Thorat & Associate's

The Supreme Court has issued notice on a petition challenging the ongoing recruitment process of Judicial Members for the 19 Central Administrative Tribunals (CATs) across the country.  The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice J.B. Pardiwala passed the order on a petition filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh, challenging the internal shortlisting criteria fixed by the search-cum-selection committee operating under the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India. Additional Advocate General of Himachal Pradesh, Rajinder Singh Dogra contended that as per the internal shortlisting criteria fixed by the committee, Advocates having crossed the age of 57 years were deemed to be ineligible for appointment as Judicial members of CAT.  The AAG submitted that this violated Section 3 and 5 of the Tribunals Reform Act, 2021, which explicitly mentioned that the minimum age for appointment was 50 years and maximum age for reti

The Allahabad High Court sought a response from the Union and the Uttar Pradesh governments as to whether religious education can be imparted in Government-funded madarsas. A single-judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Azaj Ahamad. The Court said that it is not in dispute that in madarsas besides normal curriculum, religious education is also imparted. The affidavits of the Central Government from the Secretary, Ministry of Minority Affairs, Government of India and State Government from the Principal Secretary, Department of Minority Welfare and Waqf, Government of Uttar Pradesh should be filed answering the petition and aforesaid questions within a period of six weeks. “Let the Central Government and State Government file their affidavits explaining how on Government expense or the funding provided by the Government Exchequer, religious education be imparted and whether this could be in violation of Articles 14, 25, 26, 29 a

A local court in Delhi on Friday dismissed the bail petition of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, Manish Sisodia, who was arrested for his alleged involvement in a case related to the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22. Special Judge M.K. Nagpal of Rouse Avenue Court denied bail to Sisodia, who is currently in judicial custody. Both the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) have filed cases against him under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), respectively. Earlier on March 24, the court had reserved order in the bail petition of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi, Manish Sisodia, who was arrested for his alleged involvement in a case related to the now-scrapped Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22. Special Judge Nagpal had earlier heard arguments by Senior Advocates Dayan Krishnan and Mohit Mathur, who represented Sisodia and

The Supreme Court of India has received two separate lists of judicial officers which has been sent by the Kerala High Court collegium as recommendation for elevation as High Court judges. The Collegium of High Court collegium comprises of the three senior most judges which includes the Chief Justice. The collegium that forwarded the two lists comprised of Chief Justice of Kerala S Manikumar, Justice SV Bhatti and Justice K Vinod Chandran. Justice Vinod Chandran was recently transferred and appointed as the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court. As per a media report the reason for two lists can be traced to difference in opinion between the members of the Collegium . Chief Justice Manikumar and Justice Bhatti agreed on seven judicial officers and sent a list accordingly. Chief Justice Manikumar and Justice Bhatti’s list had following names PJ Vincent MB Snehalatha C Krishnakumar G Girish Johnson John C Pratheep Kumar Justice Chandran however sent a different list and a

The Supreme Court, while applying the principle of restitution and the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit, has directed two individuals to return the money disbursed to them from the sale proceeds of Unitech’s land sold to Devas Global Services LLP, pursuant to an Apex Court order. The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice M.R. Shah recently took in view the principle enshrined in Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal and Ors, which said that no party should be unfairly advantaged by an order of the court.  It reiterated that the act of the Court shall prejudice no one and in such a fact situation, the Court was under an obligation to undo the wrong done to a party by the act of the Court. It said any undeserved or unfair advantage gained by a party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must be neutralised, as the institution of litigation could not be permitted to confer any advantage on a suitor by the act of the Court. Noting that this

The Supreme Court has held that despite the stringent conditions provided under Section 37, the undue delay in trial can always be a ground for granting bail to an accused who had been charged under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (NDPS Act). The Court as per Section 37 NDPS Act, can grant bail to the accused person only after being satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. A division bench comprising of Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Dipankar Dutta said that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; but incase the trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable. The Court said that the grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436A is also applicable

A dedicated section containing judgments/orders of the Supreme Court translated to Gujarati using Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools shall be the new feature in the Gujarat High Court website. The High Court’s Registrar General on Thursday issued a circular announcing this decision. The facility was launched under the guidance of the Artificial Intelligence Assisted Legal Translation Advisory Committee of the apex court, with the approval of the Acting Chief Justice AJ Desai, and other judges of the High Court’s IT Committee. The circular said that under this new section on the homepage of the High Court website, the Translation Cell of the High Court of Gujarat would be directly uploading the Gujarati version of the orders/judgments through a software mechanism developed by the IT Cell of the High Court. The Circular also added that the English version would also be directly accessible from this section for ready reference of the users. To begin with, six Supreme Court orders in

