10 Most Interesting Indian Court Cases 

Posted on

We are a land rich in source material, especially if you were to get into the real stories this country has to offer. Yes, it’s a cliché but I


ndia is a great example of how often fact is stranger than fiction. The Indian Judicial System is a treasure trove of such stories. Here are some of the most important and influential cases in Indian history. Read on.

1. K.M. Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra (1959)

<

p style=”width:379.031px;margin-right:auto;margin-bottom:15px;margin-left:auto;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:HelveticaNeue;font-size:18px;line-height:32px;orphans:2;widows:2;”>This case was the last time there was a jury trial in India. KM Nanavati, a naval officer, murdered his wife’s lover, Prem Ahuja. A jury trial was held to decide whether it was a crime of passion (carrying a ten year sentence) or pre-meditated murder (life imprisonment) to which Nanavati plead ‘not guilty’. The jury ruled in favour of him but the verdict was dismissed by the Bombay High Court and the case was retried as a bench trial.

State of Orissa vs Ram Bahadur Thapa (1959)

<

p style=”width:379.031px;margin-right:auto;margin-bottom:15px;margin-left:auto;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:HelveticaNeue;font-size:18px;line-height:32px;orphans:2;widows:2;”>This is a bizarre one. Ram Bahadur Thapa was  the servant of one J.B. Chatterjee of Chatterjee Bros. firm in Calcutta. They had come to Rasogovindpur, a village in Balasore district in Orissa to purchase aeroscrap from an abandoned aerodrome outside the village. Because it was abandoned, the locals believed it was haunted. This piqued the curiosity of Chatterjee who wanted to “see the ghosts”. At night, as they were making their way to the aerodrome they saw a flickering light within the premises which, due to the strong wind, seemed to move. They thought it was will-o’-the-wisp Thapa jumped into action as he unleashed his khukri to attack the “ghosts”. Turns out, they were local adivasi women with a hurricane lantern who had gathered under amohua tree to collect some flowers. Thapa’s indiscriminate hacking caused the death of one Gelhi Majhiani and injured two other women. The Sessions court judge however, acquitted Thapa declaring that his actions were the result of a stern belief in ghosts and that in the moment, Thapa believed that they were lawfully justified.

<

p style=”width:379.031px;margin-right:auto;margin-bottom:15px;margin-left:auto;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:HelveticaNeue;font-size:18px;line-height:32px;orphans:2;widows:2;”>

Mathura Rape Case (1972)

<

p style=”width:379.031px;margin-right:auto;margin-bottom:15px;margin-left:auto;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:HelveticaNeue;font-size:18px;line-height:32px;orphans:2;widows:2;”>

<

p style=”width:379.031px;margin-right:auto;margin-bottom:15px;margin-left:auto;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:HelveticaNeue;font-size:18px;line-height:32px;orphans:2;widows:2;”>This is one of the most important cases in the country, because the protests that followed the verdict, forced some important changes in rape laws in India. Mathura, a young tribal woman, was raped by two constables within the premises of the Desai Ganj Police Station in Chandrapur district of Maharashtra. The Sessions court judge found the accused not guilty. The reasoning behind this was (believe it or not) that Mathura was habituated to sexual intercourse. This, according to the judge, clearly implied that the sexual act in the police station was consensual. The amendments to the law that were forced by the protests got one thing right – submission does not mean consent.

Kesavananda Bharti vs State of Kerala

<

p style=”width:379.031px;margin-right:auto;margin-bottom:15px;margin-left:auto;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:HelveticaNeue;font-size:18px;line-height:32px;orphans:2;widows:2;”>If there’s one reason India can still call itself ‘the world’s largest democracy’, it is this case. Swami Kesavananda Bharti ran a Hindu Mutt in Edneer village in Kerala but the state wanted to appropriate the land. Bharti, who was consulted by noted jurist Nanabhoy Palhkivala, filed a petition claiming that a religious institution had the right to run its business without government interference. The State invoked Article 31 which states ” no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. ” A bench of 13 judges deliberated on the facts of the case and through a narrow 7-6 majority, formulated the Basic Structure Doctrine, which puts some restrictions to how much the Parliament can amend the Constitutional laws. In many ways, the judgement here is considered to be a big middle finger to the then Central government under Indira Gandhi. Soon after, the emergency followed.

