Latest news with #IndiraJaising
Mint
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Mint
‘Highly offensive': Senior advocate slams placement of men's toilet midway along Supreme Court corridor
Senior advocate and renowned human rights lawyer Indira Jaising has triggered a debate on social media by questioning the central placement of the men's toilet within the premises of the Supreme Court of India. She described its location in the court corridor as 'highly offensive to women' and urged the Chief Justice of India to take note. Jaising believes the current positioning of the men's toilet - reportedly located midway along a main corridor - reflects a relic of a time when the legal profession was overwhelmingly male-dominated. 'Oh my God! When will the men's toilet be shifted from the centre of the corridor to the end of the corridors of the Supreme Court? Highly offensive to women. The Chief Justice of India to note,' Jaising wrote, sharing a picture of herself. The image shows her standing in front of a sign that reads "Gents Toilet for Advocates Only", which appears to be located within the premises of the Supreme Court of India. She is dressed in a traditional white saree with a black waistcoat - typical courtroom attire for Indian lawyers - and is seen leaning against the wall with her hand on her forehead, seemingly expressing frustration. Her post has garnered a multitude of responses. Here are some of the reactions: 'Completely agree except the offensive part. It is awkward for every gender, including men. But not offensive.' To this, the senior advocate replied, 'You may be right, but its location suggests it belongs to a time when women were not lawyers in large numbers. Times have changed, and so must the architecture.' 'Apart from everything, how is it offensive to women?' The advocate responded with a pointed remark: 'It is offensive in a hugely public space. The toilet needs to be shifted to the end of the corridor.' 'Best thing I saw today.'
Hindustan Times
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Indira Jaising raises a stink over Supreme Court men's toilet location: ‘Highly offensive to women'
Senior advocate Indira Jaising has voiced her objection to the location of the men's toilet in the Supreme Court. In a post shared on social media, Jaising suggested that the toilet me moved from the centre of the corridor towards the end as its current location is 'highly offensive to women'. She also asked the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to take note of the issue. 'Oh my God! When will the men's toilet be shifted from the center of the corridor to the end of the corridors of the Supreme Court? Highly offensive to women . The Chief Justice of India to note,' Indira Jaising wrote in her post, shared yesterday on the social media platform X. Accompanying the post was a photograph that shows Jaising outside the toilet. A sign above the door reads: 'Gents toilet for advocates only.' In follow-up posts, Jaising explained why the location of the men's toilet in the Supreme Court is offensive. She said that the toilet is located in the centre of the corridor in a 'hugely public space.' She also pointed out that the location of the toilet suggests that it belongs to a time when not many women were lawyers. 'It's location suggests it belongs to a time when women were not lawyers, in large numbers, times have changed and so must the architecture,' said the senior advocate. Indira Jaising is an Indian lawyer and human rights activist well known for her advocacy for gender equality and social justice. This Mumbai-born lawyer became the first woman designated as a Senior Advocate by the Bombay High Court in 1986. Her legal career is marked by landmark cases, including representing victims of the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy and advocating for women's rights in cases like Mary Roy's, which secured equal inheritance rights for Syrian Christian women.
Hindustan Times
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Supreme Court releases new guidelines for senior advocate designations
In a major overhaul of the process to designate senior advocates, the Supreme Court on Tuesday directed that the points-based assessment system introduced through the landmark Indira Jaising judgments in 2017 and 2023 be discontinued by both the top court and high courts. A special bench comprising justices Abhay S Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, and SVN Bhatti held that the existing framework, which awards marks for categories such as years of practice, reported judgments, publications, and interviews, will no longer apply to future designations, and said that all high courts must instead frame new rules or amend their existing ones to reflect the apex court's judgment. The court stressed the need for diversity and representation, particularly of advocates practising in trial courts. It has given high courts four months to frame new rules in accordance with its directions. According to the order, designation decisions must rest with the full court of the Supreme Court or the respective high court and applications found eligible by the permanent secretariat, along with supporting documents, must be placed before the full court. The court designating seniors should aim for consensus and if that is not possible, a democratic method of voting should be adopted, the Supreme Court said. The special bench also said secret ballots can be used at a court's discretion. The minimum eligibility of 10 years of practice for one to be eligible for the senior advocate designation though, will remain unchanged and while advocates can continue to apply for designation, courts can also confer the designation dehors an application in deserving cases, the apex court has said. While processes already underway under the previous Indira Jaising framework will continue, no new applications should be accepted until new rules are framed, the Supreme Court said. The court also said 'at least one exercise of designation should be undertaken every calendar year'. The purpose of such overhaul of the existing system, the special bench said, was solely to 'improve' it and ensure that no deserving candidate was left out, the Supreme Court said. 