CJI Chandrachud Warns Against Becoming a ‘Tareekh Pe Tareekh Court’

by News

Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud has voiced concerns about the rising number of adjournment requests in the Supreme Court. He expressed worry that the court is increasingly becoming a ‘tareekh pe tareekh’ court, a term referring to a court characterized by frequent adjournments. CJI Chandrachud emphasized the significance of expediting cases and the adverse impact of excessive adjournments on the court’s image and public trust.

CJI Chandrachud recognized the efforts of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) in reducing the time between filing cases and listing them for hearings. He acknowledged the improvement in reducing this period.

However, he pointed out that lawyers are frequently seeking adjournments, undermining the objective of faster case resolution. Between September and October, lawyers requested a total of 3,688 adjournments. CJI Chandrachud cited examples of multiple adjournment slips filed for various dates, including 178 adjournment slips for cases scheduled for November 3.

The CJI also noted the contradictory behavior of lawyers, who often request expedited listings for their cases and then seek adjournments when these cases are scheduled. He highlighted the inconsistency between the desire for quick hearings and the subsequent requests for delays.

CJI Chandrachud stressed the court’s moral responsibility in addressing this issue, as it negatively affects the perception of the judiciary among the citizens. Excessive adjournments erode public trust and can harm the court’s credibility.

In summary, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud expressed concerns about the rising number of adjournment requests in the Supreme Court and the consequent delay in case resolutions. While acknowledging improvements in reducing case listing times, he emphasized the importance of addressing the issue of excessive adjournments to maintain public trust and the court’s reputation.

Section 295A IPC Considered for Teacher in Student Slap Case: UP’s Response to Supreme Court

by News

The Supreme Court has issued a judgment on the matter of a school teacher in Uttar Pradesh who was accused of inciting students to slap a Muslim classmate. The State government informed the Supreme Court that the teacher may face charges under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.

The case centers on a school teacher, Tripta Tyagi, who allegedly made derogatory comments about a Muslim student’s religion and asked his classmates to physically harm him. A video of this incident went viral on social media, leading to the sealing of the private school in Khubbapur village. The teacher, in response to the public outcry, released a video statement acknowledging her mistake but denying any communal angle to the incident.

Tushar Gandhi, the great-grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, filed a plea with the Supreme Court, seeking a time-bound and independent investigation into the incident. He also sought remedial actions to address violence against school children, especially those from religious minority groups. The Court expressed its concern about how the Uttar Pradesh Police and government were handling the case during earlier hearings.

The Court took issue with the contents of the first information report (FIR), which omitted critical allegations. As a result, the Court directed that the investigation be led by a senior Indian Police Services (IPS) officer nominated by the State government. The appointed officer was tasked with examining whether the offense of hate speech under Section 153A of the IPC applied to the case.

The Court also emphasized the importance of proper counseling for the victim-child and his classmates. It recommended that professional counseling services be provided to address the emotional and psychological impact of the incident.

During a recent hearing, the Additional Solicitor General, KM Nataraj, representing the Uttar Pradesh Police and the State’s Home Department, informed the Court of their decision to invoke Section 295A of the IPC instead of Section 153A, which pertains to promoting enmity between different groups. However, they were awaiting formal sanction from the State government to proceed under Section 295A.

In response, the bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal directed the State government to promptly make a decision regarding the grant of sanction. The Court also discussed the possibility of involving professional agencies, such as the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) or the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro-Sciences (NIMHANS), to provide counseling to the victim student and his classmates.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the significance of addressing incidents that have the potential to outrage religious feelings and incite violence in schools. By invoking Section 295A of the IPC, the Court sends a message that such actions will not be tolerated and will be met with legal consequences. It also highlights the importance of providing psychological support and counseling to the victims and witnesses in such cases to help them cope with the trauma and emotional distress caused by such incidents.

This case has garnered significant attention and serves as a reminder that promoting religious tolerance and respecting the rights of individuals from all communities is essential in a diverse and pluralistic society. The legal process is ongoing, and further actions will be taken to ensure that justice is served and the rights of the victim are protected.

Supreme Court Rejects Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions in India

by News

The Supreme Court rejected the recognition of same-sex marriages or civil unions in a recent case, stating that they are not permissible under current Indian laws. However, there was a minority opinion within the Court that recognized the right of queer couples to enter into civil unions, even if they cannot marry under the existing legal framework. This means that while same-sex marriage remains unrecognized, the Court acknowledged the possibility of civil unions for LGBTQ+ couples.

89-Year-Old Husband Seeks Divorce from 82-Year-Old Wife, Supreme Court Rejects Plea

by News

In a recent Supreme Court case, an 89-year-old man sought a divorce from his 82-year-old wife. However, the court rejected his plea, highlighting that the concept of an “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” cannot be a one-size-fits-all formula for divorce.

The court emphasized that despite the increasing number of divorce cases in India, marriage is still regarded as a sacred and invaluable institution in Indian society. In this particular case, the wife expressed her willingness to care for her husband and had no intentions of leaving him in their later years. She also conveyed her desire not to be labeled as a “divorcee.”

Considering these sentiments, the court concluded that granting a divorce on the grounds of an irretrievable breakdown of marriage would be unjust to the wife. The judges noted that respecting the wife’s sentiments and preserving the sacred nature of their long-lasting marriage was essential.

The case revolved around the husband’s claim that his wife’s refusal to accompany him to Chennai, where he was stationed during his military service, amounted to abandonment without reasonable cause. While a district court initially granted the divorce, the decision was overturned by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the wife’s arguments, highlighting her commitment to the marriage since 1963 and her efforts to maintain their sacred relationship. As a result, the husband’s plea for divorce was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed.

