Top court seeks removal of DY Chandrachud from official home, writes to government
The administration informed that the bungalow is part of the official Supreme Court house pool and should now be returned for reallocation.The letter, which was submitted to the Housing Ministry, calls for the possession of the bungalow to be taken from Justice Chandrachud "without any further delay.""I am to request you to take the possession of Bungalow No. 5, Krishna Menon Marg, from Hon'ble Dr. Justice DY Chandrachud without any further delay as not only the permission that was granted for retention... has expired on 31st May, 2025, but also the period of six months provided in Rule 3B of the 2022 Rules has expired on 10th May, 2025," says the letter from a Supreme Court official to ministry's secretary dated July 1.- EndsMust Watch
IN THIS STORY#Supreme Court
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
32 minutes ago
- Time of India
Why Supreme Court's approval of 1,400 US Education Department layoffs is called 'willfully blind' and 'naive'
US Education Department layoffs: Why Supreme Court's decision to allow 1,400 cuts is 'willfully blind' and 'naive,' judges warn US Education Department layoffs 2025: The US Supreme Court has allowed President Trump to proceed with his plan to lay off nearly 1,400 employees from the US Department of Education, effectively enabling a large-scale downsizing of the agency. This ruling reverses a preliminary injunction issued by Boston's Judge Myong Joun, who had blocked the layoffs, citing concerns that the cuts would cripple the department's operations. The decision has sparked sharp criticism from three liberal justices, who dissented, branding the Supreme Court's ruling as "willfully blind" and "naive." The dissenters argue that the ruling threatens the constitutional principle of separation of powers by allowing the executive branch to effectively dismantle a federal agency by firing its employees. Supreme Court backs Trump's plan despite legal challenges The Supreme Court's order permits the Trump administration to move forward with the mass layoffs, pausing Judge Joun's injunction that had prevented the terminations. The Education Department staff affected by the layoffs had been on paid leave since March, according to the American Federation of Government Employees Local 252. Without the injunction, these employees would have been terminated in early June. The case involves two consolidated lawsuits, one filed by several school districts in Massachusetts and education groups including the American Federation of Teachers, and another by a coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general. Both suits argue that the layoffs amount to an illegal closure of the Education Department, leaving it unable to fulfil its statutory duties such as supporting special education, distributing financial aid, and enforcing civil rights laws. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, wrote that the majority was "either willfully blind to the implications of its ruling or naive," warning of a "grave" threat to the US Constitution's separation of powers, as reported by the Associated Press. Department of Education response and ongoing disputes Education Secretary Linda McMahon criticised the delay caused by the lower court's injunction and welcomed the Supreme Court's intervention, calling it "a shame" it took the highest court to confirm the president's authority over federal staffing and agency operations, as reported by the Associated Press. Meanwhile, more than 20 US states have filed lawsuits against the administration over billions of dollars in frozen education funding that support after-school care, summer programmes and other initiatives. The department has indicated it is "actively assessing how to reintegrate" the affected employees, requesting updates on their employment status to ensure a smooth return to duty if possible. Summary of key details Issue Detail Number of layoffs Nearly 1,400 employees Initial court action Judge Myong Joun issued an injunction blocking layoffs Supreme Court ruling Allowed layoffs to proceed in a 6–3 decision Dissenting justices Sotomayor, Jackson, Kagan Lawsuits Filed by Massachusetts school districts, education groups, and 21 Democratic attorneys general Department duties affected Special education, financial aid distribution, civil rights enforcement Employee status On paid leave since March; no full return to work during injunction The Supreme Court ruling thus permits the Trump administration's controversial downsizing plan to continue despite ongoing legal challenges and warnings from dissenting justices about the potential damage to the Education Department's capacity and constitutional governance. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here . Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Hindustan Times
34 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC notice to UP, Uttarakhand govts on QR code directive on Kanwar Yatra route
