The Supreme Court Monday agreed to hear on Tuesday a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging the Bombay High Court order granting bail to former Maharashtra home minister Anil Deshmukh in a money laundering case. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the ED, mentioned the matter for urgent listing before a bench comprising Chief Justice U U Lalit and Justice S R Bhat. The bench said the matter will come up for hearing tomorrow before a bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud. The high court had on October 4 granted bail to Deshmukh in the case registered by the ED observing "two components of credits" in the account of his family trust were not "proceeds of crime. The high court had, however, stayed the order till October 13 after Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh said the ED will challenge it in the apex court. Two components of credits (Rs 10.42 crore and Rs 1.12 crore) in the account of a trust controlled by the Deshmukh family, flagged by the
'It is not the job of the court to decide on such matters,' the SC bench commented while enquiring which fundamental right of the petitioner was affected
The Supreme Court on Monday rapped the Rajasthan government over its "unsatisfactory" affidavit enumerating steps on payment of ex-gratia to family members of those who died of COVID-19, and said it was not doing any charity. A bench of Justices M R Shah and Krishna Murari directed the state government to file a detailed affidavit in the matter. "Earlier also you had made an assurance. State of Rajasthan is not doing any charity. There is a direction issued by this court and persons affected by COVID-19 should be treated with sympathy. "Affidavit filed by the Rajasthan government is not satisfactory at all. The counsel prays for time to put a detailed affidavit. Put up on Friday," the bench said. The counsel for the Rajasthan government informed the court that the state is taking all the requisite steps. The apex court was hearing a plea filed by advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal alleging Rajasthan is not adhering to the 2021 order directing states to pay ex-gratia of Rs 50,000 to the
The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce its verdict on petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court judgement refusing to lift the ban on hijab in educational institutions before Justice Hemant Gupta retires this week. A bench of Justices Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia had reserved its judgement on the pleas on September 22 after hearing arguments in the matter for 10 days. The pronouncement of judgement on these pleas is expected this week as Justice Gupta, who is heading the bench, is due to retire on October 16. During the arguments in the apex court, a number of counsel appearing for the petitioners had insisted that preventing the Muslim girls from wearing the hijab to the classroom will put their education in jeopardy as they might stop attending classes. Counsel for the petitioners had argued on various aspects, including on the state government's February 5, 2022 order which banned wearing clothes that disturb equality, integrity, and public order in schools and colleges. S
While challengers can promise the moon, the govt knows that the economic situation is tight and might even worsen before 2024. It would like to restrict the Opposition's ability to promise freebies
The Supreme Court has held that statement of a witness, including cross-examination, has to be recorded either on the same or the following day and there should not be any ground for adjournment on this. The apex court, which was hearing two pleas seeking quashing of bail granted by the Allahabad High Court to two persons in a murder case, was informed that it took almost three months to conclude recording of statement of one of the prosecution witnesses. "The mandate of law itself postulate that examination-in-chief followed with cross-examination is to be recorded either on the same day or on the day following," a bench of justices Ajay Rastogi and C T Ravikumar said. "In other words, there should not be any ground for adjournment in recording the examination-in-chief/cross-examination of the prosecution witness, as the case may be," the top court said in its order passed on September 30. The high court, in its two separate orders passed in February and March, had granted bail to
The 82-feet tall tower reduced PM2.5 pollutants by 13% in December 2021, 7% in March, and 17% in April
The Supreme Court has directed all state governments and Union Territories to bring on record information on existing welfare schemes for the elderly in connection with pension
The industry had been worried after the Supreme Court dismissed a review petition filed by the finance ministry over the issue.
Two members of the five-member collegium headed bu CJI UU Lalit have rejected his proposal for approval of names
Says Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance's investigation report cleared Dolo-650 maker, Micro Labs, of allegations of bribing doctors with freebies worth Rs 1,000 crore
The government further added that it is working on providing statutory backing to the UCPMP code and "it is a time-consuming process, which cannot be completed in haste"
Yes, the government is the biggest litigant in the country, but this is not the whole truth
Ahead of the Supreme Court taking up petitions challenging demonetisation, senior Congress leader M Veerappa Moily on Monday said the "ill-timed" decision had led to migration of labour, unemployment and added to the misery of the poor. In a statement, Moily recalled that as the chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance, he had discussed the issue threadbare, but the report on demonetisation could not be adopted by the panel due to opposition from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) members. The apex court is set to hear a bunch of petitions challenging the demonetisation exercise of 2016, when the government had scrapped Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 currency notes on October 12. Moily also voiced concern over the "rising inequality" and the "fall in employment" in the country. The former Union minister referred to the World Inequality Report of 2022, which claims that India was among the most unequal countries across the globe with rising poverty and skyrocketing weal
With states after states competing to offer freebies, a report has suggested that the Supreme Court-led panel could cap such welfare schemes at 1 per cent of the state's GDP or 1 per cent of its own tax collection. Citing the examples of just three states, a report penned by Soumya Kanti Ghosh, the group chief economic adviser to State Bank of India, said annual pension liabilities of the poor states of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Rajasthan are estimated at Rs 3 lakh crore. When looked in relation to these states own tax revenue, pension liabilities are quite high for Jharkhand, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh at 217, 190 and 207 per cent respectively. While for states contemplating the change, it would be as high as 450 per cent of own tax revenue in case of Himachal Pradesh, 138 per cent of own tax revenue in case of Gujarat and 242 per cent of own tax revenue for Punjab, which is also planning to revert to the old pension system wherein the beneficiaries pay nothing. Ghosh also point
Court agrees with tribunal orders in Bhushan Steel's acquisition by Tata group firm
BSES said that the SC has restrained Delhi power utilities IPGCL, PPCL and DTL from cutting off power supply to it and ordered them to maintain status quo till further orders
You can watch the Supreme Court proceedings live now. Last week, the apex court started live-streaming proceedings of Constitution benches. But what is a Constitution bench. Our next report tells
Appointment on compassionate ground is a concession not a right and the object of granting such employment is to enable the affected family to tide over a sudden crisis, the Supreme Court has said. The apex court last week set aside the judgement of a division bench of the Kerala High Court, which confirmed the verdict of a single judge directing the Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd and others to consider the case of a woman for appointment on compassionate ground. A bench of Justices M R Shah and Krishna Murari noted that the father of the woman was employed with Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd and died while on duty in April 1995. At the time of his death, it noted, his wife was serving and therefore not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. "After a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground," the bench said. According to the law laid down by the apex co
In accordance with a 2006 Supreme Court ruling, marriage registration is compulsory under the Delhi (Compulsory Registration of Marriage) Order, 2014