#Justice Chandrachud

[an-absolute-nightmare]

me out here pretending i do not care about the ruling on the legalisation of same sex marriage tomorrow so that it will be legalised faster

[todayworldnews2k21]

Justice Sanjiv Khanna Takes Oath As 51st Chief Justice Of India

Justice Sanjiv Khanna sworn in as the 51st Chief Justice of India (CJI) on Monday morning in a ceremony led by President Droupadi Murmu at Rashtrapati Bhavan. This marks the start of a new era for India’s judiciary as Justice Khanna takes over from Justice DY Chandrachud, who retired on November 10. Justice Chandrachud’s two-year term was notable for handling key constitutional cases and…

[rightnewshindi]

मुख्य न्यायाधीश चंद्रचूड़ ने हाथ जोड़कर और पूरी गर्दन झुककर न्यायिक सेवा को कहा अलविदा, जानें अंतिम समय में क्या कहा

CJI DY Chandrachud News: भारत के मुख्य न्यायाधीश के रूप में डीवाई चंद्रचूड़ के कार्यकाल का अंतिम दिन था। भारत के मुख्य न्यायाधीश डीवाई चंद्रचूड़ को न्यायिक सेवा से सेवानिवृत्त होने पर शुक्रवार को सुप्रीम कोर्ट में औपचारिक विदाई दी गई। अपने अंतिम कार्य दिवस पर डीवाई चंद्रचूड़ ने कृतज्ञता और विनम्रता के साथ अपनी न्यायिक यात्रा पर विचार साझा किया। व्यक्तिगत विचार साझा करते हुए उन्होंने अपने…

[saveralivehindi]

मराठी अंदाज में Chief Justice DY Chandrachud के घर पहुंचे PM Modi, बप्पा के किए दर्शन

प्रधानमंत्री मोदी बुधवार शान को मुख्य न्यायधीश डी वाई चंद्रचूड़ (Chief Justice DY Chandrachud) के घर गणेश पूजा में शामिल हुए. पीएम ने अपने एक्स पर मुख्य न्यायधीश(CJI) से मुलाकात की फोटो साझा की, इसके बाद उनके मुलाकात की वीडियो भी सोशल मीडिया पर खूब वायरल होने लगा. पीएम और मुख्य न्यायधीश का वीडियो देख विपक्ष ने निसाना साधना. पीएम ने इस मुलाकात के दौरान मराठी पोसाक पहने हुए थे. जिसमें मराठी टोपी और…

[townpostin]

Supreme Court Hearing on NEET-UG Exam Irregularities Gives Hope: Dr. Ajoy Kumar

Congress leader Dr. Ajay Kumar expresses confidence in judiciary’s approach Court directs NTA to submit detailed responses by July 10 JAMSHEDPUR – Dr. Ajay Kumar, member of the Congress Working Committee, has expressed confidence in the Supreme Court’s handling of the NEET-UG exam irregularities case. "I trust the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the students," Dr. Kumar stated in a press…

[shaktiknowledgeblog]

high court | Supreme Court | CJI | dy chandrachud | justice dy chandrachud

After all, why the Supreme Court got angry with the judges of the High Court, CJI said – Do not do this, it is the right of the people Commenting on the virtual hearing, a bench headed by the Chief Justice of India said that hybrid hearing cannot be abolished. Public money cannot be misused in this way. CJI DY Chandrachud has expressed his displeasure towards the Chief Justices of the High Courts…

[astrosblogs]

Duty to step in even in small matters, guard liberty: CJI after Rijiju’s remark

Two days after Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju, pointing to the high pendency of cases, said if the Supreme Court “starts hearing bail applications… all frivolous PILs” it will add “a lot of extra burden on the Court”, a bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud remarked Friday “it is in the seemingly small and routine matters involving grievances of citizens that issues of the moment, both in jurisprudential and constitutional terms, emerge”.

The bench, also comprising Justice P S Narasimha, said that “right to personal liberty is a precious and inalienable right recognised by the Constitution” and lack of intervention by the Court can even lead to “serious miscarriage of justice”.

The CJI also announced that the Supreme Court will not have any vacation bench during the winter recess starting December 19. “There will be no benches available from tomorrow till January 2, 2023,” he said.

A day earlier, Rijiju had told Rajya Sabha “there is a feeling among people of India that the long vacation which the courts obtain is not very convenient for justice-seekers” and it is his “obligation and duty to convey the message or sense of this House to the judiciary”.

