"Will Vacate Official Residence On Time Post Retirement": Chief Justice BR Gavai
Chief Justice of India B R Gavai on Thursday said due to time constraints he would not be able to find a suitable house by the time he retires in November and "for sure vacate" his official residence within the time period allowed under the rules.
Bidding farewell to outgoing Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, who is set to superannuate on August 9, the CJI at an event organised by Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) called him a "warm person" who dedicated his career to the judiciary.
Speaking to an audience comprising judges of the top court and high court aside from senior lawyers and their family members the CJI said Justice Dhulia would vacate his official residence, a day after his retirement.
"We will always remember his contribution to the judiciary. After retirement, he is going to be in Delhi, and he'll be one of the judges who will be vacating the house immediately. On the next day of his retirement," the CJI said.
Interestingly, a month ago in an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court administration wrote to the Centre to vacate the official residence of the Chief Justice of India at Krishna Menon Marg in Delhi, noting former CJI DY Chandrachud had stayed beyond the permissible period.
Earlier in August, however, Justice Chandrachud vacated the official residence of the head of the judiciary.
Referring to his and Justice Dhulia's situation, the CJI said, "As a matter of fact, that's a rarity. I wish I would also be in a position to do it till November 24. I won't find time to find a suitable house, but I can assure you that whatever time is permissible as per the rules, I'll be shifting before that. But Justice Dhulia has set a very good example. I am sure that many of us can emulate him." Justice Dhulia was a part of numerous judgements in the apex court, including the hijab ban case from Karnataka in which he dissented with the majority view and held there should be no restriction on the wearing of hijab anywhere in the schools and colleges of the state.
When speakers lauded the verdict, Justice Dhulia said, "Let me tell you I was not defending the Hijab. What I was defending was the choice of women to wear Hijab. If I have a judicial philosophy, then I can only say that my judicial philosophy is everything is around the human being. Everything which is for the benefit of a human being is my judicial philosophy." The outgoing judge lauded the contributions of advocates-on-record and asked them to gear up for "their importance rises with the rise in litigation" and indicated that he would speak more on Friday, his last working day.
In April, a bench headed by Justice Dhulia ruled Urdu language was born in this land and described it as the finest specimen of "Ganga Jamuni tahzeeb".
The bench said considering it a language of Muslims was a "pitiable digression" from reality and unity in diversity.
Justice Dhulia was born on August 10, 1960 and completed schooling in Dehradun, Allahabad and Lucknow.
He was elevated as a permanent Judge of Uttarakhand High Court on November 1, 2008 and took oath as the Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court on January 10, 2021 before being elevated to the top court on May 9, 2022. PTI MNL MNL AMK AMK
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
an hour ago
- Hans India
Denial of appointment by Prez an insult to TG: CM
Hyderabad: Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy has described the denial of appointment by President Draupadi Murmu to Telangana leaders on BC reservation issue as 'an insult to the State'. He said a plan of action would be initiated at Telangana Congress' Political Affairs Committee (PAC) meeting shortly in Hyderabad to put both BJP and BRS in the dock. He said MPs from both parties should explain why they failed to take part in the Mahadharna on August 6. Addressing a press conference along with his cabinet colleagues in New Delhi on Thursday, Revanth Reddy said that Telangana people were observing the actions of BRS and BJP and that the Congress was out to expose their behavior. Revanth Reddy said that a decision would be reached whether 42 per cent reservation be given within the party before the polls to local bodies or if there was other possible solution. He said local body elections would be held by September 30. He said that the argument that Rahul and Kharge did not come to Wednesday's dharna was 'meaningless'. 'If Kishan Reddy has doubts, I will arrange an official meeting and make him aware. The details of all castes have been collected and a caste census conducted,' Revanth Reddy said on questions raised by Kishan Reddy on caste survey. Revanth Reddy blamed Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah for the denial of appointment by the President. 'They prevented us from getting an appointment. This is regrettable and painful and an insult to the people of Telangana,' he alleged. In a strong rebuke, the Chief Minister said that the BJP was obstructing the increase of BC quota proposed by the Telangana government on the pretext of Muslims being included in the BC quota. The Chief Minister clarified that the Telangana BC quota bills sent for President approval were not prepared on religion or caste lines. SC, ST and OBC quota were allocated en bloc in the elections to local bodies. Revanth explained that in 2017, a Muslim named Abdul Sattar was selected for IAS under the OBC quota in Rajasthan. BC reservations were provided for Noorbasha and others since 1971.
