Latest news with #CJI-led
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
‘Will look into it': CJI Gavai to examine plea on vaccination, sterilisation of community dogs in Delhi
Chief Justice of India B R Gavai on Wednesday agreed to look into a plea related to the vaccination and sterilisation of community dogs in Delhi as per the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules. The plea by an organisation, Conference for Human Rights (India) in 2024, challenged the Delhi High Court's August 2023 order following its Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which had sought directions for the sterilisation and vaccination of community dogs. The high court had disposed of the PIL without issuing any specific directions, following which the organisation moved the apex court where a bench of Justices Gavai and K V Viswanathan issued notice to the Centre and Delhi Government on July 8, 2024. On Wednesday, the counsel for the appellant organisation told the CJI-led bench that the respondents were yet to file their counter-affidavit despite being given a last chance to do so as per the order dated May 13, 2025. Apparently referring to the August 11 order of the bench presided by Justice J B Pardiwala — which directed authorities in Delhi-NCR to relocate stray dogs from streets to shelters — the CJI then said that another bench has already passed an order concerning strays. The counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that in May 2024, another bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice J K Maheshwari, had sent back petitions raising the stray dog issue to high courts saying 'there cannot be any indiscriminate killings of canines and the authorities have to take action in terms of the mandate and spirit of the prevalent legislation(s) in place.' 'There is no gainsaying in the fact that exhibiting compassion to all living beings, is the enshrined Constitutional value and mandate, and casts obligation on the authorities to maintain,' the bench had added at the time. The CJI then said, 'I will look into it.' Meanwhile, following the August 11 order of the top court, NGOs that have tied up with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) appear to be clueless about its implementation amid a lack of dedicated shelters in the National Capital.
United News of India
a day ago
- Politics
- United News of India
SC slams trend of casting doubt on Telangana HC judges in cases involving politicians
New Delhi, Aug 11 (UNI) The Supreme Court today criticised the growing tendency among litigants and lawyers to assume that justice cannot be delivered by High Courts in matters involving political figures, warning that such unfounded allegations amount to contempt of court. A bench of Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar was hearing a case where it had earlier issued notice to litigant Peddi Raju and his counsel, asking why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for allegedly making scurrilous allegations against Telangana High Court judge Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya. The allegations were made in a petition seeking transfer of a case, in which Telangana Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy had secured relief away from the Telangana High Court. The High Court had quashed certain criminal charges against Reddy under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The top court directed Raju and his lawyers to tender an apology before Justice Bhattacharya, leaving it to her discretion to accept or reject it. Referring to a recent precedent, the bench noted, 'Recently, a three-judge bench of this Court, to which two of us were party, held that wisdom lies in forgiving rather than punishing in such cases, and accepted the lawyer's apology.' In its order, the Supreme Court observed that such remarks in a petition constitute contempt, adding, 'We have noticed that nowadays it has become a trend among lawyers to critique judges of High Courts and trial courts. It has become a trend that when a matter involves a political figure, there is an assumption that there cannot be justice in the High Court.' The bench stressed that High Court judges, as constitutional authorities, enjoy the same respect and immunity as Supreme Court judges. 'Under the constitutional scheme, they have the same respect as the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court does not have any administrative control over the High Court or its judges. When such allegations are made against High Court judges, it is the duty of this Court to protect them,' the CJI-led Bench remarked. UNI SNG SS
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
HC and SC judges on a par; we've no administrative control over HCs: CJI B R Gavai
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Monday said that constitutionally, high court judges are on a par with its judges. SC has no administrative control over HCs and their judges, but is duty-bound to protect them when they face scandalous allegations, a three-judge bench headed by B R Gavai said. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The apex court passed this order while asking a Telangana neta, who had made scandalous allegations against an HC judge, to tender unconditional apology to the judge. CJI: Duty of SC to protect judges from false allegations The politician had made the allegations against the judge in a petition seeking transfer of his case from Telangana HC to Bombay HC's Nagpur bench. The lawyers who signed the petition were also asked by SC to apologise to the judge. Dictating the order in the open court, CJI Gavai said, "When scandalous allegations are made against HC judges, it is the duty of SC to protect them. We notice that now-a-days it has become a trait with lawyers to criticise HC judges. It has also become a trait in matters involving influential political figures. It has become a habit of politicians to allege that he would not get justice before the HC concerned and seek transfer of his petition outside the state. Such practices cannot be allowed to be continued." Elaborating on the position of HCs and their judges in the three-tier justice delivery system, the CJI-led bench also comprising Justices R Vinod Chandran and A S Chandurkar, said, "HC judges are constitutional court judges and enjoy the same immunity and privileges as SC judges. Under the constitutional scheme, judges of HCs are not inferior to SC judges." "Though as an appellate court, SC can reverse, uphold or modify HC judgments, it has no administrative control over HCs or judges of HCs," the bench said. It said that a constitution bench of SC had categorically ruled that not only the petitioner, who makes the scandalous allegations against a judge but the lawyers who draft the petition containing these allegations and file it in court are also liable for contempt of court. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The bench said the politician and the lawyers have tendered unconditional apology to SC. "In our view since the allegations are made against the HC judge, it will be appropriate for the contemnors to tender such apology to the HC judge." SC indicated that on tendering of unconditional apology, the HC would not proceed to take coercive action against the petitioner and his lawyers.
