SC upholds Orissa HC's 2019 order on Senior Advocate designation
A bench comprising Justices R Mahadevan and JB Pardiwala on Monday ruled that the full court of the Orissa High Court had acted within its legal authority under the Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019, particularly sub-rule (9) of Rule 6, when it designated five advocates suo motu on August 17, 2019. The administrative order formalising the designations was issued on August 19, 2019.
The May 10, 2021, order, passed on a petition filed by a lawyer, had questioned the legality of the process adopted by the full court, stating that it lacked proper legal sanction. The high court, on its judicial side, had struck down the designations, citing procedural lapses.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
28 minutes ago
- India Today
West Bengal School Service Commission gets 5.9 lakh teacher applications
The West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC) has received an overwhelming response to its latest recruitment drive, with close to 5.9 lakh candidates applying for assistant teacher posts in state-run and state-aided secondary and higher secondary schools.'This year, between 5.8 and 5.9 lakh applications have come in for assistant teacher positions,' confirmed WBSSC Chairman Siddhartha numbers are almost double compared to the 2016 recruitment cycle, which had seen around 3.16 lakh applications, 1.41 lakh for Classes 9 and 10, and 1.75 lakh for Classes 11 and The surge in applications comes after a Supreme Court order in April this year directed the state government and WBSSC to restart the hiring process following the cancellation of over 25,000 appointments made in 2016. These appointments were deemed invalid after the court flagged irregularities in the earlier recruitment process. The apex court asked the commission to complete the new recruitment drive by December 31, line with the court's directive, the WBSSC launched the online application portal on June 16, with the registration window closing on July 21. The recruitment will fill a total with 35,726 teaching vacancies across West Bengal's secondary and higher secondary some backlash from a section of former teachers who lost their jobs due to the court verdict and had initially said they would boycott the new exams, the response has been robust. Many teachers who were not found guilty of any wrongdoing in the 2016 appointments have to WBSSC officials, around 13,000 of the 15,403 teachers who were cleared of any misconduct and allowed to continue temporarily until fresh recruitment have now applied again through the ongoing process. These teachers are set to appear for the upcoming State Level Selection Test (SLST).The Calcutta High Court had earlier greenlit the fresh recruitment process, endorsing the stricter, student-centric rules introduced this time the application phase now over, all eyes are on SLST and how the commission executes the next steps in this high-stakes hiring process.(With PTI inputs)- EndsMust Watch
The Hindu
28 minutes ago
- The Hindu
CJI agrees to constitute Bench to hear plea on behalf of Justice Varma
Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai on Wednesday (July 23, 2025) said he will constitute a Bench for hearing a petition filed on behalf of Allahabad High Court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma, challenging the in-house inquiry procedure and the then Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna's recommendation to the President and Prime Minister, in the month of May, to remove the judge from office. The Chief Justice said he, however, would not be part of the Bench. 'I will have to constitute a Bench on this. I think it will not be proper for me to take up the matter because I was part of the consultations then,' Chief Justice Gavai addressed senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who made an oral mentioning for an early hearing of the petition. 'That is for you to decide,' Mr. Sibal replied. 'We will just take a call and constitute a Bench,' Chief Justice Gavai said. Mr. Sibal said the petition has raised several constitutional issues with respect to the recommendation made by Chief Justice Khanna (now retired) for the removal of Justice Varma. The Chief Justice's willingness to judicially examine the question of removal of Justice Varma comes a couple of days after a removal motion was initiated when Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha members submitted notices to the presiding officers of their respective Houses. The petition in the Supreme Court argued that the in-house inquiry process was a 'parallel, extra-constitutional mechanism' designed for the judiciary to usurp the Parliament's exclusive authority. An in-house inquiry committee of three judges had confirmed that unaccounted cash was found in the gutted storeroom at the official residential premises of Justice Varma after a blaze on March 14-15. Chief Justice Khanna had forwarded the report to the Prime Minister and President in May after Justice Varma refused to resign. The challenge in the apex court contended that the in-house inquiry took away the exclusive powers of the Parliament under Article 124 and 218 of the Constitution to remove judges through an address supported by a special majority after an inquiry under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. 