President nominates justice Surya Kant as National Legal Service Authority chief
The President of India has nominated Justice Surya Kant, Judge of the Supreme Court, as the new Executive Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA). The appointment will come into effect from May 14, 2025.As Executive Chairman, Justice Surya Kant will lead NALSA in its mission to ensure free and accessible legal aid to citizens across India, particularly those belonging to marginalised and economically weaker sections.His leadership is expected to reinforce the constitutional mandate of Article 39-A, which aims to guarantee that justice is not denied to any citizen due to financial or social constraints.This nomination has been made under Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The Ministry of Law and Justice published a notification in the Official Gazette on May 9, 2025, confirming the appointment.Following convention, the post of Executive Chairman is held by the second senior-most judge of the Supreme Court. Justice Surya Kant succeeds Justice BR Gavai in this position.Currently serving as the Chairman of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC), Justice Surya Kant has been at the forefront of promoting access to justice. NALSA, in its press release, highlighted his significant contributions towards legal aid and institutional reforms within the justice delivery system.Must Watch
advertisementIN THIS STORY#Supreme Court
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
41 minutes ago
- Mint
Donald Trump's new travel ban is coming into effect
The executive order banning travel from 12 countries, which comes into effect on June 9th, is more methodical than previous iterations. In his first batch of executive orders, issued on January 20th, President Donald Trump directed several top advisers to compile a list of countries with insufficient screening standards for potential migrants, which they considered to be a national-security risk. The order warned that people from these countries could be barred from coming to America. It was a signal that Mr Trump intended to resurrect the travel ban, one of the most controversial immigration policies of his first term. Most of the countries targeted in this, the fourth version of the policy, are in the Middle East and Africa. Nationals from seven other countries, including Cuba and Venezuela, face partial restrictions. A country might find itself on the travel-ban list if its citizens tend to overstay their visas; if it has refused to take back deportees; if instability within the country prevents proper screening or information sharing; or if it 'has a significant terrorist presence'. A tally from David Bier and Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, suggests that 116,000 immigrants, and more than 500,000 visitors (including students and temporary workers) could be affected by the ban over the next four years. The way the ban was rolled out and how the proclamation was written shows how the White House has learned from its earlier failures. When Mr Trump first tried to ban travel from seven Muslim-majority countries in 2017, chaos ensued. Travellers who had already been issued visas or were approved for refugee resettlement were held at airports. Some green-card holders were detained. The ban followed through on a campaign promise for 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on'. Thousands of Americans, joined by Democratic Party leaders, gathered at big-city airports to protest. This was early in Mr Trump's first term and the #resistance was in full swing. Federal judges issued nationwide injunctions to block the first and second iterations of the travel ban. A third version of the policy ended up in front of the Supreme Court by virtue of Trump v Hawaii. Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts found that the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president exceptional discretion to bar certain people, including specific nationalities, from the country so long as he can argue that their presence is 'detrimental to the interests of the United States'. The ruling offered yet more evidence for what Adam Cox of New York University has termed 'immigration exceptionalism': the court's profound deference to the president where immigration policy is concerned. That opinion influenced the way the Trump administration resurrected the policy for his second term. The president halted refugee admissions in January (except for white South Africans) and waited until June to implement the new travel ban, to try to avoid the kind of protests and litigation that took place last time around. The proclamation announcing the new ban lists each country and the justification for its inclusion on the list. There are exemptions, including for green-card holders, athletes travelling to America for the World Cup or the Olympics in coming years, Afghans who worked for the American government and the immediate families of Americans, so long as they can prove their relationship. This is a 'much more defensible executive order than the iterations in Trump 1.0', says Muzaffar Chishti of the Migration Policy Institute. But just because travel ban 4.0 looks like it will hold up in court doesn't mean it makes sense. Like slapping tariffs on allies to bring back American manufacturing or declaring a foreign invasion to speed up deportations, Mr Trump's justification for banning foreigners from these countries does not hold up to much scrutiny. The president suggested that the ban would help neutralise national-security threats such as the recent attack on Jewish marchers in Boulder by an Egyptian man who overstayed his visa. Yet Egypt is not on the list. A Department of Homeland Security report confirms that most listed countries do indeed have high visa-overstay rates. But, with the exception of Haiti and Venezuela, the total number of people from restricted countries who didn't leave America when they were supposed to is relatively small. Meanwhile some 40,000 Colombians and 21,000 Brazilians, who are not subject to travel restrictions, overstayed their tourist and short-term work visas (see chart), yet their countrymen are not banned. The travel ban also sends a message. It is yet another signal—along with the detention of international students for their political views and immigration raids in big cities—that America is becoming much more hostile to foreigners. When the Supreme Court decided Trump v Hawaii in 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion in which he describes an 'anxious world' watching to see whether America's leaders 'adhere to the Constitution and to its meaning and its promise'. That warning looks ever more prescient.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Himanta in Assembly: DCs can ‘push back' into Bangladesh anyone they find is a foreigner
Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma Monday announced in a special one-day session of the Assam legislative assembly that the state government has decided to bring a 1950 Act into action to 'push back' into Bangladesh anyone who District Collectors prima facie find to be foreigners – without going through the state's existing system of Foreigners Tribunals. The CM claimed the state had been empowered to do so by the Supreme Court. He said this will be implemented in addition to the ongoing 'pushbacks' of people who have been declared foreigners by the Foreigners Tribunals (FTs); around 330 such declared foreigners have been pushed into Bangladesh in the past couple of weeks. Speaking in the assembly, Sarma referred to the October 2024 judgement of the Supreme Court in which a majority of a five-member Constitutional Bench headed by then Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud had upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, which makes March 24, 1971 the cut-off date for citizenship in Assam. 'Four judges said 1971 is the cut-off date. But one thing the Supreme Court said repeatedly was that the people brought after 1971 should not be spared in any way. They will have to be deported… In that judgement, the Supreme Court gave the Assam government a sweeping power… The Supreme Court in this judgement affirmed that the 1950 expulsion Act remains valid and operative. That means for expelling foreigners, the government does not have to go to tribunals. The 1950 Act says that if the DC says that prima facie this person is a foreigner, he can be evicted from the state of Assam,' Sarma said. 'By the order of the Supreme Court, every Deputy Commissioner is empowered to evict anybody whom he feels is a foreigner. This is the law of the land… This power has been given to the state of Assam by the Honourable Supreme Court… It says in the Act itself that it will not be applicable to those who came for reasons like religious persecution,' he said. Sarma was speaking after multiple opposition MLAs, including Congress leader and Leader of the Opposition Debabrata Saikia and AIUDF MLA Ashraful Hussain, spoke at length in the assembly during Zero Hour and Special Mention raising concern over the manner in which these pushbacks have been taking place, alleging that in multiple instances, Indians are being 'persecuted' in the name of a drive against foreigners. 'These pushbacks will be intensified. Because the way Pakistani elements have entered our state, Bangladesh fundamentalist elements have entered, to save itself, the state has to become more proactive than before. That's why the state government has decided that we will bring the Illegal Expulsion Act into action, and whoever the DCs think are foreigners, we will push back without referring to tribunals… Deportation will now be a reality. Even if their names are in the NRC,' he said. Sarma's statements led to a furore in the assembly, with opposition MLAs questioning the validity of the actions. Congress MLA Zakir Hussain Sikdar asked on what basis the DCs would identify 'foreigners' under this course of action, to which Sarma replied, 'The DC has to be satisfied about it.' This drew more opposition, with Sikdar shouting, 'That can't be the system.' Speaking in the assembly after Sarma, Leader of Opposition Saikia said the Act in question 'does not mention anything about pushback.' 'We are a state of India and in the Parliament of India, Union Minister of External Affairs S Jaishankar had said it is the obligation of all countries to take back their nationals if they are found to be living illegally abroad. This is, however, subject to an unambiguous verification of their nationality. This is not a policy practised only in India; it is a generally accepted principle in international relations. Therefore, if Bangladeshis come to India, they have to go back, Bangladesh has to accept them and they have to be proved to be Bangladeshis,' he said. He said that even when the Act had first been introduced in 1950, it did not remain in force for very long. 'The Act they are talking about had been used for only a couple of days in Assam because at that time, it invited trouble for many Bengali Muslims and after an old resident was asked to leave his residence in Upper Assam town within a few days, Nehru was furious and wrote to Gopinath Bordoloi (the then Chief Minister) on April 10 to suspend the enforcement of the Act. It was in force for only a few days, and it was stopped,' he said. The system at present and the 1950 Act Under the existing system in the state, the identification and declaration of 'foreigners' is done through Foreigners Tribunals (FTs). FTs are quasi-judicial bodies that determine whether a person presented before them – usually referred by the border police or listed as 'D-voters' in electoral rolls – is a 'foreigner' or an Indian citizen. Those declared foreigners by these tribunals have the option to appeal against the order by approaching the Gauahti High Court and the Supreme Court. One of the 13 questions that had been framed for and deliberated by that Constitutional Bench had been: 'Whether the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 being a special enactment qua immigrants into