As per practice, the Supreme Court usually has vacation benches only during the long summer vacation between March and July but has no such bench during the winter recess.

The CJI’s remark on the “right to personal liberty” being “a precious and inalienable right” came in an order directing that the sentence imposed on a man, convicted under the Electricity Act, will run concurrently and not consecutively.

The offender, one Iqram, had been sentenced in nine cases for theft of electricity equipment belonging to the Uttar Pradesh electricity department. He had been sentenced to two years’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1000 in each of the nine cases.

“The facts of the present case provide another instance, a glaring one at that, indicating a justification for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction as a protector of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty inherent in every citizen. If the Court were not to do so, a serious miscarriage of justice of the nature which has emerged in the present case would be allowed to persist and the voice of a citizen whose liberty has been abrogated would receive no attention,” the bench said.

“The history of this Court indicates that it is in the seemingly small and routine matters involving grievances of citizens that issues of the moment, both in jurisprudential and constitutional terms, emerge. The intervention by this Court to protect the liberty of citizens is hence founded on sound constitutional principles embodied in Part III of the Constitution. The Court is entrusted with judicial powers under Article 32 and Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The right to personal liberty is a precious and inalienable right recognised by the Constitution. In attending to such grievances, the Supreme Court performs a plain constitutional duty, obligation and function; no more and no less,” the CJI, writing for the bench, said in the order.

[khaleesiofalicante]

India's Supreme Court has declined an appeal to legalize same-sex marriages.

The top court announced the ruling on Tuesday (17/10/2023) after hearing arguments in April and May, with three of five justices finding that the issue should be decided by parliament.

“The court, in the exercise of the power of judicial review, must steer clear of matters, particularly those impinging on policy, which fall in the legislative domain,” Chief Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud said.

The court instead endorsed a government proposal to establish a panel to consider bestowing certain rights and benefits to same-sex couples.

Chandrachud said the state should provide some legal protections to same-sex unions, arguing that denying them “benefits and services” granted to heterosexual couples violates their fundamental rights.

TL;DR: The Supreme Court declared that queer couples have the right to enter into civil unions, though they do not have the right to marry under existing laws.

[onetimetwotimesthreetimess]

Absolutely heartbroken (but not surprised) about this.

The Supreme Court of India has refused to legalise same sex marriage in india on the basis that it should be up to the parliament to create laws and not the judiciary.

The parliament of the country comprises of the ruling and the opposing parties. For any bill to be passed, a majority members need to discuss and vote on it. Even if the ruling party is not in favour, the bill can be passed and turned into an act.

However, the current ruling party, does whatever the fuck it wants, surpassing the procedures mandated by the constitution to pass a law so it’s highly unlikely that the current government will be passing any laws for LGTBQIA+ marriages in India for the next few years.

This is a major setback for all of us as the Supreme Court is the highest court of law in the country and it has the rights and authority to make decisions that have to be adhered by the Parliament.

If the Supreme Court is not on our side, this is a losing battle for us all (for now). I had really high hopes from this judgement because Chief Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud had raised some really valid points in our favor during the arguments.

I am deeply saddened by this.

To all my queer babies from India, I wish you all a kind day. We will not stop fighting. We will never quit.

Here’s to another day 🌻❤️

[kccinstitutes]

Visit to the Supreme Court of India

KCC Institute of Legal and Higher Education organized a visit to the Supreme Court of India for 1st and 2nd-year BBA LLB and BA LLB students. The purpose was to provide firsthand experience and exposure to the workings of India’s highest judicial institution, aiming to broaden their understanding of legal proceedings. The students were divided into seven groups to observe proceedings in different courts with varying bench compositions.

Notably, a Constitutional Bench led by Chief Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud along with Associate Judges Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai, Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Mr. Justice Manoj Misra, was in the process of hearing petitions challenging the legality of the “Electoral bonds scheme,” a mechanism that facilitates anonymous donations to political parties. The other benches were presided over by Honourable Judges, Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Mr. Justice S. Sundresh Deppankar Das, Mr. Justice Suryakant Datta, Mr. Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose, Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Mr. Ujjal.

The visit aimed to complement theoretical knowledge with practical exposure, allowing students to interact with legal professionals, experience courtroom dynamics, and understand the application of laws in real cases. Interaction with members of the Bar Association provided practical insights into the legal profession, and students explored the Court's library and Museum to enrich their knowledge of legal history and resources. Overall, the visit intended to enhance students' legal education by immersing them in the real-world environment of the apex court.

