Supreme Court makes judges' family ties, assets public in major transparency push
Statements of assets of 21 judges that the Supreme Court has already received are being uploaded for the public and declaration of assets of other judges will be uploaded as and when the current statement of assets is received, the court said.
In a notification dated May 5, the Supreme Court said that it has also placed complete details of the appointment process to the high courts and the top court on its website. Also Read | Supreme Court rejects bail for ex-IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt. Here's why…
The details include 'process of appointments to the High Courts and Supreme Court including the role assigned to the High Court Collegium, the role and inputs received from the State Governments, Government of India, and consideration by the Supreme Court Collegium, on its website for knowledge and awareness of the public.'
The details also include the proposals approved by the Supreme Court Collegium for appointments as High Court Judges during the period 9th November 2022 to 5th May 2025, including the names, High Court, source whether from Service or Bar, date of recommendation by the Supreme Court Collegium, date of notification by Department of Justice, date of appointment, and special category (SC/ST/OBC/Minority/Woman)".
The information in public mentions whether candidates' familial ties such as if they are related to any retired or sitting judge of the high court/Supreme Court.
'Statements of assets of Judges already received are being uploaded. Statement of assets of other Judges will be uploaded as and when the current statement of assets is received,' the Supreme Court said.
First Published: 6 May 2025, 08:38 AM IST
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
12 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Bill to form trust for Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan introduced in UP assembly
LUCKNOW: The Yogi Adityanath government introduced the Shri Banke Bihari Temple Trust Bill, 2025, on Wednesday to replace the ordinance promulgated on May 26, which the Supreme Court had stayed. The top court had also asked the Allahabad high court to decide the validity of the ordinance, preferably within a period of one year from the date the petitions are taken up for hearing. The Bankey Bihari Temple in Vrindavan, Mathura district, Uttar Pradesh. (PTi) The bill proposes creating a trust to manage the temple and is expected to be taken up for passage on Thursday. The bill proposes the establishment of a board of government-appointed trustees, comprising 11 nominated and 7 ex officio members. Both the temple management and members of the Sewayat Goswami community had approached the top court challenging the May 26 ordinance as well as a judgment of the top court passed on May 15 that allowed the state to use temple funds for a corridor project in a 5-kilometre space around the temple. As an interim measure, the top court's bench of justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, in its August 8 ruling also constituted a 14-member interim committee to carry out the daily administration of Mathura's Banke Bihari temple. This committee would be headed by retired Allahabad high court judge justice Ashok Kumar. The court also modified the May 15 order and deleted the portions permitting the state to use temple funds from the judgment, noting that the top court committed the error of passing the order without hearing the Goswami community, who were stakeholders in the day-to-day affairs of the temple. Several petitions were filed against the ordinance by which the state has assumed administrative control of the temple by creating a trust and ousting the members of the Goswami community, who previously managed the temple affairs, under a judicial order issued in 1939. In the assembly on Wednesday, the government highlighted the objectives and reasons of the proposed bill, underlining that the temple in Vrindavan town of Mathura district was an ancient and world-famous shrine. Every year, a large number of devotees and tourists visit the temple, which spans approximately 870 square metres, including a scenic courtyard that covers around 365 square metres. Due to the extremely narrow access route to the temple, devotees and visitors face severe inconvenience. The tragic death of two devotees during an incident of overcrowding on August 20 2022 highlighted the urgent need for efficient crowd management, it said. 'To fulfill the above-mentioned objectives, and for the all-round development and proper management of the Shri Bankey Bihari ji Temple area including pilgrimage, religious, cultural, spiritual, and establishment-related aspects and to ensure the temple's development and regulation in an organized manner, it was decided to constitute a trust named – Shri Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust,' the bill said, adding that the trust would get rights over all offerings and properties of the temple, its including movable and immovable properties.
