Post

More from @LawBeatInd

LawBeat

@LawBeatInd

Jul 3

RAJA RAGHUVANSHI MURDER CASE

Supreme Court to hear shortly plea by State of Meghalaya challenging the bail granted to Sonam Raghuvanshi, the prime accused in the murder of her husband.

Bench: Justices MM Sundresh and Sheel Nagu

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appears before Court on behalf of State of Meghalaya.

SG: This is really shocking.. I will show four pages. this is a case where the couple goes to Meghalaya, it is a pre-determined murder, wife takes husband to some hilly areas and kills..there are three accomplices...assaulted, he was killed and dead body was thrown in the hills..

Justice Sundresh: Who actually killed..

SG: I will show three pages..she was arrested in Uttar Pradesh..she was absconding..

Read 12 tweets

LawBeat

@LawBeatInd

Jun 22

Arvind Malhotra vs High Court of Himachal Pradesh

Sr Adv Balbir Singh: My recommendation was made on 23. 9. 2025. Collegium recommendation says two vacancies were there for promotee judges . Two juniors were recommeded. I was interacted with on 19th and recommendation on 23rd 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 secrecy involved...

Justice Nagarathna: There is no rejection of your candidature. We don't know what does your recommendation say. It is about subjective satisfaction of High Court 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 High Court collegium went against SC order, but their decision has been accepted by the supreme court.

Read 5 tweets

LawBeat

@LawBeatInd

Jun 19

[PIL for separate Ladies Bar Room and other amenities for lady lawyers in Courts across India]

Lady Counsel: Your lordships have directed that they directed that the Advocates who are keen to appear for civil service exam they should have court exposure of at-least 3 yrs, but will not there are many systematic barriers roadblocks. There is absence of fixed stipend for newly addressed Advocates in the courts.

CJI Surya Kant: We must give compliments for the amount of research, the hard work, and in the way you have collected. We really admire and we feel that there are people who are committed to the cause of the judicial system and for the legal fraternity. Commendable job, you’ve done! And all these young girls who are party, to this information. We pay our compliments with each of them.

CJI: Very remarkable job they have done and right from South to North to the West. This is the most satisfying experience that we have seen.

Counsel: We have also prepared a short PPT. To show the actual position of the lady’s bar rooms and its PATHETIC, especially within 50kms range of this honourable court. Ghaziabad, the prime city of Uttar Pradesh, Greater Noida, it doesn’t have any Bar room for ladies. It’s just like the feeling is- you go! We are not supposed to be there. We are not to be seen!

Counsel: In Ghaziabad, I’ve heard that the Advocates (ladies) are supposed to be there from 10am-1pm only once you send away your children to school and husband to office, come to the court. And by 1’o clock go back! We don’t have any facilities, we cannot go bak till 4pm. The lady advocates are not SEEN for MAJOR FINAL ARGUMENTS for the cases, for cross examinations in Surajpur Court.

They say- ‘Lady advocates will start doing politics while sitting in ladies bar room, so NO NEED of ladies barroom’: Counsel submits

Read 10 tweets

LawBeat

@LawBeatInd

Jun 19

“You are a serial PIL Litigant”

Supreme Court today dismissed a plea seeking a CBI probe into alleged horse-trading behind TVK’s trust vote victory in the Tamil Nadu Assembly and a direction for President’s Rule pending investigation.

Bench: CJI Surya Kant & Justice V. Mohana

Advocate CR Jaya Sukin alleged rampant political horse-trading: MLAs are flown in chartered flights, money is distributed, contracts are promised. Democracy is being destroyed.

He urged the Court to intervene “to save democracy in this country.”

Advocate: We are NOT in a democratic country.

CJI Surya Kant: Which party are you talking about?

Advocate: I’m here only for Tamil Nadu, but this Court must know what is happening.

The Bench eventually declined to entertain the plea.

Read 4 tweets

LawBeat

@LawBeatInd

Jun 18

Delhi High Court hears Telegram's plea challenging the Centre's temporary ban until June 22 over concerns linked to the alleged NEET Re-Exam paper leak.

Matter before Justice Tejas Karia.

Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta appears for Telegram.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and ASG Chetan Sharma appear for the Centre.

SG: We have filed our response. They were called and heard. Findings have been recorded by the Review Committee chaired by the Cabinet Secretary.

Court asks Telegram to address arguments on the final order.

Sr Adv Dhruv Mehta: The order suffers from legal infirmity. It merely confirms the interim direction.

Court: It is an independent requirement. It may or may not get confirmed. There is a post-decisional hearing... opportunity has been given.

Delhi High Court hearing Telegram's challenge to the Centre's temporary ban.

Sr Adv Dhruv Mehta submits that the final order was essentially a confirmation order, though it had been passed after giving Telegram an opportunity of hearing.

Court: It was an order and whether it resulted in confirmation or reversal depended on the facts of each case.

Referring to the statutory provision, Sr Adv Dhruv Mehta argues that the Secretary's satisfaction was crucial and directions could be issued only for reasons recorded in writing. He contended that there must be application of mind to the material on record and that these reasons should find place in the order itself.

Read 24 tweets

LawBeat

@LawBeatInd

Jun 12

🚨BREAKING: Delhi High Court on alleged trolling of a Saket Court judge after the stay order in the Abhijit Iyer-Mitra (@Iyervval) matter:

"If the judge is concerned, he can make a reference for contempt. You can also take recourse to contempt law."

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna told Sr Adv Percival Billimoria.

Sr. Adv Billimoria appearing for @Iyervval informed the Delhi HC that the Saket Court judge faced coordinated trolling after staying the order directing registration of an FIR against Abhijit Iyer-Mitra.

Posts described the judge as a "pathetic judge" and the judiciary as a "rotten institution": Billimoria submitted

Justice Krishna: Pathetic judge? When lawyers stand in the corridor, is that not the general conversation? You don't get an order in your favour and say, who made this person a judge?

Justice Krishna said she did not find the matter fit for invoking extraordinary suo motu powers at this stage. "We are not finding that any extraordinary measures are required,” she said.

Read 4 tweets

Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

LawBeat

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @LawBeatInd

LawBeat

LawBeat

LawBeat

LawBeat

LawBeat

LawBeat

Did Thread Reader help you today?

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

Send Email!