NALSA vs Union of India (2014)

<

p style=”width:379.031px;margin-right:auto;margin-bottom:15px;margin-left:auto;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:HelveticaNeue;font-size:18px;line-height:32px;orphans:2;widows:2;”>This is the landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India which declared that Transgendered People were the ‘third gender’ and that they had equal rights as any other gender. The petitioner in this case was the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA).

Bhawal Case (1921-1946)

<

p style=”width:379.031px;margin-right:auto;margin-bottom:15px;margin-left:auto;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:HelveticaNeue;font-size:18px;line-height:32px;orphans:2;widows:2;”>It’s still regarded as one of India’s weirdest identity cases. It mainly revolved around a possible impostor who claimed to be the prince of Bhawal Estate, one which comprised over 2000 villages and was one of undivided Bengal’s largest zamindari estates. Ramendra, the second kumar of the Bhawal estate died in the early 20th century, but there were rumours about him not really being dead. Ten years later,  in 1921, a sanyaasi who looked a lot like Ramendra was found wandering the streets of Dhaka. For some reason, the former tenants and farmers of Ramendra vouched for this man and also supported his claim to the title. Almost everyone except Ramendra’s widow, Bibhabati, believed him. There was a long legal process involving two trials where both sides attempted to prove their claims. In the meantime, the new Ramendra also moved to Calcutta and where he was welcomed in the elite circles. He used to regularly collect 1/3rd of the estate revenue, which was his share. He used that money to support his lifestyle while also paying the legal fees of the case. In the end, in 1946, the court finally ruled in his favour, but soon after that he passed away due to a stroke he had suffered a couple of days earlier.

Tarakeswar Case (1874)

<

p style=”width:379.031px;margin-right:auto;margin-bottom:15px;margin-left:auto;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:HelveticaNeue;font-size:18px;line-height:32px;orphans:2;widows:2;”>This case was so (for lack of a better word) ‘popular’, that authorities had to sell tickets to let people come inside the sessions court. And the story itself is nothing short of a blockbuster. Nobin Chandra slit the throat of his 16-year old wife, Elokeshi, who was apparently having an affair with the mahant of the local Tarakeswar temple. Even though Nobin Chandra handed himself over to the police and confessed his crime, the locals were mostly on his side. The police had to let him go after two years, even though he was serving a life imprisonment while the mahantwas arrested and put behind bars for three years. Alternatively, there were also rumours that the mahant had raped Elokeshi on the pretext of helping her out with “fertility issues”.  This case was really important for that time period because this was seen by the society as one of those moments where the British rulers meddled in the affairs of the Bengali bhadralok and a temple priest, something that was very rare back in those days. 

<

p style=”width:379.031px;margin-right:auto;margin-bottom:15px;margin-left:auto;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:HelveticaNeue;font-size:18px;line-height:32px;orphans:2;widows:2;”>Source: scoopwhoop.com

SC Moved Against DU Photocopy Case Judgment

Posted on


A Special Leave Petition has been filed in the Supreme Court of India against the Division Bench Judgment of Delhi High Court in the DU photocopy case, reports Spicy IP. As per the report, the Indian Reprographic Rights Organisation (IRRO) has filed the petition challenging the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on December 9, 2016.
It was in September, 2016 Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw ruled that section 52(1) (i) of the Copyright Act is broad enough to cover the acts of photocopying and the creation of course packs by University for its students. 

Read more at: law live

Supreme Court collegium ends 1-year impasse by finalising judicial appointment procedure

Posted on

NEW DELHI: Overcoming serious differences within itself, as well as with the Centre, the Supreme Court collegium has finalised the memorandum of procedure (MoP) for appointment of judges to constitutional courts.



The issue had been a bone of contention between the executive and the judiciary for more than a year.The collegium, headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar and comprising Justices Dipak Misra, J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi and Madan B Lokur agreed to the contentious national security clause that the Centre had insisted upon as one of the grounds for determining the eligibility of judges for appointment to the apex court and high courtsTOI had reported in its edition on February 27 about the possibility of an understandingon the Centre’s stance that “national security” ought to be part of the criteria to determine eligibility for appointment as judges.

In another breakthrough, the apex court collegium dropped its reservation about setting up secretariats in the SC and each high court to maintain databases on judges and assist the collegiums in the SC and the high courts in selection of judgesSources said it was unanimously decided to set up secretariats in the apex court and each high court.

Vacancies in HCs to be filled soon

The dispute between the collegium and the government had held up appointments to higher judiciary despite rising vacancies.

