Latest news with #COURT
India Today
2 days ago
- Politics
- India Today
3-year law practice must for entry-level exams to become judge: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Thursday chose not to modify its earlier verdict that mandates a minimum of three years of law practice for law graduates to appear in entry-level judicial services examinations. The court said any modification could open a 'Pandora's box,' signaling its firm stance on maintaining uniform eligibility standards across the matter arose from a plea filed by a judge from Madhya Pradesh, who sought reconsideration of the May 20 petitioner requested that serving judicial officers be allowed to appear in judicial services examinations, taking into account their experience as judges. The original verdict, delivered by a bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai, barred fresh law graduates from appearing in entry-level judicial services specified that a law graduate must practice law for at least three years before being eligible. The court, however, clarified that the experience gained during legal internships could be counted toward the three-year recent plea argued that sitting judicial officers, by virtue of their work in courts, have practical experience equivalent to practising lawyers and should therefore be eligible for the exams in other Thursday, the bench, comprising Chief Justice Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, rejected the COURT UPHOLDS ELIGIBILITY, BARS SERVING JUDGES FROM APPEARINGThe bench emphasised that allowing serving judges to take the exams would disrupt the uniformity of eligibility and potentially create administrative and legal complications. 'What is wrong in Madhya Pradesh? we will not modify this. This will open Pandora's box,' the Chief Justice said while dismissing the Supreme Court's decision has reinforced the principle that judicial services examinations are meant for those who have spent a minimum period in legal verdict aims to maintain a clear distinction between law graduates entering the judiciary through practice and those already serving in the judicial experts have noted that the ruling will standardise entry requirements across states, preventing ad hoc eligibility the same time, it limits avenues for judicial officers seeking transfers or appearing in exams outside their current this judgment, law graduates seeking entry into judicial services now have a definitive guideline: three years of active legal practice is a non-negotiable court's decision underscores the importance of uniform eligibility standards for the judicial recruitment process and avoids exceptions that could lead to inconsistent interpretations in different states.- Ends
India Today
23-05-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Maternity leave integral to rights: Court on benefits extended to working women
The Supreme Court on Friday observed that maternity leave is integral to maternity benefits and reproductive rights are now recognised as part of several intersecting domains of international human rights law, setting aside a Madras High Court order which denied the facility to a government teacher who was awaiting the birth of her third child. The high court had cited state policy restricting benefits to two bench comprising Justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan in its verdict noted that there is a need to "harmonise" the policy objective of population control and maternity benefits for women employees."We have delved into the concept of reproductive rights and have held that maternity benefits are a part of reproductive rights and maternity leave is integral to maternity benefits. Therefore, the impugned order has been set aside," the bench noted. "Reproductive rights are now recognised as part of several intersecting domains of international human rights law viz. the right to health, right to privacy, right to equality and non-discrimination and the right to dignity," it top court made a distinction between her first two pregnancies and the third one when it came to availing the benefits of the state policy on maternity IS THE CASE?advertisementThe order was pronounced in an appeal filed by a Tamil Nadu-based government school teacher, who had two biological children with her first husband, born in 2007 and 2011. She then entered government service in 2012, as a school couple parted ways after a divorce in 2017, and the woman got married again in 2019. In 2021, she applied for maternity leave of nine months, but was authorities noted that the maternity leave benefit was available only for "up to two living children". This being her third pregnancy, with two children living with her first husband, would make her teacher moved the high court challenging the denial of maternity leave. While a single-judge bench accepted her argument and granted maternity leave, the Tamil Nadu government filed a counter-appeal. A Division bench of the high court then set aside the single-judge order. The division bench also held that the grant of maternity leave was not a fundamental petitioner approached the Supreme Court against this NADU GOVERNMENT'S STANDThe Tamil Nadu government in its submissions noted that the rules relating to maternity benefits bar the grant of maternity benefits beyond the second state government's counsel also argued that any deviation from the established policy would potentially overwhelm the exchequer and impact administrative efficacy. Further, he claimed that this would amount to incentivising the breach of population control COURT OBSERVATIONadvertisementThe Supreme Court has held that the appellant teacher shall be granted maternity leave under FR 101(a) of the Tamil Nadu rules. It has also directed the state to release the maternity benefits that apply to be released within two months."In the context of employment, childbirth has to be construed as a natural incident of life and, hence, provisions for maternity leave must be construed in that perspective,' observed the InMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Supreme Court#Tamil Nadu
Economist
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Economist
Three paths the Supreme Court could take on birthright citizenship
AMERICA'S SUPREME COURT appears unusually uncertain about how to resolve Trump v CASA —a case that could redefine who qualifies as an American citizen and reshape the limits of judicial power. At issue is the 14th Amendment's promise of citizenship for 'all persons born or naturalised' in America. For more than 125 years this has been understood to grant automatic citizenship to almost everyone born on American soi l (the children of diplomats and soldiers of invading armies are exceptions). Donald Trump has issued an executive order that claims the clause was never intended to apply to children of undocumented immigrants and temporary visa-holders.
