Supreme Court Collegium recommends appointment of 3 judges to the top court
New Delhi: The Supreme Court Collegium, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, on Monday forwarded its recommendations to the Centre in relation to the appointment of three judges to the top court.
Reportedly, the names of Justice N.V. Anjaria, the incumbent Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court; Justice Vijay Bishnoi, presently functioning as Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court; and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar of the Bombay High Court have been cleared by the apex court Collegium.
At present, the Supreme Court is functioning at a strength of 31 judges, 3 short of its sanctioned strength of 34 judges.
Further, another vacancy would soon arise on the retirement of Justice Bela M. Trivedi on June 9.
Justice Anjaria was elevated as Additional Judge of the Gujarat High Court in November 2011, and in September 2023, he was confirmed as a permanent Judge. He took oath as the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court on February 25 last year.
Justice Bishnoi, the present Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court, was appointed as Additional Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in January 2013 and took oath as a permanent Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in January 2015.
Born on April 7, 1965, Justice Chandurkar was elevated as an Additional Judge of the Bombay High Court in June 2013. As per the existing Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), the CJI, along with the four senior-most SC judges, commonly known as the Collegium, forwards its recommendation to the Centre to fill up the vacancies in the top court.
After receipt of the proposal, the Union Minister of Law and Justice will put up the recommendation to the Prime Minister, who will advise the President in the matter of appointment. As soon as the warrant of appointment is signed by the President, the Department of Justice will announce the appointment and issue the necessary notification in the official gazette.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
3 hours ago
- Hans India
Mamata Banerjee to visit Delhi on June 9
New Delhi: West Bengal Chief Minister and Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee is set to arrive in the national capital on June 9 for a two-day visit, during which she is likely to meet Prime Minister Narendra Modi to raise the issue of pending central funds owed to West Bengal. According to administrative sources, the visit is aimed at seeking the release of nearly ₹1.70 lakh crore which the Trinamool Congress (TMC) claims is due from the Centre under various central schemes. The visit is being closely watched in political circles, especially in Delhi, as it is expected to bring renewed focus on the Centre-state fiscal dynamics and the ongoing federal tensions. The West Bengal government has long alleged that the state is facing discriminatory treatment from the Centre, particularly regarding the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY), and the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY). The Chief Minister's planned meeting with the Prime Minister is expected to focus on these issues. Earlier this year, the TMC staged multiple protests in Delhi demanding the release of funds, particularly for the 100-day work scheme, even holding demonstrations near the Ministry of Rural Development. Mamata Banerjee had also sat on a dharna at Kolkata's Red Road, later using state funds to temporarily continue these schemes—an action that has placed significant strain on the state treasury. The upcoming visit comes at a politically sensitive time, as the West Bengal Legislative Assembly session is also scheduled to begin on June 9, where several key issues and bills are expected to be discussed. Mamata Banerjee's absence from this session adds weight to her Delhi tour, underscoring the urgency of the financial matter at hand. In Delhi, the visit is also likely to revive questions about the Chief Minister's strained engagement with federal institutions. BJP leader Jagannath Chatterjee, commenting on her visit, said, 'It is normal for a Chief Minister to meet the Prime Minister. What's unusual is Mamata Banerjee's reluctance to participate in key platforms like the NITI Aayog meetings.' Chatterjee pointed out that despite differing political ideologies, several non-BJP Chief Ministers—including those of Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Jharkhand, and Himachal Pradesh—have consistently engaged with the Centre through such forums. 'Why does Mamata Banerjee avoid that space for dialogue?' he asked. As Delhi prepares to host another high-stakes meeting between a powerful regional leader and the Prime Minister, all eyes will be on whether this visit leads to any breakthrough on the long-standing fund impasse—or further deepens the ongoing tussle between the Centre and the West Bengal government.
Indian Express
4 hours ago
- Indian Express
Construction cannot happen near protected sites without ASI's permission: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court ruled Monday that construction activities cannot be carried out near protected sites within a particular radius without the permission of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) as prescribed by the law. The order was passed by Justice M Nagaprasanna in response to a petition filed by a resident of Mangalore. The Mangalore resident had come into possession of a property after a partition suit in 1993. After subsequent challenges and appeals to the same, he was allotted a share of 8.8 cents of land in the Thota village of the Mangalore taluk. In 2023, the City Corporation granted permission to construct a house with an approved plan. After the construction reached a certain stage, ASI issued a stop notice on the grounds that the construction was within 150 metres of the Mangala Devi Temple, a protected monument. The resident approached the High Court with the petition after his representation for a no-objection certificate (NOC) was denied. The court stated in its order, 'It is to be noticed that framers of the Constitution were conscious of the need to shield the monuments and places of historic importance from spoliation and disfigurement… It is the obligation of the State to protect every monument of historic interest.' The petitioner's counsel stated that there was no impediment in granting the NOC as the construction was in the regulated area rather than at a distance where construction was prohibited. He stated that, as per images from Google Earth, it was at a distance of 151 metres from the temple. It was also submitted that the ASI estimate of 64 metres using Google Earth was erroneous, and the petitioner was doing a renovation that was permitted under the law (by bringing down and rebuilding an older construction). The State counsel argued that the constructed property was indeed at a distance of 64 metres where construction is prohibited. The counsel also said that the construction done so far should not have been sanctioned without an NOC from ASI. The bench also did not accept the claim of 151 metres distance, and said, 'It is deliberately shot from a different angle and enlarged so that the distance would change. The respondents (ASI) have placed a Google Earth image taken by them, which clearly depicts that the property which is being constructed is within 64 metres of the protected monument…. The statute clearly bars any kind of new construction, but permits only repair and minor renovation.' Apart from directing the petitioner not to go ahead with the construction, the court also ordered a departmental inquiry against the erring officers who granted permission for the construction contrary to the law.
