Page 182 - Supreme Court

Same-sex marriage: Here's what CJI Chandrachud said in his judgement

CJI Chandrachud on Tuesday said, 'The right to enter into union includes the right to choose one's partner and the right to recognition of that union'

Five-judge SC bench refuses to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriage

A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages. Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, who was heading the bench pronouncing its verdict on 21 pleas seeking legal validation for same-sex marriages, said the court can't make law but only interpret it and it is for Parliament to change the Special Marriage Act. At the outset, Justice Chandrachud said there are four judgments -- by himself, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat and P S Narasimha -- in the matter. Justice Hima Kohli is also a part of the five-judge bench. Directing the Centre, states and Union Territories (UTs) to ensure the queer community is not discriminated against, the CJI, who is heading the constitution bench, said queer is a natural phenomenon known for ages and is neither urban nor elitist. Justice Kaul said he agrees with the CJI on grant of certain rights to queer couples. "Non-heterosexual and heterosexual unions must be seen

CJI on same-sex marriage: Parl can change law, we can only interpret

The court can't make law but only interpret it and it is for Parliament to change the Special Marriage Act, Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud said on Tuesday while pronouncing his verdict on 21 pleas seeking legal validation for same-sex marriages. At the outset, Justice Chandrachud said there are four judgments -- by himself, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat and P S Narasimha -- in the matter. Justice Hima Kohli is also a part of the five-judge bench. Directing the Centre, states and Union Territories (UTs) to ensure that the queer community is not discriminated against, the CJI, who is heading the constitution bench, said queer is a natural phenomenon known for ages and is neither urban nor elitist. Justice Kaul said he agrees with the CJI on grant of certain rights to queer couples. "Non-heterosexual and heterosexual unions must be seen as both sides of same coin," he said, adding that legal recognition of non-heterosexual unions is step towards marriage .

Same-sex marriage in India: Supreme Court to pronounce judgment today

Over 20 petitions advocating for legal equality of same-sex couples in matters of marriage, including adoption, succession, inheritance, divorce, among others have been placed before the Supreme Court

SC to deliver verdict on pleas seeking same-sex marriage validity today

The apex court had commenced hearing arguments in the matter on April 18

Latest LIVE: Supreme Court to pronounce verdict on same-sex marriage today

Catch all the latest updates from across the globe here

SC refers to 5-judge bench pleas challenging electoral bond scheme

The Supreme Court on Monday referred to a five-judge Constitution bench a batch of pleas challenging the validity of the electoral bond scheme for political funding of parties. A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said they have received an application that the matter being urgent be sent to a larger bench for a conclusive judgement. The bench said the matter will be taken up on October 30, the date of hearing fixed earlier. Earlier, the bench had taken note of the submissions of lawyer Prashant Bhushan that the matter needed adjudication before the electoral bond scheme opens for the 2024 general elections and had decided to fix it for final hearing. There are four PILs pending on the issue. One of the PIL petitioners had said in March that so far Rs 12,000 crore has been paid to political parties through electoral bonds and the two-third of the amount has gone to one major political party. Electoral bonds have been pitched a

NewsClick row: Founder, HR head move SC against arrest in UAPA case

NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and its HR head Amit Chakravarty on Monday moved the Supreme Court against the Delhi High Court's refusal to interfere with their arrest and police remand in a case lodged under the anti-terror law UAPA. A bench comprising Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra took note of the submissions of senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, appearing for Purkayastha and Chakravarty, that the matter needed urgent hearing and asked him to circulate the case papers. "This is the NewsClick matter. The journalists are in police custody. Here one of the accused is a 75-year old man, Sibal said. The CJI said he will take a call on the listing. On October 13, a Delhi High Court bench dismissed the plea against the arrest and subsequent police remand of Purkayastha and Chakravarty in the case. Both were arrested by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police on October 3. They subsequently moved the high court challenging the arrest as well as the

Considering making AAP an accused in Delhi excise policy cases: CBI, ED

The CBI and ED told the Supreme Court on Monday they are contemplating making the city's Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) an accused in the Delhi excise policy cases. Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, representing the two probe agencies, told a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti he has instructions to state that the agencies are considering making AAP an accused, invoking legal provisions on "vicarious liability" and section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). However, the bench asked Raju to clarify his stand on Tuesday on whether there will be separate charge against the AAP in cases being probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate. Raju made the statement while the bench was hearing the bail pleas of AAP leader and former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, who was arrested in the excise policy cases being probed by the CBI and ED. The investigative agencies have often suggested that AAP was a beneficiary of the .

License fee by telecoms to be treated as capex not revenue expenditure: SC

This decision overturns previous rulings by the Delhi, Bombay, and Karnataka High Courts, which had favoured the telecom firms

SC rejects plea of married woman to terminate 26-week old pregnancy

The Court said the cost of all medical procedure in he case would be borne by the State and the petitioner would have the choice to keep the child or give it up for adoption

SC seeks reply of Chanda Kochhar, husband on CBI's plea in loan fraud case

The Supreme Court on Monday sought response of former ICICI Bank CEO-cum-MD Chanda Kochhar and her businessman husband Deepak Kochhar on a plea of the CBI challenging the interim bail granted to them by the Bombay High Court in a loan fraud case. A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi issued notice on the plea of the CBI and sought the response of the couple in three weeks. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the CBI, said the high court proceeded on a wrong presumption that offence is punishable with maximum of seven years imprisonment without considering section 409 of IPC (criminal breach of trust by public servant) which entails sentence from 10 years to life imprisonment. The bench asked Raju how section 409 of the IPC come into play when it was a private bank. Raju replied that the bank may be private but it involves public money. The bench said it is issuing notice and seeking their reply in three weeks. On January 9, the high court pulled up