News18
22 minutes ago
- News18
Decision is correct: Abu Azmi backs SCs order on relocation of stray dogs
Mumbai (Maharashtra) [India], August 13 (ANI): Maharashtra Samajwadi Party president Abu Asim Azmi on Wednesday backed the Supreme Court's order to relocate stray dogs, stating that the decision was 'very correct" as dog bites often lead to serious medical treatment, including 14 injections.'This decision is very correct… People with pet dogs often find their dogs biting people on the road. People love dogs and often carry them in their cars. When a dog bites, 14 injections are needed… However, when we bring a goat into our house, they become very sad, even though the goat never bites…" Azmi told ANI. Earlier in the day, Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai stated that he would examine the ongoing issue related to the relocation of the dogs after an advocate mentioned the matter and said that different benches of the Supreme Court had issued conflicting directions. The matter relating to stray dogs was mentioned before a bench headed by the CJI for urgent listing, to which the CJI said, 'I will look into this."Advocate Nanita Sharma said two benches of the apex court have passed different orders on the stray dogs issue.'This is with regard to the community dogs issue… There is an earlier judgment of this court, of a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol, which says there cannot be indiscriminate killing of canines and that compassion for all living beings has to be there," the lawyer was referring to the recent order passed by a bench headed by Justice JB Pardiwala, where the court had ordered relocation of the stray dogs in Delhi to dog shelters and another order passed by a Justice JK Maheshwari-led bench in May 2024, whereby the petitions relating to the stray dog issue were relegated to the respective High Courts. Justice Maheshwari had said, 'Under all circumstances, there cannot be any indiscriminate killings of canines and the authorities have to take action in terms of the mandate and spirit of the prevalent legislation(s) in place".Sharma today mentioned the petition filed by an organisation named Conference for Human Rights (India), challenging a Delhi High Court's order in its PIL seeking directions for sterilisation and vaccination of community dogs in Delhi as per the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules. (ANI)
Time of India
42 minutes ago
- Time of India
Resignation only option before Justice Varma to avoid removal by Parliament, rules say
As Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla announced a committee to probe charges of corruption against Justice Yashwant Varma , resignation is the only option left for the Allahabad High Court judge to avoid removal by Parliament . The inquiry committee comprises Supreme Court judge Aravind Kumar, Madras High Court Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and senior Karnataka High Court advocate B V Acharya. Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 4 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals Batch 2 By Ansh Mehra View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 3 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Artificial Intelligence AI For Business Professionals By Vaibhav Sisinity View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass - Batch 2 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program Finance Value and Valuation Masterclass Batch-1 By CA Himanshu Jain View Program "The committee will submit its report as early as possible. The proposal (for removal of Justice Varma ) will remain pending till the receipt of the report of the inquiry committee," Birla told Lok Sabha on Tuesday. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Brain tumor has left my son feeling miserable; please help! Donate For Health Donate Now Undo Birla said he had received a proposal from 146 Lok Sabha members, including BJP's Ravi Shankar Prasad and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, seeking removal of Justice Varma on July 21. Officials aware of the procedure to appoint and remove Supreme Court and high court judges pointed out that while defending his case before lawmakers in any of the House, Justice Varma can announce that he is quitting and his verbal statement will be considered as his resignation. Live Events Should he decide to resign, he will get pension and other benefits entitled to a retired high court judge. But if he is removed by Parliament, he will be deprived of pension and other benefits, they noted. According to Article 217 of the Constitution, a high court judge "may, by writing under his hand addressed to the President, resign his office". A judge's resignation does not require any approval. A simple resignation letter is sufficient. A judge may give a prospective date to step down. In such cases, the judge can withdraw the resignation before the date he or she has mentioned as the last day in office. Removal by Parliament is the other way a judge can vacate office. Then Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna had written to the president and the prime minister to remove Justice Varma, mired in the cash discovery row. Justice Khanna's report was based on the findings of a three-judge in-house panel which investigated the case. Justice Khanna had prodded Varma to resign but he had refused, sources had earlier said. According to the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in any of the Houses, the speaker or the chairman, as the case may be, will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal (or, in popular term, impeachment) has been sought. The committee consists of the chief justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge, the chief justice of one of the 25 high courts and a " distinguished jurist". According to the rule, a committee has to be constituted and then the committee has to submit a report and the report will be tabled in the House and discussions will start to impeach. A fire incident at Justice Varma's residence in the national capital in March, when he was a judge at the Delhi High Court , had led to the discovery of several burnt sacks of cash at the outhouse. Though the judge claimed ignorance about the cash, the Supreme Court-appointed committee indicted him after speaking to a number of witnesses and recording his statement. The apex court has since repatriated him to his parent high court, the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial work. Supreme Court judge V Ramaswami and Calcutta High Court judge Soumitra Sen had earlier faced impeachment proceedings but they resigned. Justice Varma's will be the first ever impeachment proceeding to be taken up in the new Parliament building.