[thestudyiashindi]

Balancing Rights and Welfare.

In India, the Rights and Welfare to own property and the government’s power to take it for public good have often conflicted. This ongoing debate was highlighted in a recent case, Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra, decided by the Supreme Court of India. The case focused on an important question: Should private property always be considered something that can serve the entire community? This question is not new; India’s leaders have faced it since the 1970s when socialist ideas inspired changes to the Constitution. Today, the Supreme Court’s decision seeks to balance property rights with public welfare, considering both personal freedoms and the country’s changing needs.

The 25th and 26th Constitutional Amendments for Rights and Welfare

In 1971, the Indian government introduced two important amendments—the 25th and 26th—to support socialist ideals. These amendments aimed to give the government greater control over property to promote fairer distribution of resources. Under the 25th Amendment, the term “compensation” in Article 31 was replaced with “amount,” meaning that the government could pay less than market value when acquiring private land. It also added Article 31C, giving priority to Articles 39(b) and (c) of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP), which support the distribution of resources for the common good and prevent wealth from gathering in only a few hands.

The 26th Amendment went further, abolishing special payments to former princes, known as “privy purses.” This helped establish an equal society where everyone could benefit, not just a privileged few. Together, these amendments encouraged a system where the government could control resources to help everyone, especially the less fortunate.

Strengthening Public Welfare Through Articles 39(b) and 39(c)

The changes to the Constitution allowed the government to enforce Articles 39(b) and (c) more strongly. Article 39(b) calls for resource distribution to benefit everyone, while Article 39(c) works to prevent wealth concentration. With the 25th Amendment, the government could acquire land more easily to build schools, hospitals, and other public resources. This amendment prioritised public welfare over individual property rights, which meant the government could take land if it would help a larger number of people.

The Supreme Court Case: Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra

Recently, the Supreme Court revisited the question of property rights in the case Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra. The case arose from a law passed by the Maharashtra state government in 1986, which allowed the government to take over poorly maintained buildings from landlords and give them to tenants. This was meant to protect tenants from unsafe living conditions. However, landlords argued that this law violated their property rights.

Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, representing the majority of the judges, decided that not all private property could automatically be taken by the government for community purposes. Instead, the Court ruled that only certain types of property could be considered “material resources of the community,” depending on factors like scarcity, necessity, and the benefit to the community. This new approach means that the government can only acquire private property when it clearly serves the community’s interests.

Balancing Rights with Judicial Review on Rights and Welfare.

The Court’s ruling placed limits on the government’s power to acquire private property by strengthening the role of judicial review. Judicial review allows courts to examine government actions and decide whether they are fair and just. Previously, the government could simply claim that a law followed Article 39(b) and avoid judicial review. Now, however, the Court requires a case-by-case examination to ensure the law truly benefits the public and respects property owners’ rights.

Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, in his dissenting opinion, argued that Parliament should have the final say on what counts as community resources, since elected representatives are responsible for making decisions on public welfare. Meanwhile, Justice B.V. Nagarathna added that personal items, like someone’s clothes or furniture, should never be considered community resources, emphasising the importance of respecting individual privacy.

Socialist Roots and the Shift to a Balanced Approach

The new ruling is a shift from India’s earlier socialist view, inspired by judges like Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer and Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, who believed that all property could be controlled by the government to benefit society. This older view supported nationalisation and wealth redistribution, but India’s economic direction has since changed. The Court’s ruling acknowledges this shift and supports a welfare model that balances private ownership with public needs rather than focusing solely on socialist ideals.

The judgment also brings in the concept of “intergenerational equity.” This means that today’s property owners have a responsibility to future generations, ensuring that resources are used wisely and are available for the next generation. This idea encourages sustainable development and responsible ownership, aligning with a vision of long-term community welfare.

The Influence of Past Interpretations

The recent judgment also revisits and adapts earlier interpretations of property rights. In the past, Justice Krishna Iyer argued that all essential resources should serve the community and that the government should be able to control them. However, today’s Court chose a more balanced approach, recognising that while public welfare is essential, private property rights are also valuable in a modern, market-driven economy. This change reflects India’s growth from a strictly state-controlled economy to a mixed one that respects both private and public interests.

