Supreme Court weekly Roud- Up: September 17 - September 24
The recent Supreme Court decision established that extended periods of contractual employment do not confer a vested legal right to secure regular employment. The Supreme Court deliberated on the appeal of individuals who had been appointed at Shri Guru Govind Singh Institute of Engineering and Technology on a contractual basis since 2011. These individuals had requested regularization in their positions. Nevertheless, the State informed the Supreme Court that the appointment procedure for these positions had already been finalized.
Recently, the division bench of the Supreme Court comprising, Justices CT Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia held that, regular second appeal cannot be examined without framing a substantial question of law. Further, the Court explain the legal position in the matter of exercise of power under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.
After Delhi High Court rejects the PIL, the civil rights group 'Social Jurist' has approached the Supreme Court to challenge the decision. Their PIL aimed to expedite the finalization of the Delhi School Education (Amendment) Bill, 2015, which seeks to ban the screening procedure in the admission of children at the pre-primary level.
The Central Government told the Supreme Court that there is no statutory void but a strong mechanism to regulate the content of private television channels. In an affidavit filed before the court, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting told the Supreme Court that the government has always protected the freedom of journalism and has encouraged policies to promote self-restraint.
Supreme Court announced that it would initiate the final hearings on October 17 for petitions challenging the constitutionality of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act. Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, along with Justices AS Bopanna, MM Sundresh, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, comprising a Constitution Bench, encouraged the parties to adhere to the Standard Operating Procedure employed during the Article 370 case.
The constitutional validity of providing SC/ST reservation in the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies has been challenged in the Supreme Court. On this, the Supreme Court today said that the hearing on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of extending reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies beyond the original 10-year period will be held on November 21.
Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that resigning from government service without authorization to take up another government position will lead to the loss of both past service credits and pension benefits. The judgment was rendered in the case of a security officer (the respondent) who resigned from the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in 1998 to join Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). It's noteworthy that the Central Civil Service Pension Rules, 1972 (CCPS Rules) are applicable to government employees appointed before 2003.
The bench of the Supreme Court comprising, Justice BR Gavai, Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra refused to Intervene in Cauvery River Dispute, Upholding CWRC Order for Karnataka to Release 5000 Cusecs to Tamil Nadu.
Election Commission of India has provided assurance to the Supreme Court that it will introduce "suitable clarifications" to Forms 6 and 6B, used for E-Roll registration, which previously demanded Aadhaar number details for the authentication of new voter entries in the electoral roll.The matter was heard before the bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra
Recently, Supreme Court held that a magistrate does not have power under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code to get the revenue records corrected after an inquiry. In the said matter, the division bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah allowed an appeal against the orders of the High Court which has set aside the sessions court order which had stayed the magistrate court's order.
The Supreme Court ordered the release of a convict to an individual who had served nearly 26 years behind bars. The Court declared that the refusal to grant premature release had infringed upon the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life). This decision underscores the Court's commitment to recognizing the importance of rehabilitating and reforming inmates who may have undergone substantial transformation during their lengthy incarceration.
The Supreme Court of India refuse to entertain a PIL seeking an independent audit of source codes of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs).The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra observed that the matter concerned sensitive policy issues and thus, the court was not inclined to interfere with the same.
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to hear a petition related to the scientific survey of Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah complex in Mathura. Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia observed that the High Court has not yet made a decision regarding the application under Order 26 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, which pertains to the selection of commissioners.
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has asserted that in cases of dowry death where allegations of harassment are of a general nature, trial courts are not permitted to summon a man's brother and sister-in-law under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The Supreme Court Advocates on-Record Association (SCAORA) is hosting a special event on September 26, 2023, at the Supreme Court of India. This event is dedicated to recognizing and celebrating the newly appointed Advocates-on-Record from the 2023 batch.
Former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association and Senior Advocate Vikas Singh has written an open letter to Chief Justice of India Dr. DY Chandrachud asking him to bring 33% Quoto for women in Higher Judicary. Giving statistics, Singh said that the high courts of Patna. Uttarakhand. Tripura, Meghalaya and Manipur don't have a single woman judge, and there are 103 woman judges in the remaining 20 HC's as against 670 male judges.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy