The Supreme Court on Thursday adjourned till May 3 the hearing on pleas challenging the amended law allowing extension of up to five years for the director of the Enforcement Directorate (ED). A three-judge bench of Justices B R Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol deferred the matter after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought adjournment on grounds that he was busy in the constitution bench hearing on the issue of legalisation of same-sex marriage. "Mr Solicitor, you make some alternative arrangements. We can't keep the matter adjourning like this. Make some arrangements. We don't want any impression to be carried that the government is unnecessarily delaying," the bench said. Mehta submitted that nobody anticipated that constitution bench matters would commence when this date was fixed. On Solicitor General's request, the bench posted the matter for hearing on May 3. The top court had earlier disagreed with the Centre's submission that petitions challenging the amended law allow
The new rules will reportedly give the borrower a personal hearing before they are declared a wilful defaulter
The Supreme Court Collegium headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud on Wednesday recommended the appointment of chief justices of five high courts including Justice Augustine George Masih for the Rajasthan HC. The four other high courts for which the Collegium, also comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K M Joseph, proposed new chief justices are: Madras HC, Kerala HC, Bombay HC, Himachal Pradesh HC. Justice S V Gangapurwala, the Acting Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay, has been proposed to be appointed as the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. The Collegium noted that the office of the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan HC fell vacant recently due to the elevation of Justice Pankaj Mithal to the Supreme Court, and proposed the name of Punjab & Haryana HC judge Justice Augustine George Masih as the next CJ of Rajasthan HC. It said that Justice Masih was appointed as a Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on July 10, 2008 and he has acquired experience of ...
Top court stressed that the state cannot discriminate against an individual on the basis of a characteristic over which person has no control, and something which is innate cannot have a class bias
The petitioners seeking legal validation for same-sex marriage on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to use its plenary power "prestige and moral authority to push the society to acknowledge such a union as would ensure LGBTQIA persons lead a dignified life like heterosexuals as they have no representation in Parliament. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for one of the petitioners, urged before a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud the State should come forward and provide recognition to same-sex marriage. Rohatgi referred to judgements, including the one that decriminalised consensual gay sex, to say the court was revisiting something which has already been decided. If the consensual sexual relationship in private is accepted legally then the next natural consequence is the validation of the marriage so that homosexuals are not treated as lesser mortals in public space, he said. Our parents have accepted us despite belonging to older ...
A bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration and directed that the case be decided within four months
Centre has said that the matter falls within the legislative domain, and thus views of all states and UTs are also necessary
Why does SBI want SC to clarify its fraud account ruling? Will Indian offices get repurposed as apartments? Are logistics stocks worth your money? What is Overseas Citizenship of India? Answers here
The bench said it will first hear petitioners' and the nature and tenability of the preliminary objection will depend upon the canvas which the petitioners would open up
Catch live updates from across the globe here
The Centre and the Gujarat government on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that they may file a plea seeking a review of its March 27 order asking them to be ready with original files on the grant of remission to the convicts in the Bilkis Bano case. A bench of Justices K M Joseph and B V Nagarathna questioned the paroles granted to 11 convicts during their incarceration period and said the gravity of the offence could have been considered by the state. It said, "A pregnant woman was gang-raped and several people were killed. You cannot compare victim's case with standard section 302 (murder) cases. Like you cannot compare apples with oranges, similarly massacre cannot be compared with single murder. Crimes are generally committed against society and the community. Unequals cannot be treated equally." "The question is whether government applied its mind and what material formed the basis of its decision to grant remission," the bench said, adding, Today it is Bilkis but tomorrow it can
The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear on April 24 a plea seeking an independent probe into the killing of gangster-turned-politician Atiq Ahmad and his brother Ashraf in Uttar Pradesh's Prayagraj. The duo were shot dead at point-blank range by three men posing as journalists in the middle of a media interaction on Saturday night while police personnel were escorting them to a medical college in Prayagraj for a checkup. A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud took note of the submissions of advocate Vishal Tiwari who mentioned the matter seeking urgent hearing. The plea has also sought an inquiry into the 183 encounters that have taken place in Uttar Pradesh since 2017. Just hours before the shooting, the last rites of Ahmad's son Asad, who along with one of his associates was gunned down in a police encounter in Jhansi on April 13, were held. Uttar Pradesh Police had said on Friday that it has gunned down 183 alleged criminals in encounters in the six years of the Chie
'Can keep personal laws out, all lawyers can address us on Special Marriage Act'
The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it clear that it will not go into the personal laws governing marriages while deciding the pleas seeking legal validation for same-sex marriages and asked the lawyers to advance arguments on the Special Marriage Act. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud termed the issue involving the pleas complex and said the very notion of a man and a woman, as referred to in the Special Marriage Act, is not an absolute based on genitals". It is not the question of what your genitals are. It is far more complex, that's the point. So, even when the Special Marriage Act says man and woman, the very notion of a man and a woman is not an absolute based on genitals, said the bench, which also comprised justices Justices S K Kaul, S R Bhat, Hima Kohli and P S Narasimha. On being pointed out the difficulties and ramifications for the Hindu Marriage Act and personal laws of various religious groups if the apex court were to hold same-sex
The Netherlands became the first country to legalise same-sex marriage when the Dutch parliament passed a landmark bill in December, 2000 allowing the practise
The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned the hearing for April 25 of the petitions challenging the scrapping of the four per cent (Other backward Classes) OBC quota for Muslims in Karnataka
The Supreme Court on Tuesday began hearing arguments on a batch of pleas seeking legal validation for same-sex marriages, with the Centre insisting its preliminary objection on whether the court can at all go into this question or it would be essentially for the parliament to go into it be heard first. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud told Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, that the nature and tenability of the preliminary objection will depend on the canvass the petitioners open up and the court wants to have a view of their argument. Mehta told the bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul, S R Bhat, Hima Kohli and P S Narasimha, the petitioners can advance their submissions on what they want and also an overview confined to the preliminary objection raised by him. "I am sorry Mr solicitor, we are in charge, the CJI told Mehta, adding the court will hear the petitioners' side first. "You cannot dictate how we will
A five-judge Constitution bench comprising chief justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and justices SK Kaul, Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha is hearing the pleas
The bench noted that to evade an undertaking given to it, an ingenious method has been adopted regarding holding of the elections by repealing the Nagaland Municipal Act 2001
The Supreme Court agreed to hear on Tuesday a plea filed by the Centre questioning the maintainability of the petitions seeking legal validation of same-sex marriage. A bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud took note of the submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who mentioned the plea to decide a preliminary issue. "Yes, it will be listed tomorrow," the bench also comprising justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala said. Terming the petitions seeking legal validation of same-sex marriage as one which reflect an "urban elitist" view for the purpose of social acceptance, the Centre has told the Supreme Court that recognition of marriage is essentially a legislative function which the courts should refrain from deciding. Questioning the maintainability of the petitions, the Centre has said that legal validation for same-sex marriages will cause complete havoc with the delicate balance of personal laws and accepted societal values. A five-judge Supreme Court constituti