New Straits Times
17-05-2025
- Politics
- New Straits Times
US Supreme Court blocks Trump bid to resume Venezuelan deportations
WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court blocked a bid by the Trump administration to resume deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members using an obscure wartime law, saying they were not being given enough time to legally contest their removal. The 7-2 decision by the top court is another setback to President Donald Trump's attempts to swiftly expel alleged Tren de Aragua gang members using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA). Trump, who campaigned for the White House on a pledge to deport millions of undocumented migrants, reacted angrily to the court order. "THE SUPREME COURT WON'T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!" he posted on Truth Social. Trump invoked the AEA, which was last used to round up Japanese-Americans during World War II, in March to deport a first group of alleged Tren de Aragua members to a notorious prison in El Salvador without due process. Attorneys for several of the deported Venezuelans have said their clients were not Tren de Aragua members, had committed no crimes and were targeted largely on the basis of their tattoos. The conservative-majority Supreme Court intervened on April 19 to temporarily block further deportations of undocumented Venezuelan migrants, saying they must be afforded due process. In Friday's unsigned order, the court paused plans to deport another group of detainees held in Texas, saying they were not being given enough time to mount a meaningful legal challenge to their removal. "Notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster," the justices said. Conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. The justices also noted that a Salvadoran man had been deported to El Salvador "in error" along with the alleged Tren de Aragua members in March and the Trump administration has claimed "it is unable to provide for (his) return." The justices stressed they were not deciding whether Trump could legally use the AEA to deport undocumented migrants, and they ordered a lower court to "expeditiously" examine the question. "To be clear, we decide today only that the detainees are entitled to more notice than was given," they said. "We did not on April 19 -- and do not now -- address the underlying merits of the parties' claims regarding the legality of removals under the AEA. "We recognise the significance of the Government's national security interests as well as the necessity that such interests be pursued in a manner consistent with the Constitution," they said. Three federal district court judges have ruled that Trump's use of the AEA to carry out deportations was unconstitutional while one district court judge, a Trump appointee, decided that it was permissible. In invoking the AEA, Trump said Tren de Aragua was engaged in "hostile actions" and "threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States."
Int'l Business Times
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Int'l Business Times
US Supreme Court Blocks Trump Bid To Resume Venezuelan Deportations
The US Supreme Court on Friday blocked a bid by the Trump administration to resume deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members using an obscure wartime law, saying they were not being given enough time to legally contest their removal. The 7-2 decision by the top court is another setback to President Donald Trump's attempts to swiftly expel alleged Tren de Aragua gang members using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA). Trump, who campaigned for the White House on a pledge to deport millions of undocumented migrants, reacted angrily to the court order. "THE SUPREME COURT WON'T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!" he posted on Truth Social. Trump invoked the AEA, which was last used to round up Japanese-Americans during World War II, in March to deport a first group of alleged Tren de Aragua members to a notorious prison in El Salvador without due process. Attorneys for several of the deported Venezuelans have said their clients were not Tren de Aragua members, had committed no crimes and were targeted largely on the basis of their tattoos. The conservative-majority Supreme Court intervened on April 19 to temporarily block further deportations of undocumented Venezuelan migrants, saying they must be afforded due process. In Friday's unsigned order, the court paused plans to deport another group of detainees held in Texas, saying they were not being given enough time to mount a meaningful legal challenge to their removal. "Notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster," the justices said. Conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. The justices also noted that a Salvadoran man had been deported to El Salvador "in error" along with the alleged Tren de Aragua members in March and the Trump administration has claimed "it is unable to provide for (his) return." The justices stressed they were not deciding whether Trump could legally use the AEA to deport undocumented migrants, and they ordered a lower court to "expeditiously" examine the question. "To be clear, we decide today only that the detainees are entitled to more notice than was given," they said. "We did not on April 19 -- and do not now -- address the underlying merits of the parties' claims regarding the legality of removals under the AEA. "We recognize the significance of the Government's national security interests as well as the necessity that such interests be pursued in a manner consistent with the Constitution," they said. Three federal district court judges have ruled that Trump's use of the AEA to carry out deportations was unconstitutional while one district court judge, a Trump appointee, decided that it was permissible. In invoking the AEA, Trump said Tren de Aragua was engaged in "hostile actions" and "threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States." Since taking office, Trump has sent troops to the Mexican border, imposed tariffs on Mexico and Canada for allegedly not doing enough to stop illegal crossings, and designated gangs like Tren de Aragua and MS-13 as terrorist groups.