NDTV
2 days ago
- Politics
- NDTV
Top Court Slams "Trend" That 'No Justice In Courts If Politicians Involved'
New Delhi: Observing high court judges were "in no way inferior" to the ones in the top court, the Supreme Court on Monday directed a litigant and his lawyers to tender an unconditional apology to a Telangana High Court judge against whom they levelled "scurrilous allegations". A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and Atul S Chandurkar said, "We have noticed that nowadays it has become a trend amongst the lawyers to criticise the judges of the high courts and trial courts for no reason. It has also become a trend that whenever a political figure is involved in state, it is perceived that the petitioner has not got justice and seeks transfer... The judges of the HC enjoy the same immunity as judges of the Supreme Court." The bench noted under the constitutional scheme, high court judges were "in no way inferior" to judges in the Supreme Court. "Though judges of the Supreme Court can modify the decisions of the judges of high courts, it has no administrative control over the judges of the high court," the court said. The bench was hearing a suo motu contempt plea when it further said allegations against high court judges were contemptuous and could not be condoned. The remarks also assume significance in the backdrop of the recent fiasco over an Allahabad High Court's decision in a civil case. Following the CJI's intervention, a bench of Justice J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan on August 8 deleted its observations criticising the Allahabad High Court judge who allowed criminal proceedings in a civil dispute case. The case at hand related to a transfer petition filed by N Peddi Raju, alleging bias and impropriety against the high court judge who quashed a criminal case under the SC/ST Act against Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy. The CJI-led bench on July 29 dismissed the petition but took note of the "scurrilous remarks against the high court judge" and issued notice to the advocate on record, lawyers for Raju. The CJI referred to a 1954 Constitution bench verdict which it said had underscored not only litigants, but also the lawyers signing the petitions on such scandalous petitions were equally responsible. "The allegations are against the High Court judge, it would be more appropriate to tender the apology to the High Court judge. We permit the respondents (petitioners here) to tender the unconditional apology before the High Court judge," it said, directing high court Telangana High Court registrar general to reopen the case before the judge concerned who would pass the final order. The bench said the apology to the high court judge would be filed within a week after the case was reopened and the high court judge would take a call on the apology within a week thereafter. "We repeat that the courts have no pleasure in penalising the lawyers from acting in a manner which will amount to interference of this court," the CJI said, allowing the parties to appear virtually before the high court. Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing in a contempt notice, tendered an "unconditional and unreserved apology" and explained the circumstances in which the statements were made. On July 29, the apex court issued contempt notices to Raju, his advocate-on-record Ritesh Patil, and other lawyers involved, refusing to allow them to withdraw the petition and said, "We cannot permit judges to be out in a box and allow any litigant to make such allegations against a judge. Here we were trying to protect lawyers." It was hearing a transfer plea filed by Raju filed through Patil. While directing the litigant and the lawyers to furnish an apology, the bench had previously noted it would consider whether to accept it or not. "We will see if the apology is genuine or not. When we expressed displeasure at the language, liberty was sought to withdraw. We dismissed the request," it said. The case stems from the high court's decision to quash a criminal case against the chief minister under the SC/ST Act. The petitioner later moved the top court with a transfer plea, alleging bias and impropriety on the part of the high court judge.
Economic Times
2 days ago
- Business
- Economic Times
Supreme Court reserves verdict on JSW Steel's Rs 19,700 crore resolution plan for Bhushan Power
Synopsis The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on JSW Steel's resolution plan for Bhushan Power and Steel. Key issues include the allocation of earnings generated during the resolution period and JSW's compliance with the plan. Former promoters challenged JSW's actions, while the creditors seek additional funds. The Solicitor General criticized the former promoters, alleging significant financial misconduct. iStock The Supreme Court on Monday reserved its verdict on a batch of pleas related to JSW Steel's Rs 19,700-crore resolution plan for debt-ridden Bhushan Power and Steel Limited (BPSL). A special bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and K Vinod Chandran heard arguments from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the committee of creditors (CoC), senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul for JSW Steel, and senior advocate Dhruv Mehta for the former promoters before reserving the verdict. As many as five pleas were heard afresh after the CJI-led bench, on July 31, recalled its May 2 verdict that had directed liquidation of BPSL and set aside JSW's resolution plan, criticising the conduct of the CoC, the resolution professional, and the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for what it termed a "flagrant violation" of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). One of the key issues was whether earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortisation (EBITDA) generated during the resolution period should go to the creditors or remain with the company. The CoC is seeking Rs 3,569 crore in EBITDA and Rs 2,500 crore in delay-related interest. Kaul, representing JSW, the successful resolution applicant, said neither the request for resolution plan (RFRP) nor the resolution plan itself mandated sharing EBITDA with creditors. He said JSW bid for BPSL on an "as is, where is" basis, accepting both its losses and profits, and that the delay in plan implementation was due to the ED's asset attachment, which was lifted only in December 2024. Dhruv Mehta, appearing for the former promoters, challenged JSW's compliance with the resolution plan and defended their right to participate in the proceedings, citing their role as personal guarantors. He alleged that JSW failed to inject the promised working capital and accused the company of benefitting from rising steel prices before implementing the plan. He also contended that the CoC's powers do not extend beyond plan approval by the NCLT and that disputes over non-compliance should be taken back to the tribunal. The solicitor general Mehta described the former promoters as having "brought the company to dust" and called this "one of the worst cases of siphoning" he had seen. He maintained that the CoC's claims over EBITDA and delay interest were justified and that the body remained a legal entity until the Supreme Court's final decision under Section 62 of the IBC. Earlier on August 8, the COC had opposed the plea by former promoters by questioning the maintainability. A bench headed by former top court judge Bela M Trivedi on May 2 ordered liquidation of BPSL while setting aside a resolution plan of JSW Steel Limited for the ailing firm. PTI
