Latest news with #BelaM.Trivedi
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.
Mint
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Mint
Supreme Court asks Centre to establish POCSO courts on ‘top priority basis'
The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the central government to establish POCSO courts on "top priority basis" to exclusively deal with cases of sexual offences against children. Due to the inadequacy of the number of exclusive courts for the Protection of Children against Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act cases, the timelines mandated under the law for completion of trials weren't adhered to, said the apex court. "It is therefore expected that the union of India and the state governments shall take appropriate steps to sensitise the officials associated with the investigation of POCSO cases, and also to create dedicated courts to try POCSO cases on top priority basis," said a Supreme Court bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and PB Varale. The apex court was hearing a petition underlining the "alarming rise in the number of reported child rape incidents" in a suo motu case. The court also directed filing of chargesheets within the mandatory period stipulated in law besides completing trials within the prescribed time frame. The SC noted that while majority states, with the funding from the Centre, complied with the directions for setting up exclusive courts for POCSO cases, in Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Orissa, Maharashtra, and a few other states, more POCSO courts were required given the pendency of such cases. Earlier, the top court had directed senior advocate and amicus curiae V. Giri and senior advocate Uttara Babbar to submit state-wise details on the status of POCSO courts. It asked states to set up two designated courts in districts where the number of pending cases of child abuse under the POCSO Act was more than 300. A court in Thane has sentenced a 32-year-old man to ten years' rigorous imprisonment for the rape and sexual assault of a then 11-year-old girl in the district in 2013. Dinesh S. Deshmukh, special judge for Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act cases, delivered the verdict on Wednesday. Bablu alias Mohammad Mustapha Imtiyaz Shaikh who was 20 years old at the time of the crime was found guilty under relevant sections of the POCSO Act and for rape under the Indian Penal Code.
The Hindu
15-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Supreme Court directs Centre to set up special POCSO courts on priority basis
The Supreme Court on Thursday (May 15, 2025) directed the Centre to set up on "top priority basis" dedicated POCSO courts to exclusively deal with cases of sexual offences against children. A Bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and P.B. Varale said due to the inadequacy of the number of exclusive courts for the Protection of Children against Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act cases, the timelines mandated under the law for completion of trials weren't adhered to. "It is therefore expected that the union of India and the State governments shall take appropriate steps to sensitise the officials associated with the investigation of POCSO cases, and also to create dedicated courts to try POCSO cases on top priority basis," the Bench said. The Supreme Court further directed filing of charge sheets within the mandatory period stipulated in law besides completing trials within the prescribed time frame. The Supreme Court noted while majority States, with the funding from the Centre, complied with the directions for setting up exclusive courts for POCSO cases, in Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Orissa, Maharashtra, and a few other States, more POCSO courts were required given the pendency of such cases. The Supreme Court had previously directed senior advocate and amicus curiae V. Giri and senior advocate Uttara Babbar to submit State-wise details on the status of POCSO courts. The Supreme Court was hearing a petition underlining the "alarming rise in the number of reported child rape incidents" in a suo motu case. The Supreme Court asked States to set up two designated courts in districts where the number of pending cases of child abuse under the POCSO Act was more than 300. It made it clear that its July 2019 direction to set up one court in each district with more than 100 FIRs under POCSO Act meant a designated court would only deal with such cases under the law.
The Hindu
02-05-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Supreme Court rejects JSW Resolution Plan for Bhushan Steel
The Supreme Court, in a judgment on Friday (May 2, 2025), rejected the Resolution Plan submitted by JSW Steel for Bhushan Steel and Power Ltd. Also Read | ED restitutes assets worth ₹4,025 crore in Bhushan Power and Steel case to JSW The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal had previously approved the Resolution Plan. A Bench headed by Justice Bela M. Trivedi found the plan contrary to the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). A copy of the judgment is yet to be published on the Supreme Court website. In a statement, a JSW Steel spokesperson said they have 'learnt that the Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced judgment on May 2 rejecting the Resolution Plan approved by NCLAT on certain grounds'. 'We are yet to receive the formal copy of the Order to understand the grounds for rejection in detail and its implications. Once we receive the order and are able to review the same along with our legal advisors, we will decide on our further course of action,' the statement said. The court faulted the Committee of Creditors (CoC) for accepting the Resolution Plan. The court further directed the National Company Law Tribunal to initiate liquidation proceedings against Bhushan Steel and Power Ltd. Justice Trivedi, who pronounced the judgment, said the Resolution Professional had failed to perform his statutory duties during the corporate insolvency resolution process, as mandated under the IBC and its associated regulations. The Bench said the CoC was found to have approved the Resolution Plan without proper application of its commercial wisdom. The plan had contravened mandatory IBC provisions and did not protect creditors' interests and notably, the CoC accepted payments from JSW without objection, despite the plan's shortcomings, the court observed.
