Tag: judge

‘A judge judged everyday by lawyers, public’, SC on appointment of Madras HC judge

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday said a judge is judged everyday by the lawyers, litigants and the public, as the courts are open and the judges speak by giving reasons in writing for their decisions, while giving detailed reasons for not entertaining two pleas filed against appointment of L.C. Victoria Gowri as judge of the Madras High Court.
A bench comprising justices Sanjiv Khanna and B.R. Gavai said: “Principle of secularism and dignity of every individual – regardless of the religion, caste or creed, is the foundation of Rule of Law and equal protection of laws.”
It further added: “Not only is the conduct and judgments delivered considered at the time of confirmation, a judge is judged everyday by the lawyers, litigants and the public, as the courts are open and the judges speak by giving reasons in writing for their decisions”.
The petitioners alleged that Gowri made “hate speeches” against Christians and Muslims and therefore, she was unfit to the post.
The bench said there have been cases where the persons recommended for elevation have expressed reservations or even criticised policies or actions, but this has not been held to be a ground to treat them as unsuitable.
The apex court said Article 51A of the Constitution casts an obligation on every citizen, and more so on every judge, to promote harmony, spirit of common brotherhood among all transcending religious, linguistic, regional or sectional diversities.
The bench said the person in question has been elevated as an additional judge and “on taking oath the person pledges to work as a judge to uphold the Constitution and the laws”. On February 7, the court had dismissed the petitions.
The bench said it goes without saying that the conduct of the judge and her/his decisions must reflect and show independence, adherence to the democratic and constitutional values.

“This is necessary as the judiciary holds the centre stage in protecting and strengthening democracy and upholding human rights and Rule of Law,” it added.
The bench noted that exercising power of judicial review upon the collegium decision would be contrary to the dictum of earlier decisions of the apex court, which are binding upon it.
“To do so would violate the law as declared, as it would amount to evaluating and substituting the decision of the collegium, with individual or personal opinion on the suitability and merits of the person,” it said.
The bench said: “We need to state that after the collegium of the High Court makes a recommendation for elevation, inputs are received from the intelligence agencies, which conduct a background check, and comments from the government are considered by the collegium of the Supreme Court consisting of the Chief Justice of India and two senior most Judges. Opinion and comments of the Judges in this Court conversant with the affairs of the High Court concerned are called for in writing and placed before the collegium.”
It further added that invariably a number of shoot down and dismissive letters and communications from all quarters are received.
“Only thereafter, and on consideration, the collegium of the Supreme Court takes a final call, which is then communicated to the government,” the bench said.
[ad_2]
#judge #judged #everyday #lawyers #public #appointment #Madras #judge
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

February 10, 2023
SC hearing on plea to restrain Gowri from taking oath as HC judge sees twists and turns

[ad_1]
New Delhi: The high-profile hearing on pleas seeking to restrain Justice Lekshmana Chandra Victoria Gowri from taking oath as a judge of the Madras High Court saw several twists and turns in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, with rumours doing the rounds that the matter could be heard around 9.15 am, just an hour before her swearing in.
As soon as it was known that the swearing in of Gowri and four others as additional judges of the high court was scheduled at 10.35 am, the lawyers appearing for the petitioners in the apex court tried to get the matter, which was slated to be heard by a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and MM Sundresh as item number 38 on Tuesday, listed before that.
At around 8.50 am, rumours started spreading that the matter could be heard by a bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, after which the petitioners’ lawyers, including senior advocates Raju Ramachandran and Anand Grover, were seen waiting in the CJI’s courtroom.
Soon after, the cause list on the apex court’s website showed that the two petitions were listed for hearing before a special bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai at 10.30 am as item number 301.
The lawyers, who were waiting in the CJI’s courtroom, rushed to court number seven, where the special bench was to assemble.
At around 10.25 am, five minutes before the scheduled court time, Justices Khanna and Gavai came to the dais and the hearing commenced.
After hearing the arguments for around 25 minutes, the bench said, “We are not entertaining the writ petition. Reasons will follow.”
Minutes before the apex court dismissed the pleas against Gowri’s appointment, she was administered the oath of office as an additional judge by the Madras High Court’s Acting Chief Justice, T Raja, at around 10:48 am.

