Latest news with #KVViswanathan
India Today
15-05-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Electoral Bonds, bulldozer justice among key verdicts by Chief Justice BR Gavai
Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai was on Wednesday sworn in as the 52nd Chief Justice of India (CJI), becoming the first Buddhist and only the second judge from the Scheduled Castes to hold the office. His elevation is both historic and symbolic, representing the values of inclusivity and constitutional morality that the judiciary 52nd Chief Justice, BR Gavai, has previously authored more than 200 judgments during his tenure as a Judge of the Supreme Court. He has also been part of several Constitution benches. As the incumbent Chief Justice with a declared objective of "upholding socioeconomic justice", he is also expected to take up several pending VERDICTS BY JUSTICE BR GAVAI:BULLDOZER JUSTICE: In November 2024, a Division Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan condemned the "bulldozer actions" by various states and held that the properties/houses of the accused in any case, cannot be demolished only on the grounds that they are accused or convicted for a crime. The Court laid down stringent norms to curb these bulldozer LAYER AND SUB-CLASSIFICATION IN SC/STs: In the state of Punjab vs Davinder Singh case, the verdict of 2024 a seven-judge Constitution Bench also comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath, Bela M Trivedi, Pankaj Mithal, Manoj Misra, and Satish Chandra Sharma, by a 6-1 majority, held that subclassification of Scheduled Castes among reserved categories is permissible for granting separate quotas for more backwards within the SC Gavai, in his separate opinion, stated that nearly 75 years have elapsed from the day on which the Constitution was brought into State must evolve a policy for identifying the creamy layer even from the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to exclude them from the benefit of affirmative action. In my view, only this and this alone can achieve the real equality as enshrined under the Constitution," he opinion, coming from a Dalit Judge, was widely discussed across the country, with both appreciation and criticism from SC/ST BONDS: Justice Gavai was also part of the Constitution Bench that struck down the 2018 Electoral Bonds Scheme. In February 2024, the Court held that the scheme infringed upon the citizens' right to information and compromised transparency in public Court also directed that the sale of electoral bonds be stopped with immediate effect. The State Bank of India was directed to submit details of the Electoral Bonds purchased from April 12, 2019 till the date of the verdict, to the Election TO MANISH SISODIA: While granting interim bail to Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Manish Sisodia in 2024 in both the CBI and ED in connection with the Delhi Excise scam case, the Bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan raised concerns about the prolonged period of incarceration suffered by consideration of various earlier pronouncements, the Court emphasised that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right within the broad scope of Article 21 of the In 2023, Justice Gavai authored the majority opinion upholding the Centre's 2016 demonetisation scheme. The five-judge Constitution bench, in a majority verdict, held that demonetisation was proportionate to the Union's stated objectives and was implemented in a reasonable 370 ABROGATION: Justice Gavai was a member of the five-judge bench that unanimously upheld the abrogation of Article 370 in 2023, which revoked the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. It held that J&K did not retain its sovereignty after the proclamation made by Yuvraj Karan Singh in SURNAME DEFAMATION CASE: The three-judge bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha and Sanjay Kumar, in the Rahul Gandhi vs Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi case, in 2023, issued a stay on the Congress leader's conviction while hearing his appeal against the Gujarat High court court held that denial of stay would not only affect the right of the appellant to continue in public life but also affect the right of the electorate, who elected him, to represent their constituency. Further, it held that no reason was given by the Trial Court for imposing the maximum TO CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST TEESTA SETALVAD: A three-judge bench of Justices BR Gavai, AS Bopanna and Dipankar Datta, in 2023, granted regular bail to civil rights activist Teesta Atul Setalvad in a case of alleged fabricating evidence in a case arising out of the 2002 Godhra 370 INTERNET BAN IN J&K: A 3-judge bench comprising Justices NV Ramana, R Subhash Reddy and BR Gavai, in Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India verdict of 2020, directed the Jammu-Kashmir administration to review all orders imposing telecom and internet curbs within one week and put them in public domain. The bench also held that such curbs had to be reasonable and not InMust Watch
Indian Express
07-05-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Supreme Court judges have a conservative financial portfolio, invest in FDs and PFs
A CLOSE look at the assets of Supreme Court judges reveals that most of them have a conservative investment portfolio. Barring two judges, who have not segregated the details of their financial assets, all have kept a bulk of their savings in bank deposits, fixed deposits and provident funds. The assets, which include those of their spouses and dependents, disclosed Monday night also shows that every judge owns at least one real estate asset. The data shows that while three judges have assets exceeding Rs 25 crore, three others have financial assets between Rs 5 crore and Rs 25 crore. There are eight justices whose financial assets are between Rs 1crore and Rs 5 crore. The remaining seven have financial savings under Rs 1 crore, of which four have less than Rs 50 lakh in financial savings. As many as 21 of the 33 judges who disclosed their assets had aggregate savings of Rs 270 crore in financial instruments. Cumulatively, these judges and their spouses also owned 73 real estate assets, and nearly 12 kg of gold. Except