Finalisation of the MoP, which will be sent to the Centre for approval and adoption this week, raises hopes of speedy filling up of vacancies in HCs, which are operating at below 60% of their sanctioned strength.

In many HCs, court rooms have been shut because of lack of adequate number of judges. This is hampering disposal of cases, which adds to the backlog.

“There were no other sore points except the national security clause and secretariat in the MoP that required resolution.

The members of the SC collegium held seven meetings and unanimously finalised the MoP after debating each clause and sentence of the new MoP while keeping in view the provisions of the old MoP and the constitution bench judgment of October 2015,” a source said.

The source said the collegium agreed with the Centre on the national security clause on the condition that specific reasons for application of the clause were recorded. Other sources confirmed that the issue, one of the sticking points, was resolved “in the best possible way”.

A constitution bench headed by Justice Khehar in October 2015 had struck down the NJAC and in December 2015 had directed the Centre to frame a new MoP in consultation with the CJI, who was to act in accordance with the unanimous view of the members of the collegium.

For the last one year, the draft MoP was getting tossed back and forth between the Centre and the collegium with both sides refusing to budge over their stated positions on the national security clause which ostensibly gave veto power to the government to reject a name recommended by the collegium for appointment as judge.

However, things started moving after Justice Khehar took over as CJI and the composition of the collegium changed, allowing it to meet the challenges head on.

Supreme Court collegium ends 1-year impasse by finalising judicial appointment procedure

Posted on

NEW DELHI: Overcoming serious differences within itself, as well as with the Centre, the Supreme Court collegium has finalised the memorandum of procedure (MoP) for appointment of judges to constitutional courts.



The issue had been a bone of contention between the executive and the judiciary for more than a year.The collegium, headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar and comprising Justices Dipak Misra, J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi and Madan B Lokur agreed to the contentious national security clause that the Centre had insisted upon as one of the grounds for determining the eligibility of judges for appointment to the apex court and high courtsTOI had reported in its edition on February 27 about the possibility of an understandingon the Centre’s stance that “national security” ought to be part of the criteria to determine eligibility for appointment as judges.

In another breakthrough, the apex court collegium dropped its reservation about setting up secretariats in the SC and each high court to maintain databases on judges and assist the collegiums in the SC and the high courts in selection of judgesSources said it was unanimously decided to set up secretariats in the apex court and each high court.

Vacancies in HCs to be filled soon

The dispute between the collegium and the government had held up appointments to higher judiciary despite rising vacancies.

Finalisation of the MoP, which will be sent to the Centre for approval and adoption this week, raises hopes of speedy filling up of vacancies in HCs, which are operating at below 60% of their sanctioned strength.

In many HCs, court rooms have been shut because of lack of adequate number of judges. This is hampering disposal of cases, which adds to the backlog.

“There were no other sore points except the national security clause and secretariat in the MoP that required resolution.

The members of the SC collegium held seven meetings and unanimously finalised the MoP after debating each clause and sentence of the new MoP while keeping in view the provisions of the old MoP and the constitution bench judgment of October 2015,” a source said.

The source said the collegium agreed with the Centre on the national security clause on the condition that specific reasons for application of the clause were recorded. Other sources confirmed that the issue, one of the sticking points, was resolved “in the best possible way”.

A constitution bench headed by Justice Khehar in October 2015 had struck down the NJAC and in December 2015 had directed the Centre to frame a new MoP in consultation with the CJI, who was to act in accordance with the unanimous view of the members of the collegium.

For the last one year, the draft MoP was getting tossed back and forth between the Centre and the collegium with both sides refusing to budge over their stated positions on the national security clause which ostensibly gave veto power to the government to reject a name recommended by the collegium for appointment as judge.

However, things started moving after Justice Khehar took over as CJI and the composition of the collegium changed, allowing it to meet the challenges head on.