'We learn from our experience and the mistakes committed in the past. Therefore, the endeavour of all stakeholders should be to keep on improving the system, so that we may ensure that not a single deserving advocate is left out of the process of designation and not a single undeserving person is designated,' the court said. The apex court's order follows hearings in March this year where several advocates raised concerns about the fairness and transparency of the current system for appointing senior advocates, particularly the weightage given to brief interviews conducted for applicants and the perceived disadvantage faced by trial court lawyers. Under the Advocates Act, 1961, the Supreme Court and high courts can designate senior advocates based on their ability, legal standing at the Bar and expertise. Before 2017, each high court followed its own criteria, often leading to inconsistencies and lack of uniform standards. In 2017, the Supreme Court, while hearing a PIL filed by senior advocate Indira Jaising, introduced a system standardising the designation process, grading all applicants on a scale of 100. It made way for a Permanent Committee comprising the Chief Justice and two senior most judges of the Supreme Court or the high court, along with the attorney general or the advocate general of the state, as the case may be, to award such points. In 2023, the Supreme Court fine-tuned the framework by modifying the weightage assigned to judgments and publications. However, on February 20, 2025, when a division bench comprising justices Oka and AG Masih was hearing a case of parole for a convict in case of a double murder, it realised that a senior advocate had deliberately misrepresented facts in the case. The bench then raised concerns over the process of designating lawyers as senior advocates and referred the issue to chief justice Sanjiv Khanna, urging the CJI to constitute a larger bench to hear the case. The court noted that since both the Indira Jaising decisions in 2017 and 2023 were delivered by three-judge benches, only a larger bench could reconsider them. Following this, a special bench comprising justices Oka, Bhuyyan and Bhatti was constituted to hear the case. In its judgment on Tuesday, the court said the point based format had failed to achieve the 'desired objective,' particularly on two aspects — including lawyers from the district judiciary and on rewarding one's 'character, honesty and integrity'. 'The points-based assessment, as can be seen from the earlier discussion, can hardly be objective, and it tends to be highly subjective,' the court said. 'When we talk of diversity, we must ensure that the high courts evolve a mechanism by which the members of the Bar practising in our trial and district judiciary and before specialised tribunals are considered for designation as their role is no inferior to the role played by advocates practising before this court and high courts. This is also an essential part of diversity. The high courts can always call for the views of the principal district judges or the heads of the tribunals on such applicants,' it said.
Hindustan Times
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Supreme Court issues new guidelines for senior advocate designations
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a fresh set of guidelines, discarding the existing marking-based evaluation system in the process to designate senior advocates. The marking-based assessment system was introduced through the landmark Indira Jaising judgments in 2017 and 2023. A special bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, and SVN Bhatti held that the existing framework, which awards marks for categories such as years of practice, reported judgments, publications, and interviews, will no longer apply to future designations. The Court stressed the need for diversity and representation, particularly of advocates practising in trial courts, and said that new rules must be framed accordingly. Also Read:Confusion about delimitation, OBC quota after SC orders local body polls Reading out a portion of the verdict, Justice Oka said, 'We direct that the directions contained in paragraph 73.7 of Indira Jaising I, as amended by Indira Jaising II, shall not be implemented.' The court has given all high courts four months to frame new rules in accordance with its directions. According to the order, designation decisions must rest with the full court of the Supreme Court, or the respective high court and applications found eligible by the permanent secretariat, along with supporting documents, must be placed before the full court. The court designating seniors should aim for consensus and if that is not possible, a democratic method of voting should be adopted, the Supreme Court said. The special bench also said secret ballots can be used at a court's discretion.
Time of India
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Hold overdue Maharashtra local polls within 4 months, Supreme Court tells state election panel
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Maharashtra state election commission to notify elections for local bodies within four weeks while disapproving bureaucrats manning the panchayats and municipal corporations because of the non-holding of solicitor general Tushar Mehta appearing for Maharashtra agreeing with senior advocate Indira Jaising for holding elections without following the recommended reservations for OBCs in local bodies, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh asked the EC to follow the OBC reservation specifications as existed before the Banthia Commission's report of July bench said since recommendations of the Banthia Commission have not yet been fully crystallised by the state govt, the elections to local bodies - there are 409 urban local bodies and over 28,000 rural local bodies - will be held as per the OBC reservations applicable to constituencies prior to July had not been held in many of these local bodies for years because of SC's status quo order in Aug 2022. The bench said it is unthinkable in our country, where grassroot democracy is given importance both in society and in the Constitution, to find local bodies without representatives of people and manned by bureaucrats without any accountability."The Constitution mandates grassroot democracy through periodical elections to local bodies. This ought to be respected since elected bodies have a prescribed term and no irreversible damage will be caused by holding elections," the bench elections will be subject to the outcome of the petitions pending in the court, the bench said. The elections had not been conducted because of a status quo order passed by the SC in Aug 2022 on petitions challenging the state govt's ordinance, which based on Banthia Committee recommendations had provided for 27% OBC reservation in local SC had stayed the election process on the ground that there must be enumeration of OBC population on the ground. The solicitor general told the bench that the enumeration of OBC population on the ground required layered processes to be completed and hence could take time. However, he said the state govt has no objection to the SC directing holding of the elections based on pre-2022 OBC reservation advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan said Banthia commission specified 27% reservation in local bodies without ascertaining political backwardness of OBCs and differentiating from social and educational backwardness to indicate possibility of perpetuation of stranglehold of a few OBC communities over the local bodies. SC said, "The reservation business in the country has become like railways. Those who have entered the bogies do not want others to enter. That is the whole game and precisely the game of petitioners."