The court’s decision underscores the significance of respecting the sentiments and values associated with marriage, even in the face of marital challenges. Irretrievable breakdown of marriage, the court stated, should not be the sole criterion for divorce decisions.

Advocate Vipin Gogia represented the husband, while Advocate Madhurima Tatia represented the wife in this case.

Supreme Court Removes ₹50 Lakh Deposit Condition for Bail

by News

The Supreme Court of India has made a significant decision by lifting a bail condition that required an accused individual to deposit ₹50 lakhs for their release. This condition had been initially imposed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in January 2021, leading to nearly three years of the accused person’s incarceration. A bench comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar found that this condition had unjustly extended the individual’s detention.

The Supreme Court recognized that the charge sheet had been filed, and the trial had already commenced. Given these circumstances, the apex court directed the release of the accused person on bail without the burdensome ₹50 lakh deposit requirement.

This decision resulted from an appeal filed by the accused individual, Mohanlal Maliwad. Advocates Sarvam Ritam Khare, Jayasree Narasimhan, and Akash Shukla represented the accused, while the Madhya Pradesh government was represented by Government Advocate Abhimanyu Singh, along with advocates Bhagwan Jee Thakur and Pashupathi Nath Razdan.

In essence, the Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the importance of upholding an individual’s right to liberty, particularly when a trial is ongoing, and the accused has already spent a considerable period in custody.

Uttar Pradesh Government’s Defense: No Police Fault in Atiq Ahmed’s Killing

by News

The Uttar Pradesh government is standing firm in its defense of the state’s police force amidst the controversy surrounding the killing of Atiq Ahmed, a former gangster turned politician. Ahmed, along with his brother, was fatally shot by unidentified attackers outside a hospital in April. What makes this case particularly alarming is that the incident occurred while Ahmed was in police custody. The state government’s response to this issue was recently filed in the Supreme Court, which is currently considering two petitions related to Ahmed’s killing outside a Prayagraj hospital.

In an affidavit submitted on September 29, the Uttar Pradesh government asserted that it has conducted comprehensive investigations not only into Ahmed’s killing but also into seven other alleged fake encounter cases. These include the deaths of Ahmed’s son (who was killed in an encounter just two days before Ahmed’s murder), Ahmed’s brother, and the case of gangster Vikas Dubey, who was killed in July 2020. The government emphasized that in each of these cases, exhaustive investigations were carried out, and in instances where investigations have been completed, no wrongdoing was found on the part of the police.

The government’s response also took a strong stance against the petitioner’s allegations, characterizing them as an abuse of the court’s process. It argued that the petitioner was essentially attempting to rehash issues that had already been settled.

Regarding Atiq Ahmed’s specific case, the government informed the court that the criminal trial is currently underway, with preliminary hearings focused on framing the charges. The next hearing is scheduled for October 3, and the government is committed to ensuring a fair trial.

Furthermore, a five-member commission, chaired by retired Justice Dilip Babasaheb Bhonsle, has been diligently investigating the killing of Atiq Ahmed. This commission has held 23 sittings and has sought input and suggestions from various stakeholders, including the public, media, government, and organizations, with the aim of preventing similar incidents in the future.

Addressing the broader issue of encounter incidents, the government stated that since 2017, detailed information about criminals killed in encounters and the outcomes of investigations or inquiries has been regularly collected and reviewed at the police headquarters level on a monthly basis.

Atiq Ahmed, a former Member of Parliament (MP), had served in this role from 2004 to 2009. Before his tenure as an MP, he had been a Member of the Legislative Assembly for a period of 15 years. Notably, he was in police custody when he was fatally shot, raising concerns and questions about potential security lapses.

In essence, the Uttar Pradesh government is firmly defending the actions of its police force in response to allegations of misconduct in several encounter cases, including the killing of Atiq Ahmed. As investigations and legal proceedings continue, the government remains committed to upholding the rule of law and ensuring a fair trial for all parties involved in these cases.

Supreme Court Urges Priority for 40-Year-Old Rape and Murder Conviction Appeal

by News

The Supreme Court has urged the Calcutta High Court to prioritize the appeal of a 75-year-old lawyer convicted in a rape and murder case dating back to 1983. While the Supreme Court typically doesn’t set specific timeframes for lower courts, it made an exception due to the exceptionally lengthy trial process, which took 40 years to conclude. The convicted lawyer had been found guilty of raping and killing his niece. His appeal was admitted in the Calcutta High Court, but his application for bail was initially dismissed due to his refusal to provide a semen sample for investigation. However, the Supreme Court, considering the trial’s delay, the appellant’s age, and the case’s age, decided to grant him bail on stringent terms and conditions pending the final appeal outcome. The Court also emphasized the lawyer’s responsibility to ensure the appeal’s expeditious resolution and discouraged unreasonable adjournments. The State was given the liberty to request bail cancellation if the lawyer’s actions caused further delays in the appeal process.

Supreme Court Ensures Access to Manipur High Court Amid Violence Concerns

by News

The Supreme Court is checking that lawyers from all backgrounds can access the Manipur High Court amid concerns. They clarified they don’t intend to run Manipur’s administration but aim to ensure lawyers’ access. This relates to cases about violence in Manipur. The Court ordered a CBI inquiry into a video showing women paraded naked. A committee is studying the situation and suggesting actions. Topics like Aadhaar cards, disability certificates, and victim compensation were discussed during the hearing.