Some Interesting Facts about Supreme Court of India

Posted on

Supreme Court is the apex court in India which came into existence on 26th January, 1950 and is located on Tilak Marg, New Delhi. It is a Constitutional body which is laid down in Part V of the Chapter V of the Constitution of India from  Articles 124 to 147.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>The function of Supreme Court is that it is the custodian of the Constitution and is the uppermost court of appeal which listens to the appeals in opposition to the verdicts of the High Court of the Union Territories and States. It consists of Chief justice of India and 30 other Judges designated by the President of India and the retirement age of Supreme Court Judges is 65 years.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>Some Interesting Facts about Supreme Court of India

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>1. India’s Supreme Court succeeded the Federal Court of India on 28 January, 1950 which was established by the Government of India Act 1935 and the Privy Council, which was the highest judicial body in the country during British era.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>2. The opening ceremony of Supreme Court of India was organized in the Chamber of Princes in the Parliament premises. Do you know that for a period of 12 years i.e. from 1937-1950 the Chamber of Princes was used as the bench of the Judicature of India and also the Supreme Court up to the time when it obtained its current building in 1958.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>3. In its formative years, the apex court met from 10 am to 12 and then from 2 pm to 4 pm for 28 days in a year. But today, it meets for 190 days in a year.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>4. On 29 October, 1954 Dr. Rajendra Prasad the first President of India laid the foundation stone of the Supreme Court building.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>5. It is built on 17 acres of triangular plot land in Hardinge Avenue just opposite to the Hardinge Bridge and designed in an Indo-British architectural style by the chief architect Ganesh Bhikaji Deolalikar, who was the first Indian to head CPWD.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>6. The strange thing is that the building of Supreme Court (SC) is designed and shaped in such a way that it represents the scales of the justice. As, Rajendra Prasad stated that the two pans of the scales of justice have to be held evenly. It is the Central Wing of the SC building that comprises the Chief Justice’s Court and two large courtrooms on either side represents the central beam of the scales of justice.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>7. The Right and left wings of the building represents two scales. The Right Wing consists of the offices of the Attorney General of India and other law officers, the bar-room and the library whereas the Left Wing consists of the offices of the Court.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>8. In 1979 the two wings East and West were added to the structure and the last extension was added in 1994.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>9. Another amazing fact is that in the lawn premises of SC a black bronze sculpture was sculpted on 20 Feb 1980 which was designed by the artist Chintamoni Kar having a height of 210 cms. This statue consists of a lady giving shelter to her child, who is holding an open book in his hands. It portrays Mother India as the lady and the child shown like this symbolises that she is protecting the young Republic of India and book represents the laws of land and the balance shown on the book represents equal justice is given to all.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>10. Do you know that the first woman Judge and the first woman SC Judge of India were from the literate state Kerala? The first one was Ms. Anna Chandy who joined Law School in 1927 and joined Bar in 1929. She became first Grade Zila Munsif in 1937 and the first District Judge in 1948. Also probably she was the second woman in the world to become a Kerala High Court Judge in 1959. Second one was Fatima Beevi.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>11. The first woman judge of SC of India and also in Asia was the Fathima Beevi who was appointed to Supreme Court in 1959.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>12. Supreme Court of India since Feb 2009 has the strength of 31 judges including Chief Justice. Important is that the original constitution had fixed the strength at 8 and left it to parliament to increase the number of judges as when needed. In 1960 it increased to 11, in 1968 to 14, in 1978 to 18, in 1986 to 26 and in 2009 to 31.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>13. The design of the Court’s seal is reproduced from the wheel that appears on the abacus of the Sarnath Lion capital of Ashoka with 24 spokes.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>14. Do you know that how the Judges of Supreme Court are appointed?

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>Judges of the Supreme Court is appointed by the President after consultation with the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts in states according to article 124(2).

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>*Till 1993 the Supreme Court Judges were appointed by the President on the recommendation of CJI but now 5 senior most judges committee recommends the names to the law ministry and after scrutinizing send the paper to the President. Now it depends upon the President to consider the names or return them for reconsideration to the Supreme Court. But if SC sends the same names after reconsideration then President appoints those persons.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>15. Now let us see what is the eligibility of becoming a Supreme Court Judge?

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>- An individual should be a citizen of India.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>– He or she should have served as a Judge of a High Court for a period of 5 years or an advocate of the High Court for at least 10 years or in view of the President a distinct Jurist of the country.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>– According to the judgement of the President, an eminent legal scholar or expert can also be appointed as a Judge of the SC.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>16. Also, what is the tenure of Judges?

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>The Chief justice of India and the other Judges of the SC hold office until they attain the age of 65 years. (High Court Judges at 62 years).

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>17. Have you ever thought that how Supreme Court Judges are removed?

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>Only on the ground of misbehaviour or incapacity the Judge of Supreme Court is removed by the President and the power of investigation is invested in the parliament. In Parliament each house have to pass a resolution which is supported by the 2/3rd of members present and voting and majority of the total membership of the house to remove a judge.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>18. Do you have any idea about the salary of the Judges of the Supreme Court?

