Ninety-day pan-India mediation campaign to start from July 1
Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Supreme Court judge, Justice Surya Kant, are scheduled to launch a 90-day long mediation campaign conceptualised by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and the Mediation and Conciliation Project Committee (MCPC) to tackle pending cases from the taluka courts to the State High Courts.
The campaign, called 'Mediation for the Nation', would commence from July 1 and would continue till September 30.
The pan-India mediation campaign intends to take mediation to 'every nook and cranny' as an alternative and people-friendly mode of dispute resolution.
'The categories of matters eligible for mediation include matrimonial disputes, accident claims, domestic violence, cheque bounce cases, commercial disputes, service matters, criminal compoundable cases, consumer disputes, debt recovery cases, partition and eviction cases, land acquisition matters, among others,' a statement issued by the Supreme Court explained.
The press release said the special campaign intended to involve existing mediators, including professionals who have undergone the 40-hours mediation training recently. The mediation settlement efforts would continue throughout the week as per the convenience of the parties involved.
The parties could opt to participate in the mediation proceedings online or offline or in hybrid mode.
Taluka or District Legal Services authorities would facilitate online mediation within their respective jurisdictions. The campaign would be monitored by the Mediation Monitoring Committees of State High Courts.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Gazette
28 minutes ago
- India Gazette
SC notifies guidelines for retention, disposal of records
New Delhi [India], June 26 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Thursday highlighted a lacuna over the management of administrative records and issued guidelines for retention and disposal of documents to create accountability and efficiency across all registry wings. Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, in a message, said that over the years, the registry of the Supreme Court has witnessed a significant increase in the volume and diversity of administrative records generated across multiple branches. CJI said, 'While judicial records pertaining to case proceedings are governed by explicit provisions contained in Order LVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and further elaborated in Chapter XXI of the Handbook on Practice and Office Procedure of the Supreme Court of India, 2017, a lacuna has persisted with respect to the management of administrative records.' He further added, 'This disparity leads to inconsistent practices across branches, affecting archival clarity and efficiency. The 'Guidelines for Retention and Destruction of Records 2025' aim to remedy this by promoting coherence, accountability, and efficiency in managing administrative records, including institutional decisions, policy implementations, inter-departmental correspondences, audits, and engagements with external stakeholders.' He underscored the importance of properly managing these records for transparency and accountability, and guidelines to establish a rational framework. Operational efficiency is enhanced by the systematic elimination of obsolete documents, easing storage burdens and improving record retrieval speed, said the CJI. 'The Guidelines ensure compliance with audit and statutory obligations by defining appropriate retention periods based on fiscal, legal, and administrative relevance. They are aligned with national public record management standards,' he further continued. The guidelines were stated to have been borne out of detailed consultations among Registrars and officials of the Registry. As per the issued guidelines, original submission notes or paper books bearing signatures of the Chief Justice of India and judges of the Supreme Court are to be preserved permanently. Policy files, office orders and circular files were to be preserved permanently. In case the records of one branch or wing were correlated with those of a different branch or records relating to the confidential branch, an intimation on 'the pendency of court case is to be sent to them as soon as the court case is received in the section', it said. Destruction and retention of records by the relevant branches should be carried out after due approval from the registrar concerned, it further said. (ANI)
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Planned parenthood funding faces axe after US Supreme Court bombshell ruling for states
A divided Supreme Court Thursday ruled that US states can block the country's biggest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood , from receiving Medicaid money for health services such as contraception and cancer screenings. The top court cleared the way for states to potentially cut off funding for Planned Parenthood, one of the country's largest abortion providers. The 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch was not directly about abortion, but it comes as a victory to Republicans seeking to defund the nation's largest abortion provider. Planned Parenthood is already barred from receiving federal money for abortion care. But this ruling, where three liberal justices on the top court dissented, would also allow states to cut off reimbursements for other medical services it provides to low-income Americans under the Medicaid program. "Section 1983 permits private plaintiffs to sue for violations of federal spending-power statutes only in 'atypical' situations … where the provision in question 'clear[ly]' and 'unambiguous[ly]' confers an individual 'right,'" Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion, ruling that the law in question in the present case "is not such a statute." