BR Gavai to be next CJI, will assume office on May 14
Gavai, the second-most senior judge of the Supreme Court, will assume office on May 14, succeeding Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna. Khanna will retire on May 13.
The Constitution grants the president the power to appoint judges in the Supreme Court.
Earlier this month, Khanna wrote to the ministry proposing Gavai as his successor. The letter is part of the convention on the appointment of the top court's chief justices.
Gavai, who will become the 52nd chief justice of the Supreme Court, will have a tenure of six months before he retires on November 23.
Gavai practiced at the Bombay High Court between 1987 and 1990, and mainly before the Nagpur bench of the High Court.
He served as government pleader and public prosecutor for the Nagpur bench since 2000 and was made an additional judge in 2003. He became a permanent judge in 2005.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
22 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Aid and advice: on Jammu and Kashmir, LG's Assembly member nominations
The Union Ministry of Home Affairs' assertion to the J&K High Court that the Lieutenant Governor (LG) can nominate five Assembly members without the 'aid and advice' of the elected government overrides democratic accountability. Consequential decisions such as nominating members who have voting rights in an elected assembly must flow from democratic mandate, not administrative discretion. The High Court's constitutional question could not be more direct: do the 2023 amendments to the J&K Reorganisation Act, allowing the LG to nominate five Assembly members 'which have the potential of converting the minority government into a majority government and vice-versa,' violate the Constitution's basic structure? Rather than addressing this, the Ministry delves into legal technicalities. Its submission argues that nominations fall outside the elected government's remit, seemingly invoking the K. Lakshminarayanan vs The Union of India precedent from Puducherry while claiming the 'sanctioned strength' includes elected and nominated members. It even references Section 12 of the 1963 Union Territories Act (voting procedures) as justification for bypassing democratic consultation. When five nominated members could determine government stability in a 119-member Assembly, the issue transcends statutory definitions of 'sanctioned strength'. The real question is whether any legal framework allowing appointed officials to potentially overturn the people's electoral verdict violates the democratic essence of the Constitution. The amendments inserted Sections 15A and 15B into the 2019 Act, allowing the LG to nominate two Kashmiri migrants (including one woman) and one from the Pakistan-occupied J&K community, besides the existing power to nominate two women, if inadequately represented in the elected Assembly. This effectively creates five nominated seats. The High Court's framing of this issue acknowledges the stakes involved: this could 'convert minority government into majority government and vice-versa', potentially subverting the electoral process. This concern is not unsubstantiated — in 2021, three years after Lakshminarayanan, Puducherry saw nominated members and defecting elected MLAs contributing to the collapse of the Congress-led government. Also, J&K's trajectory to Union Territory, without consultation with elected representatives, makes democratic accountability even more crucial. The unfulfilled promise of Statehood restoration, acknowledged by the Supreme Court and despite overwhelming support in J&K, reinforces that current arrangements should strengthen democratic governance. The Ministry's argument that nominations exist 'outside the realm of the business of the elected government' also contradicts evolving Supreme Court jurisprudence. In the Delhi services cases of 2018 and 2023, it ruled that the LG should act on elected governments' aid and advice, with discretionary powers treated as exceptions. Seen in this light, the Ministry's arguments do not hold water.
Economic Times
22 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Probe link between Noida officials and landowners, says SC
Supreme Court Synopsis The Supreme Court has mandated a preliminary investigation into potential collusion between Noida officials and landowners concerning land acquisition payouts. This action follows a resumed hearing regarding inflated compensation to ineligible landowners. A special investigation team (SIT) consisting of three IPS officers will probe irregularities, examining financial trails and asset acquisitions to ascertain any collusion. The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered a preliminary inquiry into an alleged collusion between Noida officials and landowners on land acquisition payouts. The development took place during the resumed hearing of a case linked to alleged inflated compensation to ineligible landowners. ADVERTISEMENT A bench comprising justice Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered the constitution of a special investigation team comprising three IPS officers to probe irregularities in the land acquisition payouts. The bench ordered an inquiry after perusing a report of an SIT - set up earlier - which flagged shortcomings in the functioning of Noida Authority. The court said that no new building projects should be taken up in Noida without environment impact assessment (EIA) clearance and permission from the green bench of the Supreme Court, which hears cases related to the environment. The new three-member SIT will replace the earlier one and will work on a new mandate. ON financial trail The previous SIT's findings pointed out excessive payments in 20 cases and said some Noida officials were suspected of involvement. The new SIT has been asked to examine financial trails, including bank accounts of officials, their families and landowners, as well as assets acquired during the period in question, to ascertain collusion. (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel) (Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, Budget 2025 Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.) Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online. NEXT STORY
Economic Times
25 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Why Maneka Gandhi says Delhi- NCR could face 1880s Paris-style problems if stray dogs are removed
Synopsis The Supreme Court's order to relocate stray dogs from Delhi-NCR to shelters has sparked controversy, with animal rights activists like Maneka Gandhi raising concerns about the order's practicality and potential ecological consequences. Gandhi warns that removing dogs could lead to an increase in rodents, drawing parallels to historical events like the rat infestation in 1880s Paris after dog removal. The Supreme Court's directive to remove all stray dogs from Delhi-NCR streets and place them in shelters has triggered a heated debate over whether the move is realistic or wise. On Monday, the court ordered the immediate removal of all stray dogs from public spaces in Delhi, Gurugram, Noida, and the decision, former Union minister and animal rights activist Maneka Gandhi criticised the order, calling it 'impractical', 'financially unviable' and 'potentially harmful' to the region's ecological warned of unintended consequences, saying that removing strays could create new problems. 'Within 48 hours, three lakh dogs will come from Ghaziabad, Faridabad, because there's food here in Delhi. And once you remove the dogs, monkeys will come on the ground... I've seen this happen at my own house.'Recalling a historical example, Gandhi referred to 1880s Paris: 'When they removed dogs and cats, the city was overrun with rats,' she said, describing dogs as 'rodent control animals'.In the late 19th century, stray dogs roamed Paris in large numbers and were often seen as dangerous transmitters of rabies, fleas, and filth. The city administration considered them a threat to cleanliness, public health, and safety. In the 1880s, a large-scale removal, and in some cases slaughter, of dogs was carried out in an attempt to curb rabies and make the French capital more 'modern' and safe. While the historical record on cats is less clear for this period, it is believed that removing dogs caused an unexpected spike in the city's rat population, as the animals had been an important natural check on in Stray Dogs and the Making of Modern Paris notes that in 1883, pharmacist Emile Capron appealed for the removal of stray dogs, arguing they scared horses and caused accidents. However, there is no definitive evidence of a simultaneous large-scale killing of idea of a 'cat massacre' in Paris has its own separate history. Historian Robert Darnton wrote about a grim incident in his 1984 book The Great Cat Massacre and Other Episodes in French Cultural History. This was based on an event from the 1730s, when a group of printing press apprentices in Paris tortured and killed cats in protest against their working conditions. According to History Today, the episode was part of a strange blend of cruelty, social commentary, and dark humour that reflected the tensions of the time. Inputs from agencies
