Latest news with #B.V.Nagarathna
The Hindu
7 days ago
- General
- The Hindu
No contempt if Parliament, legislatures simply make laws: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has said any law made by Parliament or a State legislature cannot be held to contempt of court. A Bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma made the observation while disposing of a 2012 contempt plea filed by sociologist and former Delhi University professor Nandini Sundar and others. The contempt plea alleged failure of the Chhattisgarh government to comply with its 2011 directions to stop support to vigilante groups such as Salwa Judum and arming tribals in the name of special police officers (SPO) in the fight against Maoists. The petition contended that there has been contempt of the order of the apex court as the Chhattisgarh government has legislated the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011 which authorised an auxiliary armed force to assist security forces in dealing with Maoist/Naxal violence and legalising existing SPOs by inducting them as members. Besides accusing the Chhattisgarh government of not acknowledging the directions on Salwa Judum, the petitioners said instead of "desisting" from using SPOs and disarming them, the State government passed the "Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011" regularising all SPOs with effect from the date of the top court order on July 5, 2011. They alleged that the State government has also not vacated all school buildings and ashrams from the occupation of the security forces nor has it compensated the victims of Salwa Judum and SPOs. The top court on May 15 said the passing of an enactment subsequent to the order passed by the top court by Chhattisgarh cannot be an act of contempt. Delicate balance The top court said in order to ensure that rule of law permeates to fulfil constitutional objectives of establishing an egalitarian social order, the balance between the respective sovereign functionaries must always be delicately maintained. "Every State Legislature has plenary powers to pass an enactment and so long as the said enactment has not been declared to be ultra vires the Constitution or, in any way, null and void by a constitutional court, the said enactment would have the force of law." The Bench added, "However, if any party wishes that the said Act be struck down for being unconstitutional, then legal remedies in that regard would have to be resorted to before the competent court of law." Considering the situation prevailing in Chhattisgarh over decades, the Bench outlined the need for "specific steps" to bring peace and rehabilitation in the affected areas through coordinated measures of the State and the Central government. "It is the duty of the State of Chhattisgarh as well as the Union of India, having regard to Article 315 of the Constitution, to take adequate steps for bringing about peace and rehabilitation to the residents of State of Chhattisgarh who have been affected by the violence from whatever quarter it may have arisen," the court said. Judiciary is vested under the Constitution with the power to resolve interpretive doubts and disputes about the validity or otherwise of an enacted law by Parliament or any state legislature, the Bench added. "However, the interpretative power of a constitutional court does not contemplate a situation of declaring exercise of legislative functions and passing of an enactment as an instance of a contempt of a court," it noted. The verdict pointed out that central to the legislative function was the power of the legislative organ to enact and amend laws. "Any law made by the Parliament or a State legislature cannot be held to be an act of contempt of a court, including this court, for simply making the law," the Bench said. The top court underlined the legislature's powers to pass a law; to remove the basis of a judgment or in the alternative, validate a law which has been struck down by a constitutional court by amending or varying it so as to give effect to the judgment of a constitutional court which has struck down a portion of an enactment or for that matter the entire enactment. "This is the core of the doctrine of separation of powers and must always be acknowledged in a constitutional democracy such as ours. This doctrine also emphasises on the principle of checks and balances under our Constitution which is a healthy aspect of distribution of powers, particularly legislative powers." The order went on, "Any piece of legislation enacted by a legislature can be assailed within the manner known to law and that is by mounting a challenge against its validity on the twin prongs of legislative competence or constitutional validity."