India Today
3 hours ago
- India Today
‘A stitch in time saves nine': Top court dismisses Justice Yashwant Varma's plea
The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain Justice Yashwant Varma in connection with the alleged cash haul controversy. The top court referred to Justice Varma as a 'deeply anguished Judge of the Allahabad High Court', who finds himself in an unsavoury that the in-house enquiry is not a removal mechanism, the court held that such processes serve as a preliminary check and do not infringe on constitutional safeguards available to court stressed that the in-house enquiry is not a removal mechanism, much less an extra-constitutional mechanism, and the in-house enquiry or report in itself does not lead to the removal of a judge. It said the power, competence, authority and jurisdiction of the Parliament to decide what is in the best interests of the nation is left untrammelled by the procedure; hence, it is fallacious to argue that the procedure is a parallel and extra-constitutional mechanism for the removal of a to the court, the in-house enquiry or its report forming part of the procedure in itself does not lead to the removal of a judge, unlike the constitutionally ordained procedure."We reiterate that a stitch in time saves nine," a bench led by Justice Dipankar Dutta said. FINDINGS OF COMMITTEE NOT FINAL The Court said the enquiry by the committee is preliminary and not final, and no action for removal can be taken merely on the committee's added that the Inquiry Act contemplates a full-fledged enquiry, and the committee's report may not carry much bench said since the Inquiry Act contemplates a full-fledged enquiry against the concerned judge, to that extent the report of the committee may not carry much said that if the new committee under the Inquiry Act relies on the in-house committee's report, it will be open to Justice Varma to raise point regarding non-reliability of the Court added even though the report might record that there is sufficient substance in the allegations, the Inquiry Act does not debar the judge charged with misbehaviour to raise an effective defence by presenting such evidence as are admissible and relevant once the evidence of the witnesses supporting the charge are IMMUNITY FROM REMOVAL ONCE ALLEGATIONS FOUND TO HAVE SUBSTANCEThe Supreme Court said if allegations against a judge are found to have sufficient substance by an in-house committee, he cannot claim any immunity—either by citing abrogation of fundamental rights or breach of scheme for that it was unaware like the petitioner of what the CJI remarked while forwarding the report of the committee and the petitioner's response, the court observed that such a recommendation cannot be impeached on any valid and legal Court said if a complaint of misconduct committed by a judge is received and if at an enquiry conducted under the procedure, the allegations against such a judge are found to have sufficient substance, he cannot claim any immunity — either by citing abrogation of his fundamental rights or breach of the constitutional scheme for removal of a judge by initiating proceedings for impeachment — that his conduct is not open to be commented upon by the committee or even by the VERMA'S CONDUCT BAFFLING: SCThe Court said what baffles it is the conduct of Justice Varma to acquiesce to such uploading, participate in the enquiry without demur, and to question such uploading only after the committee submitted its report to the CJI recording that there was sufficient substance in the Supreme Court bench observed that though uploading of incriminating evidence available against a judge under probe in the public domain is not a step which the procedure requires and while such uploading may not be considered to be proper, it is indeed a fait accompli. The Court also said that no benefit can be claimed at this stage. advertisementCJI BEARS SIGNIFICANT RESPONSIBILITY: SCThe court observed that CJI bears a significant moral responsibility as the foremost judicial officer to ensure that the judiciary of the country functions in a transparent, efficient and constitutionally appropriate NOT MERELY A POST OFFICE: SCThe court observed that CJI is not a mere post office between the COMMITTEE and the President/the Prime Minister that the REPORT is to be forwarded without any remarks/ CJI is clearly an important person, if not the most, in the larger scheme of maintaining institutional interest and credibility to ascertain whether a Judge has indulged in misconduct, the court said. - EndsMust Watch
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
1 year of RG Kar rape-murder: HC refuses to pass order against march to Nabanna
While observing that 'right to protest is a fundamental right', the Calcutta High Court on Thursday while hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against a proposed protest rally, by the parents of the RG Kar rape and murder victim, near the state secretariat 'Nabanna' on August 9, said that the 'Nabanna Abhijan' protest rally must comply with police prohibitory orders. A division bench presided by Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Smita Das De observed, 'This Court declined to pass any prohibitory order as sought for by the petitioner therein. This Court poignantly held that the right to protest is a fundamental right.' A PIL was filed in the Calcutta High Court on Wednesday, seeking to stop the 'Nabanna Abhijan' planned by the parents of the postgraduate trainee doctor who was raped and murdered at RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, in Kolkata, last year. The march is scheduled for August 9, marking the first death anniversary of the doctor. A resident of the Howrah district had filed the petition, citing disruptions caused by protest rallies near the state secretariat, affecting daily life, movement, and business activities in the Mandirtala area. The court, on Thursday, said it will be open for the West Bengal government to implement a prohibitory order imposed in the area near Nabanna and inform the organisers about adequate alternative places for protest. 'As noted above, the police has already issued the prohibitory order and it will be open for the Government to implement the said prohibitory order in accordance with law and inform the organizers about adequate alternative places for protest,' it said. The court observed that the persons participating in the rally should protest peacefully as law-abiding citizens and not cause any harm to the police or government authorities, buildings and public properties.
