SC tells Senthilbalaji to choose between ministership and freedom
1. Supreme Court tells Senthilbalaji to choose between ministership and freedom
The Supreme Court took stern exception to the continuance of Tamil Nadu Minister for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise V. Senthilbalaji in office while out on bail in money laundering proceedings linked to a cash-for-jobs 'scam', saying 'you have to make a choice between the post and your freedom'.
2. Madras HC to take up suo motu writ against Minister Ponmudy's speech
The Madras High Court directed its Registry to take up a suo motu writ petition with respect to a derogatory speech delivered by Tamil Nadu Forest Minister K. Ponmudy against Saivites, Vaishnavites and women in general.
3. Madras HC reverses discharge of Minister Duraimurugan in 2002 disproportionate assets case
The Madras High Court reversed the discharge order passed by a special court in Vellore in 2007 in a disproportionate assets case booked by the DVAC in 2002 for having allegedly amassed the wealth between 1996 and 2001 when he had served as Minister for Public Works Department (PWD) in former Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi's Cabinet.
4. TASMAC versus ED case: Madras HC dismisses pleas against search
The Madras High Court dismissed writ petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu government and Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) to declare as illegal a search and seizure operation carried out by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) at the corporation's headquarters in Chennai between March 6 and 8.
5. State government approves Chennai Metro Rail's Airport-Kilambakkam project
After years of wait, the Tamil Nadu government has approved Chennai Metro Rail's Airport-Kilambakkam project and has forwarded the detailed project report (DPR) to the Centre.
To be built at an estimated cost of ₹9,335 crore, the Airport-Kilambakkam corridor is expected to significantly improve the commute for those residing in the city's southern areas such as Chromepet, Pallavaram, Tambaram and Perungalathur.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
43 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Supreme Court grants interim protection from arrest to MP Journalist alleging police assault
The Supreme Court on Monday directed two Madhya Pradesh-based journalists, who have accused the Bhind superintendent of police and other officers of custodial assault and harassment, to approach the Madhya Pradesh High Court for relief. The court granted them interim protection from arrest for two weeks to allow time to file their plea. A bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan told the petitioners—Shashikant Jatav and Amarkant Singh Chouhan—that it was not inclined to entertain their plea under Article 32 of the Constitution. However, noting the gravity of the allegations, the bench permitted them to seek remedy before the High Court. 'We are not entertaining the plea. However, looking at the allegations, we permit the petitioners to move the concerned high court within two weeks from today. Till the time the petitioners move high court …the petitioners shall not be arrested,' Justice Mishra said. The journalists have alleged that they were targeted by police due to their reporting on alleged corruption related to sand mining. In their plea, they sought protection from coercive action by the MP Police and claimed they feared for their lives. The petition also accused a senior police officer and his subordinates of kidnapping, custodial assault, and using casteist slurs against them. The bench previously questioned why the Bhind superintendent of police had not been made a party to the petition. "It is very easy to say all kinds of things against an IPS officer without making him a party. Whatever comes to your mind, just put it in black and white against the IPS officer," the bench remarked. The court also asked why the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi were named as respondents. The counsel for the journalists said the NHRC had been included because a complaint had been filed there, but agreed to remove it from the petition. On the inclusion of NCT of Delhi, it was submitted that both petitioners are currently residing in the national capital. Meanwhile, on May 28, the Delhi High Court had granted Chouhan interim protection for two months after he claimed that the Bhind SP had threatened him following an alleged assault in his office. The Supreme Court has listed the matter for further hearing on June 9.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
A critical test for institutions