The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought response of the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments on a petition challenging the directive mandating display of QR codes on food stall owners along the 'kanwar' yatra route revealing the names and identities of owners. The court will hear the matter next on July 22. (PTI photo) The Kanwar Yatra began on July 11 and is expected to conclude by August 9. The court will hear the matter next on July 22. The court was hearing separate applications filed by Trinamool Congress (TMC) MP Mahua Moitra and professor Apoorvanand Jha challenging the June 25 order issued by the UP administration requiring shop owners to display QR codes containing details of shop ownership outside their establishment. Also Read: Traffic restrictions in Delhi-NCR till July 23 amid Kanwar Yatra: Check alternate routes The applications pointed out that such a directive violated a July 22, 2024 order passed by the top court when the state was prohibited from coercing food stall owners to display their identities being in breach of their right to privacy. A bench of justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh issued notice on the applications and sought a response from the two state governments before the next date of hearing on Tuesday. Senior advocate Shadan Farasat appearing for Moitra told the court that the matter required urgent consideration as the June 25 directive is already being implemented. He requested for an early date but the bench kept the matter after a week to facilitate responses from the state governments. Jha, who is one of the petitioners who approached the court against similar directive last year, cited a press released issued by the UP government on June 25. He said, 'The new measures mandate the display of QR codes on all eateries along the Kanwar route, which reveal the names and identities of the owners, thereby achieving the same discriminatory profiling that was previously stayed by this court.' While dealing with the issue last year, the top court on July 22, 2024 issued an interim stay on the enforcement of such directives, observing that the display of personal identity was neither backed by law nor necessary for the stated purpose of public order or food safety compliance. The court had clarified that no food stall owner can be forced to display the identity while it was open for persons to do so voluntarily. The directive issued last year required shopkeepers selling food items on the Kanwar Yatra route to display names of owners and the employees at a prominent place outside the shop, dhaba or restaurant. Besides Moitra and Jha, non-government organisation Association for Protection of Civil Rights had challenged the state's order last year. The present applications filed by Moitra and Jha accused the state authorities of 'circumventing the stay' issued by the top court by reintroducing the same directive requiring the name of the shop owner to be clearly displayed at each shop in QR code form under the garb of public safety and maintenance of law and order. 'These steps effectively serve the same unconstitutional end through digital means, in wilful disobedience of this court's directions,' Jha said in his application filed through advocate Akriti Chaubey. Further, asking owners to reveal religious, caste identities couched under the garb of 'lawful license requirements' breaches the right to privacy of the shop, dhaba, restaurant owners, the application said, adding that the owner's identity is already displayed inside the shop on the license certificate. Apprehending risk to fundamental rights of the shop owners, the application sought an immediate stay on the state's directive.
Mint
38 minutes ago
- Mint
Five social media influencers, including Samay Raina, appear before Supreme Court over remarks ‘ridiculing' disabled
India's Got Latent host Samay Raina and four other social media influencers appeared before the Supreme Court on Tuesday over a case regarding mocking disabled people. A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi noted the presence of social media influencers and instructed them to submit their responses to the petition. Additionally, the bench asked them to appear again in person on the next hearing date of the case. Apart from Samay, the SC summoned Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakkar, also known as Sonali Aditya Desai, and Nishant Jagdsish Tanwar. The top court, however, granted Sonali Thakkar permission to appear virtually at the next hearing because of a health issue. The bench stated that social media influencers must file their replies within two weeks, and no further extension will be granted. It also warned that their absence at the next hearing will be taken seriously. The Supreme Court instructed Attorney General R Venkataramani, representing the Centre, to draft social media guidelines that balance freedom of speech and expression with the rights and responsibilities of others. It stated that one person's freedom should not infringe on the rights of others and highlighted that the most challenging aspect is the enforceability of these guidelines. On May 5, the Supreme Court instructed five social media influencers to appear before it or face coercive measures, following a plea that accused them of ridiculing individuals with Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), a rare disorder, as well as others with disabilities, on their show. A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh instructed the Commissioner of Police of Mumbai that Raina, Vipul Goyal, Balraj Paramjeet Singh Ghai, Sonali Thakar and Nishant Jagdsish Tanwar appear before the top court. The SC's order came after M/s Cure SMA Foundation filed a petition seeking to prevent the broadcast of derogatory and denigrating content on digital media targeting persons with disabilities. The petition also called for the development of guidelines to protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities in relation to online content broadcasting.
