Justice Atul Chandurkar Recommended for SC Elevation by CJI-led Collegium
1
2
Nagpur: Justice Atul Chandurkar, a senior judge of the Bombay high court, has been recommended for elevation to the Supreme Court by the collegium led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan Gavai.
The recommendation underscores his contributions to constitutional jurisprudence, particularly in the realm of digital rights and free speech.
The city's legal fraternity was on cloud nine as soon as the news was received, and congratulatory messages poured in on social media about his elevation. This is the second big elevation for the Nagpur High Court Bar Association (HCBA) in two weeks, as justice Gavai was sworn in as CJI on May 14.
Justice Gavai was the last judge from the HCBA here to move to SC on May 9, 2019.
Born on April 7, 1965, Chandurkar completed his education in Pune, earning degrees in commerce and law before commencing his legal practice in Mumbai on July 21, 1988, under senior counsel BN Naik. He later shifted to Nagpur in 1992, where he practised across various courts. He authored two books; 'The Maharashtra Municipal Council Nagar Panchayats & Industrial Townships Act, 1965' and 'The Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999'.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
12000W лазерен заваръчен апарат (4 в 1) – революция в заваряването!
lesburst.shop
Undo
Elevated as an additional judge of the Bombay high court on June 21, 2013, he has since presided over numerous important cases.
One of Chandurkar's most notable judgments came in September 2024, when he served as the tie-breaker in a split verdict concerning the constitutional validity of the 2023 amendments to the Information Technology Rules. These amendments empowered a govt-appointed Fact Check Unit to label online content related to govt business as 'fake' or 'misleading'.
Chandurkar's recommendation to the apex court comes as part of CJI Gavai's efforts to strengthen the judiciary with judges possessing deep constitutional insight and a commitment to upholding fundamental rights. He will bring to the apex court a wealth of experience from his tenure at the HC and a reputation for judicious reasoning in complex legal matters, said HCBA members.
The recommendation reflects a deliberate effort by the collegium to bring a balance of regional representation and subject matter expertise to the top court.
The collegium's recommendation is now pending approval by the President of India. If confirmed, justice Chandurkar will serve till April 6, 2030, at the top court. His elevation is anticipated to further reinforce the SC's role in safeguarding constitutional liberties in the digital age.
# List of Supreme Court judges from Nagpur High Bar Association: Justices Janardan Mudholkar, Ananda Sen, Vikas Sirpurkar, Sharad Bobde, and Bhushan Gavai
# From Erstwhile CP & Berar Region: Justice Vivian Bose and Mohammed Hidyatullah
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Madras HC Confirms Tamil Nadu's Night Ban and Aadhar Requirements for Online Gaming
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Tuesday upheld the age, money, and advertisement restrictions, as well as the night ban imposed by the govt on playing online real money games like rummy and poker. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now 'In true essence, the online real money games is a trade activity, which if left unregulated has immediate implications on health of the public,' a division bench of Justice S M Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar said. The bench made the observation while dismissing a batch of petitions moved by online gaming platforms challenging the validity of the restrictions. Refusing to concur with the platforms which contended that a state govt lacks power to bring in such restrictions, the court said, 'Both the union and state govts have power to enact laws in their own respective subject matter apart from the common pool as enabled in List III (Concurrent list).' This court cannot hold that state is barred from enacting laws regulating online real money games. It is covered under the subject matter of public health and sanitation which comes under List II (State list), the judges said. The argument that Information Technology Rules, 2021 already prescribe a regulatory framework for intermediaries, including online gaming platforms, and hence the state cannot frame a subordinate legislation is unacceptable, the court said. 'This court views that the state is fully within its competence to enact laws pertaining to online real money games. This court on perusal of the provisions of the act (state legislation) finds no contradictions or provisions that run contrary to the central rules in force,' the bench said. Moreover, the provisions related to online gaming under IT Rules, 2021 is yet to take effect and remains unenforceable as of today. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now So there exists a vacuum in regulating online games, the court pointed out. The judges added that they are of the view that the state govt has rightfully taken adequate steps to fill in the vacuum by framing the legislation. Real money games do not seem to possess the level of discipline or professionalism followed while playing such games physically, they added. Rejecting the argument that mandatory Aadhar verification violates the privacy of a player, the bench said, 'Right to privacy carries with it its own limitations and cannot be claimed in absolute. When put on a scale, a compelling public interest outweighs right to privacy.'