The Hindu
28-05-2025
- The Hindu
Supreme Court gives interim bail to 23-year-old influencer in rape case
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 28, 2025) gave interim bail to a 23-year-old accused of raping a 40-year-old, noting that charges had not been framed even though he has been in jail for nine months. It also said the woman was "not a baby" and "a single hand can't clap". In scathing comments, a bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma also asked how Delhi Police could file a rape case against the man, a social media influencer, when the woman had gone voluntarily with him. "A single hand can't clap. On what basis have you filed case under Section 376 of IPC. She is not a baby. The woman is 40 years old. They have gone together to Jammu. Why have you invoked 376. This lady goes to Jammu seven times and the husband is not bothered," the bench observed. The Supreme Court said this is a fit case to grant interim bail as the accused has been in jail for nine months and charges have not been framed in the case. The apex court directed that the accused be produced before trial court and granted interim bail subject to terms and conditions. He shall not misuse his liberty and not attempt to contact the woman, the bench said. The Supreme Court also remarked on the man, asking, "Who gets influenced by such people?" The Supreme Court was hearing a plea filed by the man against an order of the Delhi High Court which declined to grant him bail considering the seriousness of the allegations. According to the police complaint, the woman first came into contact with him in 2021 through social media while seeking a social media influencer to promote her clothing brand. During initial interactions, the accused allegedly requested an iPhone to enhance content creation, which she arranged through an authorised Apple Store in Jammu. However, their professional relationship soured after the accused attempted to resell the device. The authorised seller returned the money in the account of the woman, but after deducting ₹20,000. Although he promised to return the money the woman after a while decided to end all ties with him, the complaint stated. In December 2021, the man visited the woman at her house in Noida to return the ₹20,000 and apologise. He subsequently persuaded her to travel for a brand shoot in Connaught Place. During the journey, the accused allegedly gave her sweets laced with intoxicants and she lost consciousness. Contrary to assurances that she would be taken to Hindu Rao Hospital, the man allegedly took her to a secluded area behind the hospital, sexually assaulted her, stole money from her purse, and captured her nude photographs. Thereafter, the woman was allegedly coerced into travelling to Jammu where she was subjected to continued sexual abuse, extortion, and threats over a two-and-a-half-year period, according to the complaint. An FIR was registered under Sections 376 (rape), 354 (assault on woman), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 506 (criminal intimidation), 509 (insulting the modesty of a woman) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Hindu
28-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Senior lawyers should not argue cases during summer recess: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 28, 2025) said senior lawyers should not argue cases during summer recess. A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma said junior lawyers should be given opportunities during vacation. "Senior lawyers should not argue cases during these partial working days," the bench told senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Neeraj Kishan Kaul. The lawyers were appearing in a plea filed against an order of the National Company Law Tribunal. One of the counsels in the matter mentioned the matter seeking adjournment as senior advocate Shyam Divan was not available. The top court has rechristened its traditional summer vacations as "partial court working days". The development was a part of an amendment in Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which have now become Supreme Court (Second Amendment) Rules, 2024, notified on November 5. "The length of the partial court working days and the number of holidays for the court and the offices of the court shall be such as may be fixed by the Chief Justice and notified in the official gazette so as not to exceed 95 days excluding Sundays," read the notification. The existing system had the Supreme Court taking the summer and winter breaks each year. The apex court, however, was not fully closed during these periods. During summers, "vacation benches" were set up by the Chief Justice to hear important and urgent matters. Notably, the term "vacation judge" has now been replaced with "judge" in the newly-amended rules. According to the recently-published 2025 Supreme Court calendar, partial court working days would start from May 26, 2025 and end on July 14, 2025.
The Hindu
26-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
women judges in the Supreme Court are fewer in number and have shorter tenures
With the retirement of Justice Abhay S. Oka on May 24, 2025, the strength of the Supreme Court is now at 31, from a sanctioned strength of 34 judges. Only two female judges are part of the full bench at present, of which Justice Bela M. Trivedi is set to retire on June 9, 2025, her last working day being May 16, 2025. That leaves Justice B.V. Nagarathna as the lone woman judge in the top court. In fact, until now, there have been only 11 female Supreme Court judges, which accounts for just 4% of a total of 279 judges who have presided over the Supreme Court of India since January 28, 1950, when the Court came into being. Viewing the tenures of these 11 judges, what is evident is that at any given time, the Supreme Court has never had more than four women justices. In fact, the very first instance of the Supreme Court having more than one woman judge at the same time was on 13 September, 2011, when Justice Ranjana P. Desai was elevated to the apex Court while Justice Gyan Sudha Misra was active (she had been a Supreme Court justice since April 30, 2010). This lasted until April 27, 2014, when Justice Gyan Sudha Misra retired. As shown in the graphic below, it would not be until August 7, 2018 when the Supreme Court would comprise of three female judges for the first time. This lasted for almost two years, until Justice R. Banumathi's retirement on July 19, 2020. Just over a year later, on August 31, 2021, the Supreme Court would comprise of four female judges for the first time: Justice Indira Banerjee, Justice Hima Kohli, Justice B.V. Nagarathna, and Justice Bela M. Trivedi. The top Court is yet to see five female judges at the same time. Higher age of appointment of female judges The median age appointment of female judges is 61, whereas that of male judges is 59, as shown in the graphic below where each point represents a judge. Judges of the Supreme Court must retire upon attaining the age of 65, as per Article 124 of the Constitution of India. With the median age of appointment of female judges and male judges differing, their tenures in the Supreme Court also differ. Female judges spend around six months less than male counterparts who are not elevated to the Chief Justice of India. The tenure of female judges is four years lesser than male judges who were elevated to the Chief Justice of India, as shown in the graphic below.
The Hindu
26-05-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Bhushan Steel liquidation: Supreme Court orders status quo on proceedings pending before NCLT
The Supreme Court of India on Monday (May 26, 2025) ordered status quo on the liquidation proceedings against Bhushan Steel and Power Limited (BPSL) before the National Company Law Tribunal. A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma said 'liquidation of the BPSL might jeopardise the review petition, which was to be filed by JSW Steel Limited.' "Without expressing any opinion at this stage, we are of the view that it would be in the interest of justice if status quo is maintained on the proceedings pending in NCLT," the Bench said. On May 2, the Supreme Court had set aside a resolution plan submitted by JSW Steel Limited for BSPL, holding it illegal and in violation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