for two judges who haven't provided segregated details, the cumulative financial assets of 19 judges are Rs 128.5 crore. Of this, FDs and bank deposits add up to Rs 86.19 crore; General Provident Fund and Public Provident Fund total Rs 25.44 crore; and shares and mutual funds are valued at Rs 16.87 crore. In other words, FDs, GPF and PPF of the 19 judges account for 86.9 per cent of their total financial assets, underlining the conservative nature of their financial portfolios. Justice K V Viswanathan, who was a successful lawyer until he was elevated as a judge of the Supreme Court in May 2023, accounted for more than half of the total savings of all 21 in the list. With Rs 137 crore, his financial assets account for more than 50 per cent of the total financial assets of all 21 justices. The judge has, however, disclosed that he paid as much as Rs 91.47 crore in taxes between 2011-12 and 2024-25. In the Assessment Year 2024-25, he paid taxes amounting to Rs 6.7 crore. Justice Viswanathan, with Rs 137 crore in assets, has not segregated it into cash, mutual funds and shares. The other judge who has not provided segregated details, Justice Vikram Nath, has declared financial assets of Rs 4.75 crore. The properties owned by the 21 judges range from agricultural land and residential plots to flats and commercial properties. While they have collectively acquired 29 flats and 13 houses, they also own 19 plots, seven parcels of agricultural land and five offices or shops. Most judges said the gold and silver they held was 'stree dhan' — property a woman receives during her lifetime voluntarily from her family. They also hold substantial amounts of silver (64.5 kg). These do not include the ancestral and inherited properties. The data also shows that just three judges, Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Manmohan and Viswanathan, account for a bulk — more than 79 per cent — of all financial savings of the 21 judges. Several other judges have also disclosed that their financial assets include gifts from parents who have been income tax assesses and that has been reported to the income tax department and accepted over the years in their ITR. When it comes to holding real estate, at least five judges own five properties, nine have 4-5 properties and the remaining seven have up to two properties. Two judges have one property each. Some judges have also disclosed that most of the immovable properties were acquired prior to their becoming a judge as they were then lawyers/advocates earlier. When it comes to ownership of vehicles, 15 judges collectively own 20 cars while six others do not own a single one. One Justice owns a Toyota Camry hybrid and a Toyota Altis, another an Ecosport and Tata Harrier, and third owns a Jeep Compass.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
06-05-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
From luxury flats to gold jewellery: SC judges' assets made public
In a step toward greater transparency, the Supreme Court has started uploading the asset declarations of its judges on its official website. This move stems from a full-court resolution aimed at giving the public access to the financial disclosures of members of the judiciary. So far, 21 of the 33 sitting judges have made their asset information public. Among them, Justice KV Viswanathan has disclosed investments exceeding Rs 120 crore, along with properties in Delhi and Coimbatore. His income tax filings from 2010-11 through 2024-25 indicate a total of over ₹91.47 crore. Justice Vikram Nath has reported owning a two-bedroom apartment in Noida, a bungalow in Prayagraj, and around 20 bighas of farmland in Kaushambi. His investment portfolio amounts to approximately ₹1.5 crore. Justice BR Gavai, who is set to take over as Chief Justice of India on May 14, listed gold and jewellery worth ₹5.25 lakh, while his wife holds ornaments valued at ₹29.70 lakh. Justice Surya Kant, expected to become CJI on November 24, declared ownership of a residence in Chandigarh, farmland in Panchkula, a plot in Gurugram, and fixed deposits totalling ₹4.11 crore. Justice Abhay S Oka, scheduled to retire on May 24, owns a residential apartment in Thane and holds an undivided share in agricultural land in the same area. His financial assets include a fixed deposit of ₹21.76 lakh and savings amounting to ₹9.10 lakh. CJI Khanna's asset disclosure Outgoing Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, set to retire on May 13, holds a fixed deposit of ₹55.75 lakh and owns a three-bedroom DDA flat in South Delhi. He also possesses a 2,446 sq ft four-bedroom apartment in the Commonwealth Games Village. Additionally, he has a 56 per cent ownership in a four-bedroom flat measuring 2,016 sq ft area in Sispal Vihar, Sector 49, Gurugram, along with a share in residential property and land located in Dalhousie, Himachal Pradesh. Also Read According to disclosed data, Justice Khanna has over ₹1.06 crore invested in a Public Provident Fund, ₹1.77 crore in his General Provident Fund (GPF), and holds a Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) Money Back Policy with an annual premium of ₹29,625. His shareholdings are valued at ₹14,000. Among his movable assets are 250 grams of gold and 2 kilograms of silver, largely received as inheritance or gifts, as well as a 2015 model Maruti Swift car. Supreme Court moves towards transparency According to the court, 'The full court of the Supreme Court of India has on April 1, 2025, decided that the statements of assets of the judges of this court shall be placed in the public domain by uploading the same on the website of this court. Statements of assets of judges already received are being uploaded.' The initiative aligns with broader efforts to make the judicial appointment process more transparent. In addition to the asset disclosures, the top court has also made public the procedures for appointing judges to both the high courts and the apex court. These documents detail the steps involved, including recommendations, government inputs, and collegium decisions. "The proposals approved by the Supreme Court Collegium for appointments as high court judges during the period from November 9, 2022 to May 5, 2025... have also been uploaded on the Supreme Court website,' a court statement said.