The top court was hearing two pleas, including one moved by three Madras High Court lawyers, that opposed Gowri’s appointment as an additional judge.
A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud had on Monday posted the plea of the three lawyers on February 10 but later, advanced it to February 7 after Ramachandran mentioned it again, saying the Centre has notified Gowri’s appointment.
[ad_2]
#hearing #plea #restrain #Gowri #oath #judge #sees #twists #turns
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

February 7, 2023
Federal judge says constitutional right to abortion may still exist, despite Dobbs

[ad_1]

Kollar-Kotelly noted that there is some legal scholarship suggesting that the 13th Amendment — which was ratified at the end of the Civil War and sought to ban slavery and “involuntary servitude” — provides just such a right. She is asking the parties in the criminal case, which involves charges of blocking access to abortion clinics, to present arguments by mid-March.
In particular, the judge is asking them to address ”whether the scope of Dobbs is in fact confined to the Fourteenth Amendment” and “whether, if so, any other provision of the Constitution could confer a right to abortion as an original matter … such that Dobbs may or may not be the final pronouncement on the issue, leaving an open question.”
Kollar-Kotelly’s request stems from a year-old case against 10 defendants, who are charged with conspiring to block access to a Washington, D.C., abortion clinic.
One of those defendants, Lauren Handy, contended that the conspiracy charge is no longer legitimate because the Dobbs decision took Congress out of the business of making laws related to abortion access.
“There is no longer a federal constitutional interest to protect, and Congress lacks jurisdiction,” Handy’s attorneys wrote. “The Dobbs court did not indicate that there is no longer a constitutional right to abortion; the court has made clear there never was.”
Kollar-Kotelly, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, indicated that she viewed this position as overly broad. Dobbs, she noted, confined its analysis to the 14th Amendment alone, although she conceded it contains sweeping statements that could lead one to conclude the justices were convinced nothing in the Constitution protects abortion rights.
“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion,” Justice Samuel Alito declared in the Dobbs majority opinion, which was endorsed by four other justices.
However, Kollar-Kotelly said that statement may merely be a “heuristic” and the legal effect of the Supreme Court ruling may be narrower.

“The ‘issue’ before the Court in Dobbs was not whether any provision of the Constitution provided a right to abortion. Rather, the question before the Court in Dobbs was whether the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution provided such a right,” she wrote. “That is why neither the majority nor the dissent in Dobbs analyzed anything but the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, on the Court’s initial review, not a single amicus brief mentioned anything but the Fourteenth Amendment and the unratified Equal Rights Amendment.“
Beyond the 13th Amendment argument that Kollar-Kotelly floated, several Jewish organizations have filed lawsuits arguing that religious freedom protections in the First Amendment or state constitutions may extend to abortion rights.
A Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group’s religious freedom rights.
[ad_2]
#Federal #judge #constitutional #abortion #exist #Dobbs
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

