Latest news with #CJIGavai
Hindustan Times
6 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Centre notifies appointment of 3 new judges to top court
The Union government on Thursday formally notified the appointment of three new judges to the Supreme Court, a day after President Droupadi Murmu gave her assent to the collegium's recommendations. The move comes as a significant development in the judiciary and confirms Hindustan Times' earlier report that the appointments were expected to come through during the day. Union law minister Arjun Ram Meghwal announced the appointments on X. 'In exercise of the powers conferred by the Constitution of India, the President, after consultation with Chief Justice of India, is pleased to appoint S/Shri Justices (i) N.V. Anjaria, Chief Justice, High Court of Karnataka, (ii) Vijay Bishnoi, Chief Justice, High Court of Gauhati, and (iii) A.S. Chandurkar, Judge, High Court of Bombay as Judges of the Supreme Court of India,' Meghwal wrote. The three judges are expected to be sworn in by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai on Friday morning. The files concerning the appointments reached President Murmu on Wednesday and received her approval. The formal notification from the law ministry, issued Thursday afternoon, completes the process initiated by the Supreme Court collegium on May 26. The appointments mark a strong start to the tenure of CJI Gavai, who took office earlier this month. With the induction of Justices Anjaria, Bishnoi, and Chandurkar, the apex court has reached its full sanctioned strength of 34 judges. Justice NV Anjaria, the current chief justice of the Karnataka high court, hails from the Gujarat high court. Justice Vijay Bishnoi, chief justice of the Gauhati high court, is originally from the Rajasthan high court. Justice AS Chandurkar is a sitting judge of the Bombay high court. The collegium that recommended their elevation includes the five senior-most judges of the apex court: CJI Gavai, and justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, JK Maheshwari, and BV Nagarathna. People familiar with the process told HT earlier that the chosen names reflect a continued emphasis on regional representation and judicial seniority. A discussion on the elevation of women judges was reportedly deferred until the retirement of Justice Bela M Trivedi, who is set to demit office on June 9. Her last working day was May 16, owing to an overseas trip. Once she retires, Justice Nagarathna will remain the sole woman judge in the top court. On the same day the collegium recommended these appointments, it also proposed five new chief justices for various high courts and the reshuffling of four others. Additionally, 22 judges were transferred to different postings, in line with administrative needs and personal requests — a development first highlighted by HT in its May 23 report. These actions come amid ongoing efforts by the highest judiciary to improve transparency and accountability. Under former CJI Sanjiv Khanna's leadership, the Supreme Court began publishing collegium resolutions, judge profiles, and asset declarations on its website earlier this month— a landmark move towards institutional openness. The new appointments also follow a period of heightened scrutiny of the judiciary, especially after unaccounted cash was discovered at the residence of a sitting high court judge, Justice Yashwant Varma. On May 8, the Supreme Court confirmed that an inquiry report and Justice Varma's response had been sent to the President and Prime Minister. The former CJI had recommended initiating removal proceedings after a three-judge inquiry panel found substance in the allegations.
Hindustan Times
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
‘Aamchi' vs ‘Tyanchi' Mumbai: CJI Gavai explains gap between the two in Supreme Court
Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai, on Tuesday, explained the difference between 'Aamchi Mumbai' and 'Tyanchi Mumbai' during a hearing on a petition against the passenger jetty and terminal facilities project near the Gateway of India. The two Marathi phrases, which mean 'Our Mumbai' and 'Their Mumbai' respectively were used by a senior lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioner against a passenger jetty project in Colaba. "It is between 'Aamchi Mumbai' and 'Tyanchi Mumbai' - sometimes that is where the difference lies." The lawyer was referring to the difference between the interests of common people (Aamchi Mumbai) and elite people (Tyanchi Mumbai), NDTV quoted the lawyer as saying in regards to the case, . Also Read: HC refuses to stay piling work for Colaba passenger jetty CJI Gavai responded to the argument and gave his take on them, saying, "'Aamchi Mumbai' does not live in Colaba. It is only 'Tyanchi Mumbai' that lives in Colaba. 'Aamchi Mumbai' lives in Malad, Thane, Ghatkopar." The petition against the installation of a passenger jetty and terminal facility in Colaba was filed by the Clean and Heritage Colaba Residents Association, an association of over 400 residents of Colaba, along with the petitioner. The Supreme Court bench rejected the petition and said, "It is like this - everyone wants a sewage treatment plant, but not behind my house. In the city, when something good is happening, everybody approaches the Supreme Court." Also Read: Mumbai rain breaks 107-year record, marks earliest monsoon in 75 years 'You can see what the benefits of the coastal road are? A person from South Mumbai reaches Versova in 40 minutes, and earlier it used to take three hours,' the report quoted CJI Gavai. The Chief Justice also stated that such projects had been implemented globally, citing Miami, a coastal city in the United States which features such amenities. "This huge project is going to come up for the benefit of only a particular section of society, and this is coming up without any public hearing, without any clearances," the petitioners counsel claimed.
NDTV
27-05-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
On Difference Between ' Aamchi ' And ' Tyanchi ' Mumbai, Chief Justice Says...
