP leader's bail plea. The judge also said the trial court ought to have given adequate opportunity to the agency to argue its case. Reacting to the development, the AAP said they will approach the apex court. "We disagree with the Delhi High Court order. We will challenge it in the Supreme Court," the party said. The trial court had granted bail to Kejriwal on June 20 and ordered his release on a personal
The Supreme Court on Monday fixed June 26 for hearing Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's plea against the Delhi High Court order putting interim stay on his bail in the money laundering case linked to the alleged excise scam. A vacation bench of Justices Manoj Misra and SVN Bhatti said it would like to wait for the pronouncement of the high court order on the issue. Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Kejriwal, sought vacating of the interim stay on the bail order. ASG SV Raju, appearing for the ED, opposed the plea of Kejriwal, and said the high court is about to pronounce the verdict on its stay application. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) national convener, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on March 21, could have walked out of Tihar jail on Friday last had the high court not granted the interim stay relief to the federal anti-money laundering agency.
The Supreme Court on Monday termed as "unusual" the Delhi High Court's decision of reserving the order while granting interim stay on the operation of the trial court's order granting bail to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in a money laundering case linked to the alleged excise scam. A vacation bench of Justices Manoj Misra and SVN Bhatti, which fixed June 26 for hearing Kejriwal's plea against the interim stay granted by the high court at the time of reserving its verdict on ED's plea said, "Normally, on stay applications, orders are not reserved. They are passed at the hearing itself, on the spot. So, it is a bit unusual." The bench said it would like to wait for the pronouncement of the high court order before taking a call on the AAP national convenor's appeal. During the brief hearing, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Kejriwal, sought vacation of the interim stay on the bail order, contending it was contrary to the well-established norm that a bail granted
The Supreme Court declined to immediately hear a plea seeking CBI and ED investigation into alleged NEET-UG 2024 irregularities
A fresh plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking directions to the CBI and the ED to investigate alleged irregularities in the medical entrance exam NEET-UG held on May 5. The petition, filed by 10 students who had appeared for the exam, has also sought a direction to Bihar Police to expedite the investigation in the case and file a report before the apex court. "The petitioners are fully aware of the ramifications of the cancellation of the examination but there is absolutely no other alternative. "The NEET UG Examination of 2024 had many other irregularities, in particular, the gross negligence on the part of the authorities to make the question papers available to the candidates on time. In some places, the wrong set of question papers was distributed and later recalled," the plea said. The top court had earlier sought responses from the Centre, the National Testing Agency (NTA) and others on a slew of petitions, including those seeking scrapping of the NEET-UG 2024 exam
One of the questions in the NEET-UG 2024 examination has two correct answers. The candidate files a plea in the Supreme Court challenging its legality. SC schedules the matter for July 8
A vacation bench of Justices Vikram Nath and SVN Bhatti of the apex court has tagged the fresh pleas along with pending petitions and posted them for hearing on July 8
The Congress on Friday held a demonstration here over the alleged irregularities in the NEET-UG 2024 exam and demanded a probe under the supervision of a sitting Supreme Court judge. Punjab Congress chief Amrinder Singh Raja Warring, who is also Ludhiana MP, led the protest of the state unit against the alleged irregularities in the medical entrance exam. Chandigarh youth Congress workers also staged a protest against the alleged irregularities in the exam. The examination was held on May 5 across 4,750 centres and around 24 lakh candidates took it. The results were expected to be declared on June 14 but were announced on June 4, apparently because the evaluation of the answer sheets got completed earlier. There have been allegations of question paper leaks in states like Bihar and other irregularities in the prestigious exam. The allegations have led to protests in several cities and filing of petitions in several high courts as also the Supreme Court. On Tuesday, the Supreme Cou
The Supreme Court has stayed criminal proceedings against IREO Group Managing Director Lalit Goyal and Oberoi Realty Limited Chairman and Managing Director Vikas Oberoi over allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust and forgery. A vacation bench of Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and Augustine George Masih issued notice to the Haryana government on a plea filed against an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. "The question as to whether the filing of the second complaint would amount to an abuse of process and as to whether the complainant approached the court with unclean hands requires further examination. Issue notice to the respondents ...In the meanwhile, there shall be stay of further proceedings in relation to FIR," the bench said. The top court was hearing a plea filed by IREO and the Oberoi groups challenging the June 6 order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that upheld registration of FIR. The FIR was registered on the orders of the chief judicial magistrate at
The apex court also stayed further proceedings on some pleas on the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (Undergraduate)-2024 examination pending before different high courts in the country
NEET-UG exam row: Students and political leaders demand exam cancellation, probe into irregularities, and accountability from authorities over the alleged irregularities in medical entrance exam
The Supreme Court had left the case to be decided by the Bombay High Court after suspending the film's screening last week
Allegations such as the question paper leak and the grant of grace marks to over 1,500 medical aspirants led to protests and the filing of cases in seven high courts and the Supreme Court