Post

@SudarshanNewsTV

@SureshChavhanke

More from @barandbench

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

Apr 20

[In Re: Creation of Special Exclusive Courts]

All Advocate Generals of all states in Supreme Court , Court 1 today

CJI Surya Kant: You are all here. There are questions of liberty, right to life etc. State writes to HC Chief justice that court needed for sc st act. Then another letter asking for Nia Court. Same special court becomes the nia court. Then family cases. So the special court becomes a mockery.

ASG Aishwarya Bhati: State has to provide land and building. 1 crore recurring fund also needed for each of these court.

CJI: Day to day trial has to take place in these courts.

CJI: This court has to be in adjoining, next building or closest to the place where bar members are. Ideally it should be in the same complex. It has to be one court. Immediately one court needed. Then additional manpower will be needed. So we need trained and experienced judicial officers and there will be temporary increase in higher judicial services cadre strength also.

Jharkhand: There are 790 UAPA cases pending. All principal district judges are dealing with UAPA Cases

CJi: this is what is creating the problem. Hardly they will be on bail

Justice Bagchi: just see how many are undertrials at the moment. That is our concern. Not the state or centre.

CJI: the 24 courts you have are not special courts also.

Justice Bagchi: do you know the burden of the principal district judge. Is the judge dealing with only UAPA

Read 7 tweets

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

Apr 20

Arvind Kejriwal to appear today before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma and request the judge to take his rejoinder on record.

According to AAP's legal team, Kejriwal will appear at 10:30 AM.
@ArvindKejriwal @SanjayAzadSln

In his rejoinder, Kejriwal has said that the CBI, in its written submissions, "resorted to speculation, imputation of motives, rhetorical alarmism, and
scandalous allegations," but did not respond to his allegations of bias on the part of Justice Sharma since her children are on the government's panel.

"It is very unfortunate that the CBI is willing to malign the entire judiciary in order to have this matter heard before only one Hon’ble Judge," Kejriwal says.

Read 20 tweets

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

Apr 17

Supreme Court to hear today plea by INC leader Pawan Khera challenging its stay on the transit anticipatory bail granted to him by the Telangana High Court in a forgery and criminal conspiracy case

Bench: Justices JK Maheshwari and AS Chandurkar

The top court had stayed the relief granted to Khera by the High Court on April 15.

Read 👇

barandbench.com/news/supreme-c…

SG Tushar Mehta (for Assam): there are new pleadings in the application.

Sr. Adv. AM Singhvi (for Khera): your lordships have been persuaded to pass an ex parte order. It’s a transit bail. It expires today. The court opens on Monday.

Court: see the document on page number 98. This document (Aadhar) you filed. On the basis of this document you are saying your address is different…

Singhvi: I am asking only for transit bail to be extended to Tuesday.

Court: why in Telangana? Why not in Assam?

Singhvi: I want transit bail till Tuesday so I can approach Assam. Telangana petition was filed in a hurry. In the arguments it was pointed out and a correct document was filed. My wife is an MLA candidate in Telangana. Her affidavit was filed on the same day. That is not pointed out. 100 police men are sent to Nizamuddin. There’s article 21 in this country. He doesn’t tell you that the correct document has been filed. This is all prejudice.

Read 7 tweets

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

Apr 17

DAY 5: Supreme Court nine-judge bench to resume hearing reference arising from Sabarimala review pleas

Parties opposing the reference to continue submissions today
#Sabarimala #SupremeCourt

Adv MR Venkatesh appears for Atmatam Trust
#Sabarimala

Adv MR Venkatesh: My Lords, the first thing I would like to say is that the word religion in Article 25, religious practice in Article 25(2)(a), Hindu religious institutions under Article 25(2)(b), religious denomination under Article 26, and matters of religion under Article 26(2)(b), are all indeterminate and probably incapable of being defined. The word denomination, for instance, can be traced to the word denominatio in the Latin language, fortified by medieval Christianity, which allows the word denomination to be rooted to a particular denomination within the Christian religion, and it was picked up by the Irish Constitution, and we have adopted it.