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>The salary and the allowances of the Supreme Court judges are:

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>Chief Justice is Rs 1 Lakh and other Judges is Rs 90,000.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>19. What happened when CJI is absent?

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>According to the Article 126, The President appoints any other judge of the Supreme Court as an Acting Chief Justice when CJI is absent.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>20. After retirement Post retirement jobs are there for Judges or not?

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>Retired judges of SC can’t act as a Judge in any court within the territory of India but Government generally uses the retired higher judiciary judges as heads of various commissions.

Supreme Court issues warrant against Calcutta high court judge C S Karnan

Posted on

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday took a stern view of Calcutta high court judge C S Karnan for defying its direction to present himself in court and, in an unprecedented decision, issued a bailable warrant against the serving judge.



Karnan’s presence is required in the SC as he is facing contempt proceedings for levelling allegations against the SC and his former colleagues in the Madras high court.The court rejected a request from Karnan to meet the Chief Justice and senior judges of the SC, noting that it could not be treated as a response to the notice issued to him. It also saw reports that the judge was passing orders from his house as a “prank”.

A seven-judge bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar decided it had had enough of Karnan’s defiant ways and acted tough as he refused to comply with two SC orders seeking his personal appearance despite a notice being served on him.

<

p style=”orphans:2;widows:2;”>

<

p class=”newheader” style=”border:0;font-size:16.0016px;margin-right:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:proxima-semibold, proxima-extrabold1, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;letter-spacing:normal;”>

<

p style=”border:0;font-size:16.0016px;margin-right:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;”>

GET APP

<

p class=”article_outer” style=”border:0;margin-right:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;transition:all .5s;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:proxima-semibold, proxima-extrabold1, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;letter-spacing:normal;background-image:initial;background-attachment:initial;background-size:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-position:initial;background-repeat:initial;”>

<

p class=”showfull” style=”border:0;margin-right:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;”>

<

p class=”article-txt clearfix article-section” style=”border:0;font-size:1em;margin-right:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;padding:0 20px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(26,26,26);letter-spacing:.03em;box-shadow:none;font-family:proxima-regular1, ‘roboto Regular’, arial, sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-attachment:initial;background-size:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-position:initial;background-repeat:initial;”>

<

p class=”clearfix” style=”border:0;margin-right:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;”>
The court rejected a request from Karnan to meet the Chief Justice and senior judges of the SC, noting that it could not be treated as a response to the notice issued to him. It also saw reports that the judge was passing orders from his house as a “prank”.

A seven-judge bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar decided it had had enough of Karnan’s defiant ways and acted tough as he refused to comply with two SC orders seeking his personal appearance despite a notice being served on him.

The court said it was left with no option but to issue a warrant against him to secure his presence in the court on the next date of hearing on March 31. This is the first time that a sitting judge of the higher judiciary is facing contempt proceedings and the apex court has been forced to issue a warrant against a judge.

Karnan has consistently claimed that he is a victim of caste bias and accused his colleagues of discriminating against him. He has claimed that the proceedings against him are vitiated by the same sentiment.

Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi told the bench, also including Justices Dipak Misra, J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur, P C Ghose and Kurian Joseph, that Karnan had refused to mend his ways and there is no let-up in his contemptuous behaviour as he recently passed an order against the SC order on the “suicide note” of former Arunachal Pradesh chief minister Kalikho Pul in which allegations were levelled against certain judges.

The AG said he had talked to the registrar general of the Calcutta high court, who confirmed that the order was passed by Karnan at his home but it was not sent to HC.

The bench, however, refused to take note of the incident, saying it might be a “prank”, but decided to lean on the judge. It issued a bailable warrant on a personal bond of Rs 10,000 and asked the West Bengal DGP to serve it to the judge. The CJI said that Karnan had sought a meeting with him and fellow judges to discuss the allegations levelled by him but it could not be accepted as his response to the court’s notice.

“It would be pertinent to mention that the registry of this court received a fax message from Justice C S Karnan, dated March 8, seeking a meeting with the Chief Justice and the judges of this court, so as to discuss certain administrative issues expressed therein, which primarily seem to reflect the allegations levelled by him against certain named judges. The above fax message cannot be considered as a response of Justice Karnan, either to the contempt petition, or to the notice served upon him,” the bench said.