Plea challenging designation of lawyers as senior advocates dismissed by SC

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a petition challenging the designation of lawyers as senior advocates. A bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul delivered its verdict on a plea filed by advocate Mathews J Nedumpara and seven others. The petitioners had challenged sections 16 and 23 (5) of the Advocates Act, 1961, claiming these "creates two classes of lawyers, senior advocates and other advocates, which in actual practice has resulted in unthinkable catastrophe and inequities which Parliament certainly would not have contemplated or foreseen". While section 16 of the Advocates Act pertains to senior and other advocates, section 23 (5) says senior advocates shall have pre-audience over other lawyers and their right of pre-audience inter se shall be determined by their respective seniority. The plea had claimed that designation of lawyers as senior advocates, which is "creating a special class of advocates with special rights, privileges and status not available to ordinary

SC lists plea of Sterlite copper unit of Tamil Nadu for hearing on Nov 29

The Supreme Court has listed the Vedanta group's plea related to the closure of its Sterlite copper unit in Tamil Nadu's Tuticorin for hearing on November 29. According to an update on the apex court's website, the plea of the Vedanta group firm will be heard on November 29. On October 9, a bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud had assured the firm's counsel that it had directed the registrar to allocate "two dedicated dates" for hearing the Vedanta group's plea. "I am well aware of the situation. I have already directed the registrar to allocate two dedicated dates (for hearing)," the CJI had said. The top court had, in May, asked the Tamil Nadu government to take appropriate decisions in pursuance of its April 10 direction by which it had allowed the Vedanta group to carry out the upkeep of its Sterlite copper unit in Tuticorin under the supervision of a local-level monitoring committee. In its April 10 order, the top court had also allowed the evacuation of the remainin

The opacity of transparency: A deep dive into India's electoral bond system

ARCHIS MOHAN dives into India's electoral bond system, where political finance, corporate interests, and anonymity collide, sparking debates on transparency and the pulse of democracy

SC to hear Cong leader Pawan Khera's plea against HC order on Monday

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Monday a plea of Congress leader Pawan Khera challenging Allahabad High Court's refusal to quash criminal proceedings against him for allegedly making objectionable remarks against Prime Minister Narendra Modi. A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra is scheduled to hear the plea. The matter was also listed on October 13 but was adjourned after Khera's counsel sought time to file some additional documents. On August 17, the high court dismissed Khera's plea saying the evidence collected by the investigating officer of the case cannot be evaluated in petition filed under section 482 of the CrPC for quashing the case. It had observed that since the top court had asked Khera to raise all the contentions before the chief judicial magistrate, Lucknow, it would be appropriate if he raises all his grievances before the said court. On March 20, the top court clubbed three FIRs lodged against Khera in Assam and Uttar Pradesh for ...

SC directs Centre to apprise it about rice fortification labelling norms

The Supreme Court has directed the Centre to apprise it about steps taken to comply with a provision of the Food Safety and Standards (Fortification of Foods) Regulations, 2018, that labels on bags containing fortified rice should carry an advisory that it is harmful for people suffering from sickle cell anaemia and thalassemia. A bench of Justice S K Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia asked the Union of India to file an affidavit within four weeks and inform it about the action taken. "Counsel has entered appearance for the Union of India and will obtain instructions as to what steps have been taken in respect of the subject matter of the grievance in the present petition and as to whether any action has been taken on the representation already made by the petitioner(s). "An affidavit be filed in this behalf within four weeks. List immediately after four weeks," the bench said. The top court was hearing a plea filed by Rajesh Krishnan and others seeking compliance with clause 7(4)

SC to hear plea seeking rules on electronics seizure by police on Nov 2

A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia said it would hear case on November 2 after senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan appearing for petitioners mentioned matter for early hearing

Will not arrest TDP chief in FiberNet case till Oct 18: AP police to SC

The Andhra Pradesh police Friday told the Supreme Court they will not arrest TDP chief N Chandrababu Naidu in the FiberNet case till October 18 due to the pendency of the matter related to the Skill Development Corporation scam in the apex court. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Andhra Pradesh government, told a bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi that the state will seek adjournment in the matter from the trial court where Naidu is to be produced on October 16. The trial court has issued a production warrant and asked the state police to present Naidu before it on October 16. The bench issued notice to the state government on the fresh plea by Naidu in which the former Andhra Pradesh chief minister has challenged the October 9 order of the high court which had rejected his anticipatory bail plea in the FiberNet case. Naidu has said in his petition he apprehended his arrest after production in the court on October 16. The FiberNet case relates to ..

Pending cases in SC with govt as party increased to 11,414 in 2023: RTI

The number of cases in which government is a party and that are pending in the Supreme Court have increased from 4536 in 2019 to 11,414 in 2023, according to an RTI response from the law ministry. Replying to the RTI application filed by Pune-based activist Vihar Durve, the ministry said it did not have the data in the form sought by him. Durve had asked from the ministry "complete information year wise from the year 2019 to 2023" about total cases pending in Supreme Court of India where government of India is one of the party. As ascertained from the branch concerned, results based on the search of the party name from the list of parties involved in a case i.e. 'UOI', 'U.O.I', 'Union of India', 'U O I', 'State', 'bank', 'Ministry', 'Govt. of India', 'Government of India', 'Govt of India', the number of cases filed from 2019 to 2023 in which government is a party and still pending in Supreme Court are as follows, the ministry said. Giving the data, it said in the filing year 2019,