Justice must reach people's doorsteps, not remain in halls of power: CJI Gavai
CJI B R Gavai emphasized that the judiciary, legislature, and executive are dedicated to serving the people and ensuring swift, affordable justice, advocating for decentralization to bring justice to people's doorsteps. He lauded efforts to preserve tribal culture while stressing the Constitution's paramount importance and the need for economic and social equality alongside political equality.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Independence Day 2025: History And Interesting Facts About Flag Hoisting
3/8 But first, let us understand the difference between the techniques of the two ceremonial practices. The position of the flag is what marks the difference between hoisting and unfurling. While the flag is brought from the bottom to the top during hoisting, it remains at the top and is simply unfolded during unfurling. (File Photo) On Independence Day, when the flag is hoisted by the Prime Minister of India at Red Fort in Delhi, it is placed at the bottom of the pole and raised to the top. Flag hoisting on Independence Day often includes a ceremonial event with a military or civilian honour guard raising the flag while the national anthem is played. Thus, representing this rise of a new nation, patriotism, and rising above the shackles of colonial rule. (File Photo) On the other hand, on Republic Day, the national flag is unfurled by the President of India. During this, the flag is tied at the top itself and unfolded by pulling the string instead of pulling it from the bottom. Thus, representing the unfurling of new ideas and laws. The Republic is observed celebrating the adoption of our Constitution in 1950. (File Photo) Understanding these practices adds depth to the celebration of India's most important national holidays, each highlighting significant aspects of the country's history and values. The distinction between 'hoisting" and 'unfurling" illuminates these ceremonies' different historical contexts and meanings. (File photo) India's National Flag has undergone massive changes since its first inception. It has sailed through many vicissitudes before arriving at what it is today. If observed closely, the evolution in a way reflects the political developments in the nation. (File Photo)
India.com
an hour ago
- India.com
‘Ground Reality Can't Be Ignored': Supreme Court Points To Pahalgam Horror In J&K Statehood Plea
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Union government to clarify its position on a series of applications seeking a time-bound restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir and emphasised that ground realities must be taken into account. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing petitions that argued the prolonged delay in restoring statehood is 'seriously impacting the rights of the citizens of Jammu and Kashmir and undermining the principle of federalism.' The Bench underscored the significance of the Pahalgam issue during the proceedings. The applicants contended that the absence of a clearly defined timeline for restoring statehood constitutes a breach of federalism, which they emphasised is an integral part of the Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution. 'It has been 21 months since the Article 370 judgment. There has been no movement towards the restoration of statehood,' submitted senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, adding that the Constitution Bench had trusted the Union government when the Solicitor General assured it that statehood would be restored. On the other hand, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, questioning the maintainability of the applications, urged the apex court to consider the 'peculiar position' in Jammu and Kashmir and sought that the pleas be listed after eight weeks, saying this was not the 'correct stage' to consider the matter. 'The MAs (miscellaneous applications) are not maintainable. We had assured two things: the election would be held, and thereafter, the statehood. Your lordships are aware of the peculiar position emerging from this part of our country. There are several considerations,' said SG Mehta. 'I don't know why, at this stage, this issue is agitated, but list it after 8 weeks. I will take instructions. My prayer is for eight weeks because this particular stage is not the correct stage to muddy the water,' Mehta added. After hearing the submissions, the CJI Gavai-led Bench listed the matter after eight weeks. In 're: Article 370 of the Constitution' verdict, a 5-judge Constitution Bench, headed by then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, had left open the question of whether the Parliament can extinguish the character of statehood by converting a state into one or more Union Territories, relying on an oral statement made on Centre's behalf that statehood would be restored to Jammu and Kashmir. In the course of the oral hearing, the Solicitor General, the second-highest law officer of the Centre, had submitted that the Union Home Ministry cannot give any exact timeframe and it would take "some time" for the restoration of statehood in Jammu and Kashmir. However, the Constitution Bench, also comprising Justices S.K. Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Gavai and Surya Kant, had ordered the Election Commission of India (ECI) to take steps to conduct elections to the Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir, constituted under Section 14 of the Reorganisation Act, by September 30, 2024, and said that "restoration of statehood shall take place at the earliest and as soon as possible". It had upheld the status of Ladakh as a Union Territory under Article 3(a) read with Explanation I of the Constitution, which permits the formation of a Union Territory by separating a territory from any state. In May 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed review petitions challenging its verdict, stating there was 'no error apparent on the face of the record' and refused to list the matter in open court.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 hours ago
- Business Standard
SC seeks Centre's response on plea seeking restoration of statehood to J-K
The Supreme Court on Thursday sought a response from the Centre on a plea seeking the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran also took note of the submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, that there were "several considerations which go into the decision-making process". It listed the plea, filed by academician Zahoor Ahmad Bhat and socio-political activist Ahmad Malik, for hearing after eight weeks. "You cannot ignore what happened in Pahalgam... It is for Parliament and the Executive to take a decision," the CJI said when senior lawyer Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Bhat, sought an early hearing. On December 11, 2023, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the revocation of Article 370, which accorded a special status to the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir, even as it ordered that assembly elections be held in the union territory by September 2024 and its statehood be restored "at the earliest". Last year, a plea was filed in the top court seeking directions to the Centre for the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir within two months.