By Justice Kamaljit Singh Garewal The Bard of Avon, while describing the end of the Battle of Bosworth Field (1485), in his play Richard III, has King Richard say: “A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse.” (Act V, Scene IV, Line 13). King Richard’s mount was fatally wounded under him and he was thrown off. He lost his horse as well as his kingdom. This battle was a defining one in English history, and thus began the Age of Reformation. At the end of the defamation trial on March 23, 2023, which led to Rahul Gandhi’s conviction and disqualification from the Lok Sabha, the Gandhi scion may well have said: “A joke, a joke, my prime ministerial ambitions for a joke.” Rahul Gandhi’s remark, which has landed him in a political storm, was totally avoidable and probably spoken in the rhetoric of an election campaign. It was a sentence torn from a long political speech, but it was quite improper and politically incorrect as it directly hit the prime minister. It was also quite a silly thi

Justice Revati Mohite Dere of Bombay High Court on Thursday recused herself  from hearing the default bail petitions of Mahesh Raut and three others, who were arrested for their alleged involvement in the Elgar Parishad Maoists links case of 2018. Earlier on March 1, the High Court had issued notice to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on the default bail plea of Raut, Sudhir Dhawale, Shoma Sen and Rona Wilson, who were arrested on June 6, 2018 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The Division Bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice P.D. Naik directed the Central agency to file its response within three weeks. On December 31, 2017, an event was held in Shaniwar Wada of Pune under the banner of Elgaar Parishad to celebrate the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Koregaon Bhima, during which several people delivered speeches.  Pune Police later filed an FIR, alleging that provocative speeches delivered during the event led to violent clashes in the area, in which o

The Gauhati High Court directed the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram to constitute a Committee on Traffic Management to be headed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, which should also include the DGP, Mizoram Police, who shall have periodical sittings, preferably once in every 2 (two) months, with regard to steps to be taken to decongest traffic within Aizawl city and implementation of the same. The Aizawl Division Bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Marli Vankung further directed that the Committee should also keep in view the fact that the Transport Department has apparently made guidelines to ensure that vehicle owners should have Garage/s for their vehicles/s. It is further directed that they should also see whether the rules/guidelines/regulations etc being applied for providing parking space for vehicles various institutions, offices, residential buildings, schools, hospitals, business premises is sufficient and/or whether a new rules/g

The High Court of Bombay on Thursday disposed of a private complaint filed against actor Salman Khan filed by a journalist in 2019 alleging criminal intimidation. The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Revati Mohite Dere quashed the private complaint filed by journalist Ashok Pandey, which alleged that on April 24, 2019, Salman had snatched his mobile phone while cycling on a Mumbai street when some media persons started clicking his photos. The actor argued with him and also threatened him, the journalist alleged. Justice Bharati Dangre asked Advocate Fazil Hussein, appearing for the journalist, whether the due procedure was followed before the process was issued. She said the petitioner had claimed that force was used, but for what reasons, was not specified in the complaint. The actor had moved the High Court against the summoning order passed by Metropolitan Magistrate at Andheri R.R. Khan in April last year. The MM Court had ordered a police investigation under Section 202 of the C

More than 300 lawyers across the country, including Senior Advocates, Supreme Court lawyers and Advocates from various High Courts have condemned Law Minister Kiren Rijiju for saying that some retired judges have become part of an anti-India gang.  A joint statement signed by 62 Senior Advocates, 236 Advocates and 22 Advocates-on-Record (AoR) said that allegations of anti-nationalism against people who had dedicated their lives to upholding the rule of law and the naked threat of reprisals against them, marked a new low in the public discourse of this great nation. Stating that the Minister was sending a message that no ‘voice of dissent will be spared,’ the lawyers said such hectoring and bullying were unbecoming of the high office held by the Minister. They further said that criticism of the government was neither against the nation, nor unpatriotic, nor anti-India. The lawyers were responding to the comments made by the Law Minister at a conclave telecast live by a media house.

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has granted bail to Mohammad Tarique Qasmi accused of having possession of RDX and detonators for waging war against the country in 2007. The Division Bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Saroj Yadav passed this order while hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by Mohammad Tariq Qashmi. This is the first bail application on behalf of the appellant-applicant who is convicted and sentenced in Sessions Trial arising out of Crime under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, under Sections 18, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Sections 121-A, 353 I.P.C Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki. The applicant/ appellant has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. The applicant/ appellant has been further convicted under Sections 18, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,1967 and sentenced to undergo rigorous life imprisonm

The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal filed by Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit on March 27, seeking his discharge in the 2008 Malegaon blast case  A bench comprising of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Manoj Misra refused to interfere with a Bombay High Court ruling which had dismissed Purohit’s plea. The Apex court, said that the trial court should not be influenced by observations in the High Court’s order. The Court clearly said that the Special Leave Petition is not entertained. It further added that as they were aware of the continuing trial against the petitioner ,the observation made in the impugned order for the purpose of examining the issue of sanction should not prejudice either the prosecution or the defence, in the proceedings before the trial court. Purohit, a serving army officer, has been accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, after it was fund that he had attended meetings of a group called Abhinav Bharat where the conspiracy for the blasts were hatched. P