The Supreme Court stopped short of instituting an internal probe into the conduct of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav, a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, following a March letter from the Rajya Sabha secretariat raising issues of jurisdiction, this newspaper reported Monday. The letter reiterated the process as referred to by Rajya Sabha chairperson and Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar previously in February in Parliament — that only Parliament and the President have the jurisdiction to proceed against the judge, who is in the dock for alleged hate speech against Muslims delivered in December 2024. Even as the Supreme Court took note of that speech, a group of 55 opposition MPs filed a notice in the Rajya Sabha seeking Justice Yadav's impeachment for 'grave violation of judicial ethics'. As per the law, the removal of a high court or Supreme Court judge for 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity' must go through Parliament. The chairperson will now have to decide on the admissibility of the motion and if an inquiry needs to be held. The Rajya Sabha chairperson, who has been vocal about judicial integrity and institutional probity, should ensure that the complaint against the judge is now processed in a transparent manner and concluded before the judicial officer retires in April next year. A timely closure in the matter is necessary to ensure that there is no reputational damage to the judiciary, Parliament, or the concerned judge, in case he is found innocent of the alleged hate speech. Interestingly, while Justice Yadav, reportedly, regretted his conduct and assured the Supreme Court collegium that he will render a public apology in a closed-door meeting with it in December, he has not issued one and instead defended his speech, delivered in a meeting of Vishwa Hindu Parishad activists in Prayagraj, as reflecting India's cultural ethos. A judge is bound by oath to protect constitutional values, not articulate majoritarian sentiments or populist views, even if they are part of some perceived cultural ethos. Any deviation is a violation of the oath and compromises the integrity of the judiciary. The Justice Yadav case presents a critical test. It is not merely about the conduct of one judge but will have wider implications for the principle of separation of powers and commitment of public institutions to constitutional ideals. How this matter is now handled by the Rajya Sabha will set an important precedent for the future of India's democratic institutions.
Scroll.in
an hour ago
- Scroll.in
Collegium system imperfect but preserves ‘judiciary's autonomy', says Supreme Court judge
The Supreme Court's Justice Surya Kant has said that the collegium system of appointing judges, despite its imperfections, serves as a 'crucial institutional safeguard' and preserves the judiciary's autonomy, The Indian Express reported on Sunday. Kant, who is slated to become the next chief justice of India, said that the collegium system 'significantly limits interference by the Executive and Legislature, thereby preserving the Judiciary's autonomy and insulating judges from extraneous pressures that could otherwise compromise their impartiality,' the newspaper reported. Under the collegium system, the five most senior judges of the Supreme Court, including the chief justice, decide on the appointments and transfers of judges to the top court and the High Courts. Speaking at Seattle University in the United States on June 4, Kant acknowledged that the system has faced criticism, especially on the lack of publicly articulated criteria for selecting judges. However, he said that 'recent efforts by the Supreme Court signal a growing commitment to enhancing transparency and public confidence in it'. In 2022, the Supreme Court Collegium had published detailed documentation of its deliberations on selecting five judges. Since October 2017, the Collegium has also been publishing its resolution on the court's official website. Kant also said that the 'the judiciary's evolving relationship with its own independence, lies at the very heart of how India's vast, pluralistic democracy continues to function with remarkable cohesion'. He also said that some phases of institutional strain 'particularly during the Emergency' eventually 'gave way to renewed judicial consciousness'. In recent years, the Bharatiya Janata Party government at the Centre has been selectively appointing judges recommended for elevation to the bench by the Supreme Court collegium, which has allowed the Union government to exercise a veto over judicial appointments. The executive and the judiciary have been in a tug-of-war regarding appointments to higher judiciary in recent years. Former Law Minister Kiren Rijiju and Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar have repeatedly criticised the collegium system of appointing judges, contending that it is opaque. In 2014, the BJP-led government had introduced the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act with the objective of making appointments to the Supreme Court and High Courts 'more broad-based, transparent, accountable and bringing objectivity in the system'. The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act had proposed to make judicial appointments through a body consisting of the chief justice, two senior Supreme Court judges, the Union law minister and two other eminent persons nominated by the chief justice, the prime minister and the Leader of the Opposition. In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down the Act, ruling that it was unconstitutional.
