Post

More from @barandbench

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

May 29

Ceremonial bench to commence shortly on the last working day of Justices JK Maheshwari and Pankaj Mithal
#SupremeCourt

CJI: this is like a ceremonial constitution bench. (Smiles)

AG R Venkataramani: Most judges are regarded for compassion and creativity....the two judges are no exception.

SG Mehta: I have never seen his Lordships without a smile on their face. In Justice Maheswari we found an elderly friend who always helped us. Justice Mithal's court always had a warm and conducive environment..

Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi: I appeared before Justice Mithal before AP HC and it seems like 6 months ago. But it has been 5 years. Other day Justice Mithal why are you here and not a junior. I like that. Your Lordships retire in pink of health. 65 is not a retirement age. Now we have to get used to the new lot which is coming now. It will take another 6 months.

Read 13 tweets

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

May 29

[Regarding persistent delay in pronouncement of judgments by several high courts]

CJI Surya Kant: Amicus had filed four volume reports before this court compiling High Court wise data before us. All suggestions from HCs were also compiled for uniform judicial guidelines. We are of the view that this is a fit case under Article 142 for our intervention to pass uniform guidelines.

#BREAKING CJI: 1. A matter where judgment is reserved, judgment to be pronounced within 3 months of reserving. Faster decisions in matters of personal liberty etc.

2. Bail application orders ideally within next day and if reserved then decision next day

3. Bail orders to be communicated to jail authorities

4. Undertrial to be released same day of bail or maximum the next day.

5. The trial court to inform HC of compliance.

CJI: 6. operative part to be announced in court and reasons to be uploaded within 7 days. Cases such as habeas corpus, demolition etc.

7. Necessary changes to be made to the HC website by the Chief justice of the respective high courts.

Read 9 tweets

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

May 27

[SIR JUDGMENT SUMMARISED]
Thread 👇

Supreme Court recognises Election Commission’s power to conduct Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the RP Act, while upholding the Bihar SIR.

The Court says EC can undertake a limited electoral inquiry into citizenship, but cannot finally determine citizenship. Deleted persons must be referred to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act #SIR #supremecourt @ECISVEEP

Judgment in a nutshell👇

• Supreme Court holds that the Election Commission has power to conduct Special Intensive Revision under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the RP Act.

• The ruling arises from the Bihar SIR, but the legal principle laid down concerns the EC’s broader power to undertake SIR exercises.

• Court says SIR is a special statutory mechanism distinct from ordinary revision under Section 21(2) and Rule 25.

• Bench holds that free and fair elections depend on the integrity, accuracy and credibility of electoral rolls.

• Court finds the Bihar SIR was backed by legitimate constitutional purpose and was not merely an administrative exercise.

• SC holds that the SIR framework satisfies proportionality, given the safeguards of notice, hearing, objections, speaking orders and appeal.

• Court says inclusion in electoral rolls creates a rebuttable presumption of validity, not an absolute bar on verification.

• EC can examine citizenship only for deciding inclusion or exclusion from electoral rolls, not to finally declare citizenship status.

• Deletion on citizenship doubts does not mean the person is declared a non citizen. Final adjudication lies with authorities under the Citizenship Act.

• EC must refer persons deleted from the 2003 Bihar roll on citizenship grounds to the competent authority within four weeks.

[What favours the petitioners in the Supreme Court’s Bihar SIR ruling]

• Court clarifies EC cannot finally determine citizenship and its findings are confined only to electoral consequences.

• SC says inclusion in electoral rolls creates a rebuttable presumption in favour of existing electors.

• Bench directs that persons deleted on citizenship grounds must be referred to competent authorities under the Citizenship Act within 4 weeks.

• Court emphasises notice, hearing, speaking orders, appeals and judicial review as mandatory safeguards against arbitrary exclusion.

Read 4 tweets

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

May 27

Supreme Court to resume hearing today pleas challenging the 2023 law that replaced the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister on the panel appointing Election Commissioners.

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma

The matter is adjourned. Tentatively posted on 30th July.

While the matter was getting adjourned, and the next date was being fixed, the bench discussed about Court vacations:

Adv Prashant Bhushan presses for the matter to be listed immediately upon reopening.

Court: we can have it in August.

Bhushan: not possible in July?

Court: first two weeks, it requires some time for the engine to warm up, after 6 weeks of holidays..

SG Tushar Mehta: the vacation is already curtailed.

Justice Sharma: our vacation is further curtailed by 2 weeks. I can go out only after 15th. And final hearing cases are being listed (during vacations).

Read 8 tweets

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

May 27

#SupremeCourt to pronounce today its verdict on the batch of petitions challenging the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, a case that has triggered one of the most consequential constitutional debates on voting rights, citizenship verification and electoral integrity in recent years #SIR @ECISVEEP @_YogendraYadav @adrspeaks

The challenge before the Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant raises critical questions on the EC’s powers under Article 326, the Representation of the People Act and whether the revision exercise risked large-scale disenfranchisement ahead of elections #SIR

During hearings, petitioners alleged the process could exclude genuine voters through onerous documentation requirements, while the EC defended the exercise as necessary to cleanse voter rolls and verify citizenship claims #SIR

Read 4 tweets

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

May 26

Supreme Court is hearing the plea filed by the Management Committee of Thakur Shri Banke Bihari Ji Maharaj Temple challenging the Uttar Pradesh government’s move to take over the administration of the famed Vrindavan temple through a statutory trust framework.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan is leading arguments for the temple management

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the Banke Bihari temple Goswamis, tells Supreme Court that the current Goswami representatives in the High Powered Committee do not enjoy the confidence of the larger Goswami community.

Divan says 197 Goswamis from the Sayanthok and 46 from the Rajbhog gave consent through a Google form endorsing the representatives elected in the June 13, 2025 General Body meeting.

“There is a communication gap between the committee and the Goswami members,” Divan submits, adding that traditional rituals followed “for centuries” are not being adequately conveyed before decisions are taken.

He urges the Court to either accept the four representatives proposed by the Goswamis or conduct fresh elections. Alternatively, he suggests expanding the Goswami representation in the committee by adding three more members.

Divan also opposes changes made to temple darshan timings by the committee’s September 19, 2025 order, saying rituals and timings followed “since time immemorial” should not be disturbed.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan: The deity is a living child. There is a period for the waking of the deity. There are rituals which are performed. There is an afternoon rest period, etc. Therefore, the timings should not be changed. This is something which is deeply embedded in the rituals.

The rituals are being performed. There are certain Goswamis there, but there is a lot of dissatisfaction amongst the members. They are saying, look, you cannot have this. The deity timings are now being shifted. This is not correct according to us.

This is a pro tem arrangement being made by a committee, an ad hoc committee appointed until the constitutional challenge is determined by the High Court. Therefore, the question we ask ourselves is, why should there be a change in timing?

This is something which is deeply embedded in the rituals. So we have raised it.

Read 12 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

Bar and Bench

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @barandbench

Bar and Bench

Bar and Bench

Bar and Bench

Bar and Bench

Bar and Bench

Bar and Bench

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Send Email!