Assam, alone can apply to migrants from East Pakistan/Bangladesh to the exclusion of the general Foreigners Act and the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964 made thereunder.' In the judgement, after upholding the validity of Section 6A, the court had issued a set of six directions, of which one was: 'The provisions of the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 shall also be read into Section 6A and shall be effectively employed for the purpose of identification of illegal immigrants.' The Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 had commenced from March 1, 1950 and stated that if any person had been an ordinary resident of a place outside India and entered Assam, and the Central government is 'of opinion… that the the stay of such person or class of persons in Assam is detrimental to the interests of the general public of India or of any section thereof or of any Scheduled Tribe in Assam', then the central government may 'direct' them to 'remove himself or themselves from India or Assam within such time and by such route as may be specified in the order.' It states that the Central government can delegate this power to any officer of the Central government or the Assam government.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
After SC nod, administration beginsland survey for Banke Bihari corridor
Agra: The local administration in Mathura has started a land survey for the proposed Banke Bihari corridor on Monday, after the Supreme Court's approval. The move comes amid ongoing protests by local residents, including the Goswami community, whose members are considered the temple's 'sevayats' -- hereditary priests who manage daily rituals and other temple affairs. Banke Bihari is regarded as one of the most revered Krishna shrines in north India, attracting lakhs of pilgrims. Mathura district magistrate, CP Singh, said, "The Banke Bihari temple corridor project aims to offer people a safe and dignified 'darshan' experience of the deity. Govt has assured that the rights and traditions of the temple's 'sevayats' will remain untouched, with the state focusing only on development of the external infrastructure. The proposed corridor will resolve long-standing issues of overcrowding and stampedes. It will also offer facilities like clean drinking water, toilets, rest areas, medical centres and lockers." The land survey was conducted by a four-member team who inspected the area around the temple complex. Sources within the local administration told TOI that to ensure minimal inconvenience for local residents, an active search is underway for possible resettlement spots within Vrindavan. On May 15, the SC bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and SC Sharma permitted the state govt to proceed with a 'Rs 500 crore redevelopment plan', which entails acquiring almost five acres of land, using temple funds. The SC ruling came amid protests from the Goswami community and local residents, who have opposed both the corridor project and establishment of the Banke Bihari Temple Trust. Gyanendra Kishor Goswami, a member of the temple management, said, "The proposed corridor and Banke Bihari Trust would destroy the temple's original and ancient form. Govt has adopted a dictatorial attitude towards our demands. Our protest will continue." The move to redevelop the place came up after a stampede-like incident on Janmashtami in 2022, that claimed two lives. In Sept 2023, Allahabad HC instructed the state govt to implement a corridor plan for improved crowd management and safety. Officials claimed that all the stakeholders were consulted, but 'sevayats' and local residents alleged they were excluded from the planning process. Agra: The local administration in Mathura has started a land survey for the proposed Banke Bihari corridor on Monday, after the Supreme Court's approval. The move comes amid ongoing protests by local residents, including the Goswami community, whose members are considered the temple's 'sevayats' -- hereditary priests who manage daily rituals and other temple affairs. Banke Bihari is regarded as one of the most revered Krishna shrines in north India, attracting lakhs of pilgrims. Mathura district magistrate, CP Singh, said, "The Banke Bihari temple corridor project aims to offer people a safe and dignified 'darshan' experience of the deity. Govt has assured that the rights and traditions of the temple's 'sevayats' will remain untouched, with the state focusing only on development of the external infrastructure. The proposed corridor will resolve long-standing issues of overcrowding and stampedes. It will also offer facilities like clean drinking water, toilets, rest areas, medical centres and lockers." The land survey was conducted by a four-member team who inspected the area around the temple complex. Sources within the local administration told TOI that to ensure minimal inconvenience for local residents, an active search is underway for possible resettlement spots within Vrindavan. On May 15, the SC bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and SC Sharma permitted the state govt to proceed with a 'Rs 500 crore redevelopment plan', which entails acquiring almost five acres of land, using temple funds. The SC ruling came amid protests from the Goswami community and local residents, who have opposed both the corridor project and establishment of the Banke Bihari Temple Trust. Gyanendra Kishor Goswami, a member of the temple management, said, "The proposed corridor and Banke Bihari Trust would destroy the temple's original and ancient form. Govt has adopted a dictatorial attitude towards our demands. Our protest will continue." The move to redevelop the place came up after a stampede-like incident on Janmashtami in 2022, that claimed two lives. In Sept 2023, Allahabad HC instructed the state govt to implement a corridor plan for improved crowd management and safety. Officials claimed that all the stakeholders were consulted, but 'sevayats' and local residents alleged they were excluded from the planning process.