'This Act provides a comprehensive, legislatively sanctioned process with stringent safeguards, including formal charges, cross-examination, and proof beyond reasonable doubt for 'proved misbehaviour'. On the other hand, the in-house procedure, which adopts no such comparable safeguards, usurps parliamentary authority,' the petition said. The petition, filed under an anonymous acronym 'XXX', described the petitioner as an Allahabad High Court judge. The in-house procedure, devised by the Supreme Court, had no legal sanction. It was a threat to the separation of powers, the petition argued. Justice Varma urged the apex court to declare the in-house procedure unconstitutional. The petition argued the in-house inquiry procedure against sitting judges was also a threat to judicial independence, an essential part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution. 'It overreaches constitutional limits by enabling punitive outcomes without legislative sanction, concentrating excessive power without standards or safeguards, and thus erodes judicial independence and public confidence,' it submitted. It also made a direct attack on Chief Justice Khanna, saying the latter did not give Justice Varma a personal hearing after the committee report came out nor had afforded him a chance to properly review the document. The petition pointed out that the inquiry reached its conclusions merely on the basis of presumptions. There was not even a formal complaint about the 'discovery' of cash. Neither was the alleged cash seized or panchnama prepared. The whole series of events were based on certain photos and videos privately taken by some officials. It said the inquiry committee was unfair to the High Court and did not find the answers it was constituted for, including when, how and by whom was the cash placed in the outhouse.
The Hindu
28 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court allows man, estranged IPS wife to part ways
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday (July 22, 2025) invoked its extraordinary powers to allow divorce to a woman IPS officer and her estranged husband as it quashed several civil and criminal cases they filed against each other. A Bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih further directed the woman IPS officer and her parents to tender an unconditional apology to the family of the estranged husband. Supreme Court issues notices to Union and States on Presidential reference on President, Governor's powers The Bench was exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to bring the curtain down on their acrimonious and protracted legal battles after their marriage solemnised in 2015 went kaput in 2018. Article 142 empowers the top court to issue any order necessary for "complete justice" in any matter pending before it. 'In terms of the …observations, directions and conditions/settlement, we deem it appropriate to invoke our power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and order for dissolution of marriage between …. The decree of divorce shall be drawn up accordingly,' the top court said. The Bench took note of the submissions of both the parties wanting to amicably resolve disputes, including matters of child custody, and settle all pending cases to avoid any future litigation and maintain peace between them. Presidential Reference concerns all States, will answer all questions raised: Supreme Court On the custody of their daughter, the Bench said, 'Mother shall have the custody of the child. The father…and his family shall have supervised visitation rights to meet the child for the first three months and thereafter based on the comfort and wellbeing of the minor girl child…, on the first Sunday of every month at the place of education of the child from 9 a.m. to to 5 p.m. or as permitted under the rules and regulations of the school.' It also considered the fact that the woman has voluntarily agreed to forgo her claim to any alimony from the husband. The Bench, as a result, quashed the high court order of ₹1.5 lakh maintenance a month to the wife. 'To bring an end to the protracted legal battle between the parties and to secure complete justice, all pending criminal and civil litigations filed by either party against the other, including but not limited to those against the wife, the husband, and his family members, in any court or forum in India as mentioned in… are hereby quashed and/or withdrawn,' the top court ordered. The Bench further quashed cases filed by third parties against them aside from those not in the knowledge of either parties. It also restrained the spouses from filing litigations in future arising out of present matters in any judicial or quasi-judicial or regulatory or administrative forum or any other forum. The wife was directed to "never use her position and power as an IPS officer or any other position that she may hold in future, position and power of her colleagues/superiors or other acquaintances anywhere in the country, against the husband, his family members and relatives by way of initiating any proceedings before any authority or forum... in any manner whatsoever." The Bench considered the fact that the husband and his father remained behind bars owing to the cases filed by the IPS wife and asked her and her parents to tender an unconditional apology. The apology was directed to be published in the national edition of a renowned English and Hindi daily.