Indian Express
4 hours ago
- Indian Express
Telangana Cong chief: ‘Maoists are our own citizens … fighting for poor … that's why urging Centre to hold peace talks with them'
After the banned CPI (Maoist)'s general secretary Nambala Keshava Rao alias Basavaraju was killed in an encounter between Maoists and security forces on May 22, Union Home Minister Amit Shah reiterated that Naxalism will be eliminated from the country by March 31, 2026. In the Congress-ruled Telangana, however, B Mahesh Kumar Goud, the Telangana Pradesh Congress Committee (TPCC) president, says that the government should not use iron fist to wipe out Maoists but deal with them through 'legal and constitutional means'. He has urged the Centre to hold 'peace talks' with the Maoists and declare a 'ceasefire' with them. In an interview with The Indian Express, Goud speaks on a range of issues related to Naxalism. Excerpts: *Why should peace talks be held with the Maoists? Right to life is a fundamental right. No one has the right to curb the right to life. What is happening as far as Operation Kagar (anti-Maoist offensive carried out by the central and state security personnel around the Karreguttalu hill range straddling Telangana and Chhattisgarh) is concerned? The Congress will not support terrorism if it comes either from the Naxal side or the government side. The Congress party's fundamental rule is Ahimsa (non-violence). So now, my request to the Union government is to go for peace talks because any person who is ready to surrender himself, surrender his weapons and is ready to join the mainstream should be given an opportunity to do so. Why is the government hesitating to hold peace talks? *What is your concern over the anti-Maoist offensive? My concern is that there are many civilians inside the forests, there are civilian tribals inside the forests, thousands of security personnel are deployed to bring down the Maoists. What if we lose civilians in the shoot-out or encounter? Recently, they (security forces) arrested some Maoists. Legal action will be initiated against them. I am requesting the central government to go legally while dealing with Maoists. If they are intending to surrender, let them surrender and then legal action can be taken against them. *Why did you draw a parallel between anti-Maoist operation and action against Pakistan? When Operation Sindoor against Pakistan started Congress was the first party to support it, with our leaders including Mallikarjun Kharge, Rahul Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi supporting the war against Pakistan. We stood behind the armed forces and fully supported the Union government. But all of a sudden the government declared a ceasefire. We strongly oppose the involvement of US President Donald Trump in this ceasefire because this was a bilateral issue. (However)… they (government) have a problem in having peace talks with our own citizens. Naxals are our own citizens, though they have taken up a different path and ideology. After all, they are fighting for the poor. That is the reason we have been urging the Centre for holding peace talks with the Maoists. When the Congress was in power in (the erstwhile undivided) Andhra Pradesh our then chief ministers Marri Chenna Reddy and YS Rajashekhar Reddy held peace talks with the Naxals. To a great extent these talks were successful. Many Naxals had then openly joined the mainstream, surrendered their arms and are living peaceful lives right now. *The Congress leadership had called Maoism 'the biggest internal security threat in the country'. Why is the Telangana Congress advocating peace talks with Maoists? The Congress is against violent politics of the Maoists. We still consider them an internal security threat. I am not supporting the killings done by Naxalites who are extremists. I am a victim of Naxalites myself because I lost my properties and my father was fatally attacked by the Naxalites back in 1989. He died in the hospital. But when the Maoists request peace talks, we should consider this because life should be preserved. Peace talks should be considered to preserve our constitutional value of right to life. We cannot curb the right to live. Besides, Naxalism was a product of inequality – One per cent of the rich in the country are holding about 40% of the country's wealth and the downtrodden are holding only 3% of its wealth. I request the government to look at Maoism as a socio-economic, political problem and not purely as a law and order problem. When they (Naxalites) are pleading for peace talks, I don't see any wrong in holding such talks. *Telangana's state policy has been to encourage surrender of Maoists. Have you seen any success in that? Yes, in the past 10 years several top Maoist leaders have surrendered in Telangana and were imprisoned. Some of them were released later and they have joined the mainstream. Bloodshed, in any form – the Congress party will not accept that. *What is your response to the BJP's allegation that while backing the Maoists the Congress is also supporting Pakistan-sponsored terrorists? This is simply misleading. Congress was the first party to support the Union government when Operation Sindoor started. Our Congress leaders stood with the government. We only oppose the way the war was stopped despite having a huge scope to proceed forward and annihilate terror bases and terrorists. We want to know from Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah what we gained and what we lost in military action against Pakistan. They are not clear and they are misguiding people even to the extent that they have not clarified how many Rafale jets were shot down by Pakistan. There is a huge difference between the war led by Indira ji (Indira Gandhi in 1971) and the war led by Prime Minister Modi. Indiraji's war was successful. Here the Prime Minister is unable to say what we have gained and what we have lost. Operation Kagar is completely different from Operation Sindoor. *The BJP accuses you of being under the influence of 'Urban Naxals'… We say Operation Kagar is different from Operation Sindoor because in the former case the government is fighting Indian citizens who have the right to live. We do not endorse Maoists who have killed innocent people. At the same time, killing Maoists mercilessly when they have offered to surrender is unconstitutional. Moreover, we have to worry about civilian casualties.