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
A protracted battle between Trump and the US courts will only worsen trade uncertainty
If it weren't so damaging to the global economy, it would almost be tempting for observers outside the United States to grab their popcorn and watch the drama and chaos unfolding there, maybe with some schadenfreude. Alas, the outcome of the tussle between Donald Trump and the US judiciary has wide-ranging effects for the world. To recap, the US Court of International Trade ruled that President Trump does not have the authority to impose sweeping tariffs using 1970s emergency legislation. This was in response to two separate lawsuits by a coalition of US state governments and small businesses that relied on imported goods. Almost immediately, the Trump administration filed an emergency appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which issued a temporary stay on the trade court's decision, allowing the tariffs to stay in effect. For now. The next hearing is on June 5. The underlying issue which was taken up by the trade court warrants further deliberation, as it is a deeper question of the functioning of the US constitutional democracy. The court ruled against Trump's tariffs stating that it unlawfully invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to declare a national emergency and impose tariffs on nearly all US trading partners. The three-judge panel concluded that this Act is meant for urgent national security issues and that long-standing trade issues do not qualify as one. To do it lawfully, these tariffs would have had to be passed after approval by the US Congress, which would be prone to long discussions and scrutiny, which Trump seeks to avoid. This skirmish and the ensuing long-drawn battle of political manoeuvrings is a scathing indictment of the political and judicial system in the US. That the judiciary is subject to political takeover and can be openly criticised and even threatened in public by the President surely does not bode well for the process of checks and balances and having independent, but equal, branches of government. The executive has steamrolled both the legislature and judiciary in this episode. The strategy of this administration seems to be to flood the system with brazen extra-constitutional and unconstitutional executive orders, which will take time to be legally challenged and withdrawn. Across the country, in separate cases on a broad range of issues, there have been at least 180 judicial rulings that the White House has exceeded its constitutional authority or violated Congressional statutes, which has drawn public criticism by the administration. Many more have passed through. Back to trade, Trump is determined to win this battle one way or another. The White House has stated that if these rulings don't go in its favour, they are prepared to take the matter to the Supreme Court. Even if the Supreme Court rules against the administration, they have many other options at their disposal to disrupt trade through tariffs. Peter Navarro, Trump's chief trade advisor has said, 'So you can assume that even if we lose, we will do it another way;' and has already lined up several legal alternatives. For starters, the current trade court ruling does not affect the tariffs on cars, auto parts, steel and aluminium, which were imposed using Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act (1962), which allows for trade barriers based on national security concerns. That can be revoked again, as everything can be argued to be a national security concern. Further, they could invoke Section 301 of the US Trade Act of 1974 that allows for tariffs to protect against unfair trade practices by other countries, which was used to impose tariffs on China in the first term. A separate trade law from the 1930s allows the President to impose tariffs up to 50 per cent on imports from countries that 'discriminate' against the US. Thus, there's no shortage of options for Trump. The full range of tariffs on countries are now paused and due to resume sometime in July. While all of this domestic drama plays out, most countries, including India, might adopt a wait-and-watch approach before going out of the way to make concessions in a trade deal with the US. In cabinet meetings across countries, discussions will be raging on whether the US has less leverage now and if it would make sense to slow down on trade negotiations a bit. While the legal seesaw might not derail negotiations, it might shift positions on the negotiating table by a bit, given that the legitimacy of the tariffs is questioned by US courts. A protracted battle will only worsen uncertainty surrounding trade. Trade policy uncertainty, as captured by an index built by 'policy uncertainty' is at the highest level since the 1980s. To give you an idea of the extent, the uncertainty score under normal circumstances in 2017 was around 80, which rose to a peak of 1400 during Covid times. Under Trump's second term, it has reached 3300. All of this uncertainty severely dampens business sentiment. According to one study, trade policy uncertainty reduced investment in the US by about 1.5 per cent in 2018 (first trade war). Another study says that the uncertainty, by itself, is equivalent to a tariff rate of between 1.7 per cent and 8.7 per cent. The effect of uncertainty on other countries can be significant as well. India's trade and investment will take a beating due to this. Businesses relying on trade will be caught in a limbo, severely hampering decision making. Fresh investments will be stalled due to the uncertainty. Though Apple has decided to brave the storm and committed to an expansion of production in India, other companies might be waiting for greater clarity before investing, which might take years. The best way out of this for India remains for it to have a trade deal with its major trading partners. In this regard, the Australia FTA and the recently concluded FTA with the UK is excellent news. Though much more difficult now with a flaky regime, a trade deal with the US can overcome much of this uncertainty. Anupam Manur is a Professor of Economics at the Takshashila Institution, an independent think tank and school of public policy
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
Governor Ravi approves bills allowing disabled nominations to local bodies
Tamil Nadu Governor RN Ravi has granted assent to bills that empower the state government to nominate persons with disabilities (PwDs) to positions in the municipal administration and rural development Minister MK Stalin took a dig at Ravi while acknowledging the governor's decision. 'The Governor has approved the bill for disabled people today ... It was expected as we passed it in the legislative resolution. Maybe he was afraid that we would go to court if he didn't give his assent,' Stalin told the bills, which amends two key state laws, was introduced and passed in the Assembly on April 16. It gives the government the authority to directly nominate PwDs to various departments of local governance. Prior to this, representation of PwDs in Tamil Nadu's local bodies was notably low, with only 35 individuals serving in urban local bodies, according to Ravi's assent marks a significant development, particularly in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling concerning the governors' constitutional responsibilities. Governor Ravi had earlier withheld assent to several bills, leading the state to petition the Supreme Court. In a landmark judgment, the court criticised the Governor's inaction as unconstitutional and unlawful, and directed that specific timelines be followed when dealing with the disability-related bills were not part of the case before the Supreme Court, the Governor's approval is seen as a step towards respecting legislative processes in the wake of the court's bills were introduced by the Tamil Nadu government with the aim of addressing historical under-representation and ensuring that PwDs have a formal voice in grassroots amendments pertain to two key laws: the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, and the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. They authorise the state to nominate PwDs to a range of local bodies, including town panchayats, municipal councils, municipal corporations, village panchayats, panchayat union councils, and district panchayats.A key feature of the legislation is that it allows for direct nomination — bypassing the electoral process — thus reducing barriers to participation. Each local body must include at least one nominated PwD, with councils of more than 100 members required to have members will serve a term equal to that of elected representatives — generally five years — and will receive honoraria, allowances, and other benefits on par with elected councillors. However, they will not possess voting rights in council decisions; their role will be advisory and representative.