So it has huge foreign roots, and to this extent these words have their own limitations in terms of our understanding. What gets compounded is that while Articles 25 to 28 have the roots of Article 44 of the Irish Constitution, Article 25(2)(a) in the way it is being read, and Article 25(2)(b), have no international precision. In that sense, Article 25(2)(a) and Article 25(2)(b) are sui generis and are rooted in Indian conditions, tailor made for certain Indian conditions. This requires interpretation and proper intervention of this Court.

Moreover, if there is a definition for denominational temples and a certain class of temples falls into denominational temples, then what happens to non denominational temples. Do they have no rights. Do they have no protection under the Constitution. And how do we deal with non denominational temples. The way it has been interpreted by law, and I will demonstrate very shortly, the problem is that all this becomes a sort of public place, which is equated to a car, railway station or a bus stand, where anybody can enter and anybody can leave.

And then it would seem that the Jehovah Witness case has been relied upon heavily in the formulation of Article 25. Originally proponents of what I would say is the doctrine under Article 25(1), which deals only with what I would say is that even on a mere reading, as Mr Sundaraman pointed out, it should shock the conscience of the Court.

Read 50 tweets

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

Apr 16

Bombay High Court hearing Anil Ambani's suit against Republic TV, its editor Arnab Goswami, and others asks why the matter can't be resolved.

Court: Why can't this entire matter be resolved? Why must a truth like this lie? I mean, putting egos and tempers and all aside.

@republic #BombayHighCourt #AnilAmbani

Adv Mayur Khandeparkar for Ambani: In fact, when this matter was last opened for the previous bench, the previous bench said the most aptly that nobody is taking away your right..

Court: It's always very comforting for a judge to be told that the previous bench said the most aptly... (laughs)

Khandeparkar: The phrase was 'no hitting below the belt'. Nobody is taking away the journalistic freedom of reporting an aspect, as a matter of fact. But to use words like, 'I am some kind of a fraudster, calling me stupid'... All kinds of words and adjectives that don't come within the ambit of journalistic freedom. Nobody is stopping you from projecting an instance.

#BombayHighCourt

Sr Adv Mahesh Jethmalani for Republic: I'll justify each and every statement that I have made. My defense is one of justification and fair comment. There is nothing I have said which is disparaging. I have gone by the record.

Court: There are orders of the court calling the plaintiff a fraudster?

Jethmalani: Yes. They have gone in appeal. They restricted that challenge to the fraudster business only to the penalty amount and not under the binding case.

Court: Also, the manner in which this is conveyed is also crucial. To wave your finger and call someone a fraudster or to report.. There is a fine line. So really, if both maintain a balance and maintain decorum... There are two matters of defamation similar. Temporarily, things flare up. Things do get heated, get out of control. But there is a manner in which things are done.

Read 11 tweets

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

Apr 15

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay S Oka to shortly speak on: Robes cannot be Rented

Organised by Adhivakta Parishad Supreme Court Unit

#SupremeCourt

Justice Abhay S. Oka: When one becomes a judge of a court, any court, and in particular High Court and Supreme Court, apart from Bangalore Principles, apart from any other written norms, the judges are bound by several constraints and restrictions.
Obviously, all those restrictions come in for the purpose of maintaining dignity of the office and upholding the old principles that justice should not only be done, but it should be manifestly seen to be done.
And whether Bangalore Principles or not, we are bound by those constraints.

Justice AS Oka: For example, if as a sitting judge, I was invited by Adhivakta Parishad to speak on its platform, I would have politely said no because my belief was Adhivakta Parishad does have political inclinations.
When a judge demits office, of course, he is not bound by those strict constraints and restrictions which he had as a judge, but I personally believe that being a retired judge of the constitutional court, he must follow certain restraints and constraints. @AdhivaktaP

Read 16 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!