The Supreme Court has dismissed a review petition against its November 2022 judgment acquitting the three death-row convicts in the 2012 Chhawla gangrape and murder case. Although the order was passed on March 2, the Apex Court published it on the website today. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Bela M Trivedi found that none of the pleas in the batch of review petitions had mentioned any error on the grounds on which the top court’s judgment can be sought. The Court said that after having considered the judgment and other documents on record, we do not find any error either factual or legal, apparent on the face of record requiring review of the aforestated judgment passed by this Court. The Court also rejected the argument advanced by the State that one of the accused had committed a murder after his release from prison following the top court’s acquittal. The review plea had argued that the accused is a hardened crimi

The Bombay High Court has dismissed plea by the Chief Minister (CM) of West Bengal Mamata Banerjee for quashing of the criminal complaint filed against her, for the disrespect to the National Anthem which was filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader. The order in the case was passed by a Justice Amit Borkar. In her plea, the CM Banerjee had also sought quashing of the summons issued to her by a metropolitan magistrate at Sewree in Mumbai, when the complaint was filed against her by BJP Mumbai Secretary Vivekanand Gupta. CM Banerjee has also challenged an order passed by Special Sessions Judge RN Rokade, who had set aside the summons issued by the magistrate and had asked the magistrate to consider the complaint afresh. As per the complaint Banerjee alleged that during a public function at Yashwantrao Chavan Auditorium at Cuffe Parade in Mumbai, Banerjee had started singing the National Anthem in the sitting position and later stood up and sang two verses of the Anthem before a

The Lok Sabha Secretariat has issued a notification stating that the disqualification of Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal has ceased to operate in view of the Kerala High Court suspending his conviction on January 25. The notification by Lok Sabha came ahead of the Supreme Court hearing that had to take place later in the day,in the petition filed by the NCP MP challenging the refusal to revoke his disqualification despite the stay on his conviction. The matter was listed before a bench comprising of Justice KM Joseph and Justice BV Nagarathna today. As per the notification order dated 25.01.2023 of the High Court of Kerala, the disqualification of Shri Mohammed Faizal P. P., notified vide Gazette Notification no. 21/4(1)/2023/TO(B) dated the 13 January, 2023 in terms of the provisions of Article 102(1)c) of the Constitution of India read with Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, has ceased to operate subject to further judicial pronouncements. It was on January 1

The Supreme Court has decided to hear the plea filed by the Hindu parties to consolidate all suits concerning Gyanvapi Kashi Vishwanath dispute which are pending before the Varanasi Court on April 21. The case was mentioned before the bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala for urgent listing by by advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain. The Advocarte said that the Varanasi district court was not passing an order on the issue. The Top court then assured the petitioner that the case will not be deleted from the list on its upcoming date of hearing. The Gyanvapi dispute began soon after the Hindu devotees approached a civil court claiming the right to worship inside the premises of the Gyanvapi Mosque, on the premise that it was a Hindu temple and still houses Hindu deities. A survey of the mosque was ordered by the civil court under an advocate commissioner. The advocate commissioner then conducted the videographed survey and submitted a

The Madhya Pradesh High Court issued a show cause notice to the chairman of the State Bar Council all the other elected member of the State Bar Council asking for an explanation why should there be no criminal contempt of court proceedings against them for compelling lawyers to abstain from judicial work. The Single-judge Justice Atul Sreedharan said that the strike which was called by the the chairman and the elected members of the State Bar Council was violation and defiance of the order passed by the High Court on March 24 in a suo motu case initiated by the Court in wake of the strike. The Justice thus ordered that the registry of the Court to register a criminal contempt of court case against them. The calling of strike against the authorities by the Chairman of the Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council and its elected Members amounts to criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c)(ii) or (iii). The Registry has been directed to register a criminal contempt case against the Cha

The Supreme Court has disposed of a petition that sought secret ballot in elections to the Rajya Sabha and State Legislative Councils, observing that the open ballot system was needed to prevent cross voting and maintain party discipline. The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice J.B. Pardiwala further upheld the validity of sub-section of 1 of Section 33 of Representation of the People Act, 1951, which stipulated that if a candidate contesting for either Rajya Sabha or state Legislative Council, was not proposed by a political party, he was required to have subscription by 10 elected members. Noting that there was nothing per se discriminatory in the provision, the Apex Court ruled that Parliament was entitled to regulate the manner in which the nomination was presented.  While dismissing the petition filed by NGO Lok Prahari, challenging the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and Representation of the People (RP) Act, the top cour

The Supreme Court on Monday listed for April 10, a petition filed by the government of Telangana, seeking directions to State Governor Tamilisai Soundararajan to give her assent to 10 key bills passed by the State legislature pending before her. Appearing for the State of Telangana, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave said that since September, the Bills have remained pending. In Madhya Pradesh, the Bills get passed in a week. Dave requested the Apex Court to list the matter for March 29, so that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta could get instructions from the Governor. He added that this sent a very very wrong message. After the SG apprised the Bench that he has spoken to the Governor, the CJI listed the matter for further hearing on April 10. Earlier on March 20, the Apex Court had issued notice to the Union government on the matter. The Bench of Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice J.B. Pardiwala, while noting that the Governor was a constitutio