Post

@UmarKhalidJNU

@DelhiPolice

@UmarKhalidJNU

@UmarKhalidJNU

@UmarKhalidJNU

More from @barandbench

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

Apr 13

Quaraisha Yeasmin vs Election commission of India: WEST BENGAL SIR APPEAL TRIBUNAL ISSUE

Adv: In some cases Election commission has not even placed the orders before Justice Sivanganam. ECI is not aware of what's happening... Appeals are not being taken up. Let freezing date be extended.

CJI: go before the appellate tribunal and say all this

Adv: If I am not allowed to argue then what's the use? But will appeal be decided within a time frame or keep extending?

CJI: so you want us to put the former chief Justices and judges.. under pressure .

Adv; Those who have addhar and passport.. will be allowed that's what this court has held

Justice Bagchi: Calcutta HC Chief has informed manner and mode of appeals have been formulated. It has started hearing from today. We cannot say hearing x appeals from today

Sr Adv Naidu for ECI: will have always placed all records. Now we are blamed for helping. There are 30 lakh appeals.

#westbengalsir #SupremeCourt

Justice Bagchi: Unless and until there is enormous amount of voters excluded or materially affect the election...the election cannot be cancelled. If 10 percent does not vote and winning margin is more than 10 percent then..

CJI: only academic excercise

Justice Bagchi: if it's less than 5 percent then we have to apply our mind. Earlier a candidate was given primacy before the appellate tribunal because a candidate cannot be denied the right to contest. Please don't think the question is not in our mind that what about those who are excluded !

Justice Bagchi: if an objector files an appeal against inclusion. Then again that person also has to be removed. So we had judicial officers and then appellate tribunals.

Sr Adv Naidu: the court was not even inclined to have the appellate tribunal firstly.

Justice Bagchi: we have permitted the constitutional authority to go into purity of electoral roll issue. Your original ECI notification on SIR did not touch 2002 list.. but your logical discrepancy list rejection reasons are 2002 list etc. your notification touched people who relates to people in the 2002 list. 2002 list is the benchmark. See in your final list you did not delete the 2002 list members. When Bihar SIR was argued, submissions of ECI was unequivocal that 2002 list members need not given any document. Please see your written submissions in Bihar case. You had said 2002 electorate need not give Documents..

Sr Adv Naidu: but they have to prove that they are the same person as in 2002 list. They are using alias etc.

Justice Bagchi: now you are improvising the submissions which you made earlier.

Read 8 tweets

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

Apr 13

In a case relating with bar council reservations

[Siva Kumari R vs Union of India]

Sr Adv DS Naidu: This court delivered a judgment (on women representation) to empower women. But some are misusing it.

#SupremeCourt

CJI: this court by an order dated December 8 2025 under Article 142 ensured 30 percent women representation in each state bar council. 10 percent was by co option and 20 percent by election. This court also appointed the high powered election supervisory committee headed by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia. State election committees were also constituted. At the outset we acknowledge the herculean task done by the committee.

CJI: in that process the supervisory committee has passed a self speaking order on February 9 in order to clarify how the 20 and 10 percent representation is to be given effect to. We are informed that BCI has issued a circular that selection of candidates for 10 percent co option shall be made by BCI rules.

Read 5 tweets

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

Apr 13

[Prakash Gopalrao Pohare vs Union]

Adv Prashant Bhushan: More than 10,000 farmers commit suicide every year. MSP is given which is below the cost price. It should be cost price plus 50 percent. Only wheat and grain is procured at MSP. Farmers are in acute distress. This is twin hammering.

CJI Surya Kant: Lot of mathematical formulas being cited. Difficulty will arise in cost of land and capital. Will it not vary from state to state or district to district.

Bhushan: I am not asking for the actual cost plus 50 percent.

Bhushan: govt own calculation for weighted average cost should be paid.

Justice Bagchi: you are almost asking us to rewrite the economic policy of the country. Look at the Pleadings.

Bhushan: drafted by my junior. But please see... It is okay for the govt to give free ration but that does not mean that affect on farmer is such that they don't get the cost and commit suicide.

Bhushan: take weighted average cost of the whole country and pay that much.

CJI; there are farmers with big chunk of land. There cannot be an uniform policy for all you see.

Read 4 tweets

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

Apr 9

Supreme Court resumes hearing case where it recently pulled up 2 senior IAS officers from UP for not following court orders and halting the demolition of unauthorised commercial structures due to "public hue and cry."

Bench: Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan

The court noted that schools, banks, hospitals etc were being run from the unauthorised buildings and ordered immediate sealing.

It also said that if any untoward incident happens in any of the illegal buildings till demolition takes place, the IAS officers would be held personally liable.

Read 👇

barandbench.com/news/absolute-…

Sr. Adv. Rajiv Shakdher (for Chairman, UP AEVP): we have shifted the students out of the schools, hospitals, the banks have also moved. We have sealed all of it.

Read 9 tweets

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

Apr 9

Day 3 before the nine-judge Bench in the Supreme Court in the Sabarimala reference is set to resume shortly

In the last two hearings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta outlined the Centre’s framework on essential religious practices, denominational rights and the limits of judicial review.

Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan to begin submissions today

#Sabarimala #SupremeCourt

SG: There are instances of temples where men are not allowed. Because it is a Devi Bhagwati temple, there are certain faiths and beliefs attached.

There are temples, details of which I have mentioned, where male priests are under a religious mandate to wash the feet of female devotees. There are temples like the Pushkar temple, the only Brahma temple in the country, where married men are not allowed.

There is also a temple in Kerala where the practice is that men enter dressed as women. As I have read in detail, they go to beauty parlours, and their female family members help them dress in sarees and other attire. Only males go there.

So it is not a question of male-centric or female-centric religious beliefs. In the present case, it happens to be woman-centric.

Secondly, there was a question regarding Articles 25 and 26 and their interpretation. The day before, I had substantially argued on this. Yesterday, when I began, I had said that I would take that up at the end; otherwise, I would not be able to finish the other issues. I could not get the time for that.

I am not re-arguing. Substantially, I have answered it. The rest is in my written submissions. That is all.

ASG KM Nataraj: Religious rights under the Constitution are well-linked, protected and regulated under the scheme of Articles 25 and 26. There is a three-tier mechanism to protect, connect and regulate these rights.
The first part of Article 25(1) guarantees an individual right. The second part, Article 25(2), provides the regulatory mechanism. Article 26 relates to institutional rights.
Thus, Articles 25(1) and 26 are interconnected. Article 26 is embedded in Article 25, and vice versa. When Article 26 is enforced, it essentially relates back to Article 25(1). Therefore, Articles 25 and 26 form interconnected mechanisms..granting rights to individuals under Article 25(1) and institutional rights under Article 26.

Read 21 tweets

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

Apr 8

“You can’t deprive a voter of the right to exercise a franchise, even if he is a polling officer.” says Kerala HC
while hearing a plea by Kerala NGO Union alleging that many officials on election duty were not given postal ballots, despite applying on time.

Petitioner says several officials went to facilitation centres but had to return without voting as ballot papers were not available.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas refers to Rule 18A of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961, noting that a voter on election duty is entitled to receive a postal ballot, record their vote, and return it at the facilitation centre specified by the Returning Officer.

Read 10 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!