“In view of the above, there is no other alternative but to seek the presence of Justice C S Karnan by issuing bailable warrants. Ordered accordingly. Bailable warrants in the sum of Rs 10,000 in the nature of a personal bond to the satisfaction of the arresting officer be issued to ensure the presence of Justice Karnan in this court on March 31 at 10.30am,” the bench said in its order after holding a brief 15-minute hearing.

The apex court will have no option but to issue a non-bailable warrant against Karnan if he fails to appear on March 31.

Can SC shut citizens’ right to protest against its order?

Posted on Updated on

Right to freedom of speech and expression guarantees individuals the liberty to express themselves, criticise others and comment on issues. All these must necessarily be peaceful. But can any court shut an individual’s right to protest against judgments and orders?



The Supreme Court did just that in the contentious Cauvery water issue. Escalating protests coupled with violence in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu made the SC say , “There cannot be any agitation when it relates to an order passed by the court.”


The SC was right in asking the authorities to clamp down on violence. But the anxiety to see return of normalcy cannot be a ground to convey that even peaceful protests and agitations against SC orders would not be tolerated.




We are witness to public protests against orders of the highest courts world over, including India.On June 2015, the US Supreme Court by a slender five to four majority declared gay marriages con stitutionally valid, mandating all 50 states of the federal republic to recognise same sex unions (Obergefell vs Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health).




The LGBT community celebrated. But the church erupted in protest. Billy Graham Evangelist Association, Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and US Bishops Conference virtually rebelled against the judgment. Some of the churches said they would not conduct same-sex marriages.




In India, too, we witnessed this.An SC judgment closed a small window opened for the LGBT community by the Delhi High Court, which decriminalised Section 377 to exempt consensual relations between adults of the same sex in private from penal consequences.




The rainbow community protested, albeit peacefully, against the SC judgment.

The SC’s decision to limit the height of `dahi handi’ and bar participation of minors in Janmashtami celebrations in Maharashtra saw 500 `dahi handi mandals’ congregate at Shivaji Park on August 22 to protest against the court or der. In May , several hundred Kosovo Albanians protested against a ruling of the Kosovo Constitutional Court for confirming the rights of Serbian Orthodox Visoki Decani monastery to 24 hectares of land.”The constitutional court trespassed on justice,” read the banners with protesters.

A person may militate against a perfectly valid and legitimate court order because in his perception it was an unjust judgment. Can we deny him the right to protest against the court order? Are court orders infallible?
Even the SC cannot claim infallibility. More than 70 years ago, US SC judge Robert H Jackson had said judges, despite being addressed as Lords, shared the human susceptibility to err.




In Brown vs Allen, (1944 US 443 at 540), he had said, “Reversal by a higher court is no proof that justice is thereby better done. There is no doubt that if there were a super-Supreme Court, a substantial proportion of our reversals of state courts would also be reversed. We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.”




True, Indian Constitution under Article 144 mandates “all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India to act in aid of the Supreme Court”. But it does not even remotely suggest that while implementing an SC order, one must wholeheartedly subscribe to it. A five-judge bench of the SC in Bihar Legal Support Society vs Chief Justice of India (1986 SCC (4) 767) had in a short and crisp judgment told judges that they were neither infallible nor their words the last. Legally may be, but not in the perception of a common man.




The society’s petition had protested against a midnight sitting of the SC to grant bail to two industrialists -Lalit Mohan Thapar and Shyam Sundar Lal -and asked the CJI why similar expeditious hearing was not accorded to bail petitions of poor men languishing in jails? This question is ironic and bound to inspire a feeling of deja vu in those who have been following the SC for some time.




The SC had conceded that it would not be possible for it to right all wrongs because it was not immune from making mistakes. To make judges realise that they did not possess the panacea for all ills, it had said, “The apex court must interfere only in limited class of cases where there is a substantial question of law involved which needs to be finally laid at rest by the apex court for the entire country or where there is grave, blatant and atrocious miscarriage of justice.

“Sometimes, we judges feel that when a case comes before us and we find that injustice has been done, how can we shut our eyes to it. But the answer to this anguished query is that the judges of the apex court may not shut their eyes to injustice but they must equally not keep their eyes too wide open, otherwise the apex court would not be able to perform the high and noble role which it was intended to perform according to the faith of the Constitution makers.”

The 30-year-old judgment needs to be put up in bold big font in the inner chambers of the SC, which has forayed into unimaginably diverse fields from constitutionality of jokes on Sikh community to mushrooming of NGOs.