Scroll.in
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
‘Abuse of process': SC quashes foreigners tribunal case against woman declared Indian in 2016
The Supreme Court has overturned a Gauhati High Court order that had declined to dismiss a case against a woman in a foreigners tribunal in Assam. A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and KV Viswanathan noted that a foreigners tribunal had ruled in August 2016 that the woman, Tarabhanu Khatoon, was not a foreigner. Initiating fresh proceedings against her was 'nothing but an abuse of the process of law', and the High Court should have stopped it, the bench said in its order on April 22. The woman was accused of entering Assam after the cut-off date of March 25, 1971. However, on 31 August, 2016, a foreigners tribunal in Assam's Nalbari district held that she was an Indian citizen, noting that the names of her parents were in the voter lists of 1966 and 1970. Only those living in the state before this March 25, 1971, or their descendants, qualify as Indian citizens in Assam, as per the Assam Accord. The tribunal observed that the state presented no witnesses, while the appellant provided both documents and oral evidence showing her parents were Indian citizens. She also stated she married a person identified as Chanu Sheikh in 1979 and had been voting since 1985. Despite this order, a fresh notice was issued to Khatoon in December 2018, which she challenged before the High Court. Although the High Court noted that she had already been declared not a foreigner, it dismissed the writ petition in May 2023, stating she could present her arguments before the tribunal in the new case. This prompted her to approach the Supreme Court. The foreigners tribunals in the state are quasi-judicial bodies that adjudicate on matters of citizenship. In February, Scroll tracked down relatives of seven of the 63 persons who were declared foreigners and have challenged the order of the foreigners' tribunals in various constitutional courts, including in the Supreme Court. All of them contested the Assam government's claim that they were from Bangladesh.
Hindustan Times
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
NEET-PG 2025: SC agrees to hear plea seeking horizontal reservation for transgenders
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Centre and others to respond to a plea seeking horizontal reservation for transgender persons in the NEET-PG 2025 examination which is scheduled on June 15. A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Viswanathan agreed to hear the plea filed by three transgender persons who are doctors and have challenged the April 16 notice and information bulletin dated April 17 regarding the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test-Post Graduate 2025. The petitioners have claimed that the notification was issued in contravention of the directions given by the apex court in a 2014 judgement as it has not outlined any scheme/policy of horizontal reservations for transgender persons. Senior advocate Indira Jaising appeared for the petitioners. The plea said that in its 2014 verdict, the top court had directed the Centre and the states to take steps to treat transgender persons as socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and extend all kinds of reservations in cases of admission in educational institutions and for public appointments. "As a result of the impugned notice, the petitioners are left with a right without remedy, whereby there are now no reservations for transgender persons in educational institutions in post-graduate courses in medical education in institutes despite the binding declaration of the law by this court," said the plea, filed through advocate Paras Nath Singh. The bench issued notices to the Centre, states, Union Territories and others, including the National Medical Commission, seeking their responses on the plea and posted the matter for hearing after two weeks. Seeking quashing of the admission notice and the information bulletin, the plea also called for a direction to authorities to issue a fresh admission notice that provides compartmentalised horizontal reservation for transgender persons by reserving one per cent seats for them in each vertical category. The horizontal reservation is a type of reservation that is provided across all categories namely the General Category, as well as vertical reservation categories Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, and Other Backward Classes. The plea said in the absence of horizontal reservations, the petitioners would be deprived of equal opportunity with no specific reservation being extended to them to ensure representation of transgender persons in postgraduate medical education despite such persons facing several social barriers. It said the apex court, in its 2014 verdict, had recognised the fundamental rights of transgender persons under the Constitution, including the right to self-determination of gender identity.