New Delhi: What's the difference between 'Aamchi Mumbai' and 'Tyanchi Mumbai'? The two popular Marathi epithets are commonly used in Mumbai, but have a difference in their meaning. A debate on their meanings came up in the Supreme Court during a hearing on a petition against the passenger jetty and terminal facilities project near the Gateway of India. In Marathi, 'Aamchi' means ours, and 'Tyanchi' means theirs. But for Mumbai, it's called 'Aamchi', meaning where common people live, and 'Tyanchi' means where the elite live. The Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai, who was on the Supreme Court bench that was hearing the petition, gave his take and said, "'Aamchi Mumbai' does not live in Colaba. It is only 'Tyanchi Mumbai' that lives in Colaba. 'Aamchi Mumbai' lives in Malad, Thane, Ghatkopar." The senior lawyer appearing on behalf of the petitioner against the passenger jetty project said, "It is between 'Aamchi Mumbai' and 'Tyanchi Mumbai' - sometimes that is where the difference lies." The Chief Justice-led bench rejected the petition and said, "It is like this - everyone wants a sewage treatment plant, but not behind my house. In the city, when something good is happening, everybody approaches the Supreme Court." "You can see what the benefits of the coastal road are? A person from South Mumbai reaches Versova in 40 minutes, and earlier it used to take three hours," the CJI said. CJI Gavai responded that such projects are implemented globally. There are such places all over the world. "If you go to Miami, there are so many," he said. The counsel appearing for the petitioners said the project is slated to be completed within two years. "This huge project is going to come up for the benefit of only a particular section of society, and this is coming up without any public hearing, without any clearances," the counsel claimed. The petition was filed by the Clean and Heritage Colaba Residents Association, an association of over 400 residents of Colaba, along with the petitioner. The bench said the Bombay High Court is already considering the issue and requested that the High Court decide the matter before the monsoon ends.
Time of India
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
'Cheap publicity': Filing PIL despite CJI's 'quietus' appeal costs advocate Rs 7,000
NEW DELHI: SC Friday imposed a cost of Rs 7,000 on an advocate with seven years' experience for filing a PIL seeking inquiry into the breach of protocol for Justice B R Gavai on his maiden visit as CJI to his home state Maharashtra on May 18. A bench led by CJI Gavai dealt with the PIL, rejected request for withdrawal and said it was filed solely for garnering cheap publicity through media, ignoring the CJI's May 20 appeal to give a quietus to the controversy. The incident, which was only in the media till now, was recorded sequentially by CJI Gavai in the court's judicial order. He said on reaching Mumbai and not finding the chief secretary, DGP and Mumbai Police commissioner present to receive him, he had expressed his displeasure at the breach of protocol. CJI Gavai said he did not want any personal attention, but he talked about the dignity attached to the position of CJI as the head of one of the three organs of governance, and had spoken about the mutual respect the functionaries of the three organs should show for each other. He added that once his speech lamenting about the breach of protocol became viral on social media, the three officials rushed to Chaitya Bhoomi, where he had gone to pay tribute to Dr B R Ambedkar. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Buy Brass Idols - Handmade Brass Statues for Home & Gifting Luxeartisanship Buy Now Undo All three officials had tendered apologies and seen-off the CJI at the airport, and the matter was treated as closed, he said. Despite this and on finding the issue was still getting traction in media, SC had issued a press note on May 18, which read: "...All concerned have already expressed regrets. The CJI has expressed that a trivial issue should not be blown out of proportion. CJI has requested everyone that the matter be given a quietus." When the CJI told the petitioner he was trying to make a mountain of a molehill, the advocate pleaded for permission to withdraw the PIL. But the CJI wanted to know the number of years he had practiced in SC. On being told he had seven years' practice, SC imposed a cost of Rs 7,000, to be utilised for providing legal aid to poor litigants.
Hindustan Times
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Supreme Court imposes ₹7,000 cost on lawyer who sought probe into protocol lapse
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday imposed ₹7,000 cost on a lawyer who filed a petition seeking a probe against the three civil servants who violated protocol during Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai's recent visit to Maharashtra, observing that the petitioner was unnecessarily bringing the office of CJI into controversy. A bench of CJI Gavai and justice AG Masih said the petition was an effort to gain cheap publicity. 'We are of the considered view that the present PIL is a publicity interest litigation to gain cheap publicity. We highly deprecate such practice. We request everybody not to make a mountain out of a molehill,' the bench said, dismissing the petition. During his first visit to the state as CJI for a felicitation event organised by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG) on May 18, the CJI disapproved of the absence of the chief secretary, the director general of police and the Mumbai Police commissioner, who were not there to receive him at the airport in violation of the laid-down protocol. CJI Gavai said he did not want to pinpoint such 'small' issues but was raising it to generate awareness. After the CJI's remarks in Mumbai became public, all three top officials were present at the next event attended by the CJI. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued a statement underlining that all concerned had expressed regrets, the matter had been 'blown out of proportion' and requested that the matter be given a 'quietus'. A petition filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi that sought a probe against the three officials under the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 for alleged misconduct came up before a bench led by CJI Gavai on Friday. 'You are unnecessarily bringing the office of CJI into controversy,' the bench told Tripathi as it imposed costs of ₹7,000, considering the lawyer's seven years standing at the bar. 'We have made it clear that CJI was not concerned about the treatment given to him as an individual, but he was concerned about the dignity of the office of CJI being the head of one of the wings of democracy,' the bench said. The court stressed that the three officers tendered their apology at the first opportunity, rectified their error and subsequently accompanied CJI Gavai to the airport. 'Not only this, all the other concerned also tendered apology, even publicly,' the bench said.