The Case’s Broader Socio-Economic Impact

This ruling comes at a time when India balances socialism with capitalist growth. After independence, the government often took over private industries to build a state-led economy. Over time, however, private investment has become essential to the nation’s economic growth. This Supreme Court ruling supports this new approach, respecting both community needs and private investment.

For property owners, the ruling offers protection, assuring them that their land cannot be taken without reason. It encourages a stable environment for people and businesses to invest without fearing that the government will take away their property unfairly. For the government, it means any property acquisition must be justified as genuinely benefiting the public.

The Continuing Story of Property Rights

This case reminds us of Saeed Akhtar Mirza’s film Mohan Joshi Hazir Ho, where the character Mohan Joshi fights for his right to live in a safe home despite his landlord’s neglect. Like in the film, this legal battle has gone on for decades, with both landlords and tenants waiting years for a decision. Although the nine-judge bench’s decision offers clarity, it leaves some questions open, as another bench will decide if the 1986 law is constitutional.

The judgment illustrates how the law can help people while also respecting personal property rights. It shows that both sides—property owners and the government—can be protected through fair laws.

Future Implications of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgment has several long-term implications for both property owners and the government. First, it reinforces the right to private property, establishing that private ownership is not only constitutionally protected but also respected within the legal framework. For property owners, this judgment is a form of protection, as the government must now follow clear guidelines and provide fair compensation if it wishes to acquire private property​.

For India’s investment climate, this judgment is also significant. By protecting property rights, the Court has created a stable environment for investors. This move encourages individuals and companies to invest in private property without the fear of sudden, unjust acquisition by the state. As a result, this judgment can have a positive impact on India’s economy, supporting both domestic and foreign investments.

Conclusion

India’s journey with property rights reflects a continuous search for balance. The 25th and 26th Amendments gave the government greater control for public welfare, but today’s Supreme Court decision adds important safeguards for individuals. By allowing the government to take property only when it serves the community and compensating owners fairly, The Property Owners Association v. State of Maharashtra judgment protects both individual rights and public welfare. It represents a new direction in Indian constitutional law, rejecting a one-size-fits-all approach to eminent domain, and emphasising the importance of fairness and justice in government policies. This judgment is a milestone that reflects India’s evolving socio-economic landscape. It sets a guiding example for future cases, helping India grow as a country where personal responsibility and community needs are respected. As India develops, this balanced approach supports a vision of fairness and inclusion, ensuring that both private rights and public welfare are equally valued in the nation’s future.

[todayworldnews2k21]

Chief Justice of India lauds GST as classical example of cooperative federalism

Introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in India was a “classical example of cooperative federalism,” Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said on Saturday. The courts have, over the last few decades, evolved a robust framework on federalism to ensure that the states’ rights are protected, he said, speaking on `Understanding Federalism and Its Potential” at the inaugural annual lecture…

[rightnewshindi]

जस्टिस नागरत्ना ने सीजेआई चंद्रचूड़ के बयान से जताई असहमत, कहा, न यह उचित और न वांछित; जानें पूरा मामला

Delhi News: सुप्रीम कोर्ट में जस्टिस बी. वी. नागरत्ना ने चीफ जस्टिस डी. वाई. चंद्रचूड़ के जस्टिस कृष्णा अय्यर के सिद्धांत पर की गयी ट���प्पणी पर आपत्ति जताई है। मामला अनुच्छेद 39 (बी) की व्याख्या से जुड़ा है। जस्टिस नागरत्ना ने कहा कि चीफ जस्टिस की टिप्पणी न तो उचित थी और न ही वांछित। जस्टिस सुधांशु धूलिया ने भी जस्टिस अय्यर की मार्क्सवादी व्याख्या की आलोचना करने वाले बहुमत के फैसले पर असहमति…

[head-post]

India’s Supreme Court upheld government’s decision to revoke Kashmir’s special status

On Monday, India’s top court upheld the legality of the law passed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government in 2019 that revoked the disputed region of Jammu and Kashmir from statehood and special status.

Chief Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud headed the constitution bench of the Supreme Court.

We hold the exercise of presidential power to issue constitutional order abrogating Article 370 of Constitution as valid. All provisions of the Indian Constitution can be applied to Jammu and Kashmir.

In September, the court concluded arguments on a slew of petitions challenging the legality of the law passed by the Modi government in 2019.

In response, several individuals, groups and political parties filed about 20 petitions in the apex court, labelling the decision unconstitutional.

Read more HERE