Post

More from @barandbench

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

Jun 22

[Arvind Malhotra vs High court of Himachal Pradesh]

Sr Adv Balbir Singh: My reply on 25.9.2025 was made and the recommendation was made on 23.9.2025. Collegium recommendation says two vacancies were there for promotee judges . 2 juniors were recommeded. I was interacted with on 19.9 and recommendation on 23.9 without having my reply.

Justice BV Nagarathna: These are matters where on judicial side we cannot say disclose this and disclose that. Merely because you are a senior does not mean you will be recommeded. Once collegium discusses, we cannot intervene. There is secrecg involved also... There is no rejection of your candidature. We don't know what does your recommendation say. It is about subjectice satisfaction of HC collegium ..can supreme court on judicial side ask them look into this and look into that. If this happens then where are we heading ?

Justice Joymalya Bagchi: We would have understood if HC collegium went against sc order etc. but this decision of HC has gone further and has been accepted by the supreme court.

Justice Nagarathna: We cannot ask the collegium of HC to disclose any reasons etc.

Singh: But after my representation the supreme court had asked the HC to reconsider the petitioner

Justice Nagarathna: How can you say reconsideration is not done?

Justice Bagchi: Screening committee gives it to the recommendation body. Now you cannot challenge screening committee order.

Justice Nagarathna: There is no cause of action. In Karnataka, for 3 vacancies, 9 are called.. 3 are selected. So others cannot adopt this mode and manner..

Justice Nagarathna: There is no procedural flaw in this as of now. Even you don't know if the name is dropped, removed, etc.

Justice Bagchi: Supreme court collegium endorsed and accepted HC recommendation. Now we cannot open this in judicial review.

Justice Nagarathna: If it has been deferred.. there is a chance the name shall be reconsidered..

Read 6 tweets

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

Jun 19

Supreme Court hears the plea concerning lack of ladies bar rooms across court buildings in India

CJI Surya Kant: I have constituted an All India Judicial Infrastructure committee.

Adv: In Mathura, the ladies bar room is locked. Same situation is in Ghaziabad. 60 percent of courts should have ladies bar room immediately.

CJI: the young lawyer corpus funds is also important.

CJI: the issues raised here touch upon larger questions of inclusiveness and long term sustainability of women lawyers in the legal profession. The petitioners have cited lack of ladies bar rooms and other facilities across High court , district court and other court buildings.

CJI: A young advocate corpus fund has been suggested to be formed with the aim that legal profession remains accessible to all. The petitioners have placed on report results of a survey undertaken by them in a structured format. The survey was circulated among women advocates across courts and information was collected from numerous district and taluka courts. The data reveals that in majority of court complexes, either no ladies bar room exists or facilities given is wholly inadequate and other facilities such as washrooms, nursing facilities, creches etc are not available.

Read 5 tweets

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

Jun 19

Delhi High Court to shortly pronounce its judgment in a plea filed by Telegram challenging the ban on the platform till June 22 in view of the NEET exams.

Justice Tejas Karia to pass orders at 10:30 AM.

#Telegram @telegram @durov

The Court had reserved its verdict yesterday after hearing arguments from Telegram's lawyer, Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Central government.

Read the detailed story here:

barandbench.com/news/how-can-w…

Order: After considering all the arguments, we find that given the emergency nature, the reasons supplied are sufficient and government has followed the procedure in Section 69A. The challenge ont eh ground of non supply of reasons can't be held. Both the orders are well founded and supported by reasons. The orders do not suffer from non application of mind. We have also held that under IT Act there is no reason to excluse the platform fromt he admit of "information".

Read 6 tweets

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

Jun 18

[Sabarimala gold theft case] Kerala High Court today recorded that the SIT has gathered “substantial and convincing materials” indicating the involvement of the accused in transactions relating to the removal and gold-plating of the Dwarapalaka idols in 2025.

Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice KV Jayakumar were informed by the SIT today that the investigation has reached its final stages.

The SIT also told the Court that it is examining the alleged criminal conspiracy behind the transactions and the role of certain Travancore Devaswom Board officials who held responsible positions at Sabarimala during the relevant period.

Read 4 tweets

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

Jun 18

Delhi High Court to hear today Telegram's challenge to the government order banning the platform till the NEET UG exams.

Justice Tejas Karia to hear the matter at 2:30 PM.
@telegram @durov @GoI_MeitY

On June 17, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had asked for time to file a reply to Telegram's plea.

Mehta had said there were shocking activities on the platform and that despite repeated communication, Telegram failed to act.

Telegram opposed the argument and said it acted proactively to take down the content.

Read detailed story on yesterday's proceedings here:

barandbench.com/news/litigatio…

Read 69 tweets

Bar and Bench

@barandbench

Jun 11

#BREAKING Sheetal Thakur vs Dhiraj Abraham

Supreme Court says Family Courts should ordinarily assess parents first and decide whether psychological evaluation of a child is necessary before directing such evaluation; lays down safeguards against unnecessary psychological assessment of children in custody and visitation disputes.

Justice N Kotiswar Singh:

• Family Courts must first appoint a psychologist to assess the psychological condition of both parents, particularly the parent having present custody of the child, before deciding whether any psychological assessment of the child is required.

• No psychological assessment of the child should be conducted if the Family Court, based on the psychologist's report, finds such assessment unnecessary or undesirable.

• If an assessment of the child is required, it must be carried out by an independent child psychologist in consultation with the psychologist already treating the child, with minimum interaction so as not to disturb the child's mental condition.

• Family Courts must remain conscious that a child's psychological needs change with age and may require periodic review and assessment.

• Courts must examine concerns relating to parental alienation syndrome and false memory creation against the other parent, while ensuring the child is not exposed to influences that may foster such tendencies.

Justice N Kotiswar Singh :

• We emphasise our role as parens patriae and held that child custody, visitation and parental access disputes involving growing children are dynamic in nature and constitute a continuing cause of action.

• Parents are at liberty to seek modification of orders before the Family Court from time to time as circumstances evolve.

• Parties must apprise the Family Court of the status of proceedings pending under the POCSO Act against the respondent, as those proceedings may significantly affect decisions concerning visitation and custody rights.

Read 5 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!