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Cara Membantu Orang Terkasih Menghadapi Limfoma Limfoma Pelajari Undo ALSO READ: Elon Musk's right-hand man quits: Who Is Tesla power player Omead Afshar? States allowed to remove planned parenthood The case stems from an executive order issued by South Carolina's Republican governor Henry McMaster in 2018 cutting off Medicaid funding to the two Planned Parenthood clinics in the state. The decision centers on a South Carolina case involving non-abortion services such as contraception, cancer screenings, and pregnancy testing. Live Events Republican leaders in South Carolina have objected to Planned Parenthood because it provides abortions. Public health care money generally can't be used to pay for abortions, but Medicaid patients go to Planned Parenthood for other needs in part because it can be tough to find a doctor who takes the publicly funded insurance, the organization has said. ALSO READ: DOGE's shock exit: Who is 'Big Balls', the 19 year-old ex-Neuralink prodigy to resign from Elon Musk's team? South Carolina's Republican governor says no taxpayer money should go the organization. The budget bill backed by President Donald Trump in Congress would also cut Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. That could force the closure of about 200 centers, most of them in states where abortion is legal, the organization has said. In 2018, South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster, a Republican, moved to cut off the organization's funding, arguing that no taxpayer dollars should go to Planned Parenthood. That action was initially blocked by a lawsuit from Julie Edwards, a patient who relies on the clinic for birth control due to a high-risk medical condition. The case also tested whether Medicaid patients have the legal right to sue over the choice of providers. While public health groups such as the American Cancer Society argued in court that lawsuits are often the only tool Medicaid recipients have to enforce their rights, South Carolina contended that patients should not be allowed to file such suits. The court's decision siding with the state could restrict patients' ability to challenge funding decisions, particularly in rural areas with limited access to care. ALSO READ: Zohran Mamdani at risk of losing US citizenship? Shocking twist as New York's mayoral race heats up Though Planned Parenthood receives only $90,000 annually in Medicaid funds from South Carolina—a small fraction of the state's total Medicaid budget—the ruling arrives as Congress considers a Trump-backed federal budget that would eliminate Medicaid funding to the group entirely. According to the organization, such cuts could force the closure of roughly 200 clinics, many in states where abortion remains legal. South Carolina currently bans abortion at around six weeks of pregnancy, following the Supreme Court's 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade. (With AP inputs)
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Simultaneous election Bills do not violate the basic structure of the Constitution: former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud
Conducting free and fair elections is a basic feature of the Constitution, but the Constitution does not say that polls can be free and fair only if they are held non-simultaneously, former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud has opined, according to sources, in his written submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee reviewing the proposed legislations aiming to introduce simultaneous elections. Justice Chandrachud, who served as the CJI from November 2022 to November 2024, will present his views to the panel on July 11. Justice J.S. Kehar, who served as CJI between January and August 2017, has also been invited by the panel, which is reviewing the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024 and The Union Territories Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024. Editorial | Pie in the sky: On the idea of simultaneous elections Other CJIs highlighted problems Their predecessors who had met the panel earlier had pointed out several infirmities in the legislations, according to sources. In February, former CJI U.U. Lalit had told the panel that the Bill in its present form will not sustain a legal challenge in the Supreme Court. He opined that curtailing the tenure of some State assemblies to synchronise the polls will run counter to the basic structure of the Constitution, protected by the Kesavananda Bharati judgement. In March, another former CJI, Ranjan Gogoi, had warned that it would not be advisable to give the Election Commission unrestricted powers to decide the schedule of simultaneous polls, sources said. Voters are not 'naive' Justice Chandrachud, as per sources, has dismissed the contention that holding simultaneous elections would blur the distriction between different tiers of government, since voters may prioritise national issues over regional concerns if the election cycles are synchronised. This argument, he said, is based on the assumption that the Indian electorate is 'naive' and can be easily 'manipulated.' This contention, he has argued, flies in the face of the universal adult franchise which has been part of the Indian Constitution since its inception. He further contended in his written submission, as per sources, that 'staggered elections cannot be considered as a feature of the original Constitution, let alone an immutable feature.' He said, as per sources, that the legislation 'does not infringe' upon voters' rights to choose their elected representatives, since the legislation allows for midterm polls in case any State Assembly is dissolved, for various reasons. Smaller parties may be marginalised According to sources, Justice Chandrachud has also said that the concern that simultaneous elections could marginalise smaller parties or regional parties, due to the dominance of national parties with better resources, warrants legislative attention. But this problem, he said, exists independent and irrespective of the simultaneous elections legislations. The panel will also meet senior advocate E.M. Sudarsana Natchiappan and former Union Minister M. Veerappa Moily on the same day as it hears from Justice Chandrachud.