February 7, 2023
Hyderabad-born justice PV Sanjay Kumar appointed as SC judge

[ad_1]
Hyderabad: Justice Puligoru Venkata Sanjay Kumar from Hyderabad has been appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court. He is serving as the Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court. On the recommendation of the Supreme Court, the Central Government has issued a notification appointing him as a Judge of the Supreme Court.
The others who have been appointed as judges of the Supreme Court are Rajasthan High Court Chief Justice Pankaj Mittal, Patna High Court Chief Justice Sanjeev Karol, Patna High Court Justice Amanullah, Allahabad High Court Justice Manoj Mishra. With the new appointments, the number in the Supreme Court has increased to 25. The Collegium, headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, had on December 13 recommended the names for the Apex Court.
Justice P.V. Sanjay Kumar is the second judge from the state after Justice P Narsimha. Sanjay Kumar is the son of P Ramachandra Reddy, who served as Advocate General in united Andhra Pradesh, hailing from Chittoor district. He was born on August 14, 1963 in Hyderabad and did his schooling at St Paul’s School at Himayatnagar and graduated in commerce from Nizam College and obtained a law degree from Delhi University.
He started his career as an advocate in 1988 and served as a Public Prosecutor in united Andhra Pradesh from 2000 to 2003. He was appointed as an additional judge on August 8, 2008. On January 20, 2010, he took charge as a permanent judge and on October 14, 2019, he was transferred as a permanent Judge in Punjab-Haryana High Court. On February 12, 2021, he was appointed as the Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court.
[ad_2]
#Hyderabadborn #justice #Sanjay #Kumar #appointed #judge
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

February 6, 2023
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code impacted startup culture: SC judge

[ad_1]
New Delhi: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul of the Supreme Court on Saturday said the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) has had a big role to play in India’s new “startup culture” as it created a conducive environment for budding entrepreneurs.
Speaking at the Insolvency Law Academy’s inaugural conference on the topic of “Emerging Global Insolvency Horizon: Indian Footprint and Front View”, Justice Kaul said India’s economy has been growing since the early 1990s, leading to an expansion of the credit market.
“In my opinion, the IBC has also had a big role to play in India’s new startup culture by creating a conducive environment for budding entrepreneurs,” he said.
Justice Kaul said the expansion of the credit market has resulted in an increase in non-performing loans and assets.
“To solve this problem, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was enacted in 2016 primarily to serve two purposes — first, to ensure that debtors take sound and practical decisions and second, to give financially-ailing corporate entities a chance to rehabilitate and continue their business.
“The IBC essentially consolidated laws relating to insolvency resolution of companies, partnerships and individuals. Hence, the implementation of the IBC in India marked the beginning of a new era that completely overhauled India’s insolvency regime,” he said.
The apex court judge said in the early years of the code’s implementation, there were complex questions that required authoritative and conclusive answers.
But this provided an opportunity not only to the judiciary, but all the professionals to contribute towards laying an infallible foundation, he added.

Justice Kaul said the diversity in the Indian society must be reflective in all fields of life as it brings on the table varied views and experiences and wholesome solutions.
“I believe that the main issue in ensuring a successful representation is unconscious bias. This has led to a vicious cycle where on one hand, newcomers are not given a platform to showcase their talent due to their lack of experience.
“But on the other hand, these newcomers cannot find that experience if opportunities are not granted to them. Hence, I look forward to following how the discussions on bringing diversity into the process of insolvency, along with gender inclusivity, are dealt with by the panellists,” he said.
The judge said mediation might also help reduce the burden on the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).
“Alternative resolution of such disputes will not only provide an avenue to the entities without facing an adversarial process, but can also result in speedy and cost-effective solutions for the creditors. We have to realise that these are not professional creditors so as to say.
“These are people who have invested their life savings to be able to cherish the dream of owning their own house. In these cases, it becomes all the more urgent to ensure that the relief extended to the homebuyers is not only effective, but also quick and least cumbersome,” Justice Kaul said.
[ad_2]
#Insolvency #Bankruptcy #Code #impacted #startup #culture #judge
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

February 4, 2023
Judge demands answers after Jan. 6 defendant recants guilt

[ad_1]

In a brief order Friday morning, Mehta gave both sides one week to explain “why the court should not vacate Defendant’s convictions of guilt in light of his post-stipulated trial statements” included in the article. The judge also attached a copy of the news report.
It is unclear how the article in the Illinois newspaper came to the attention of Mehta, who sits at the federal courthouse near the Capitol.
Judges handling Jan. 6 cases have been repeatedly and increasingly irked by defendants appearing to be apologetic and contrite in court, only to make public statements days later minimizing their guilt and sounding cavalier about their actions. And judges are loath to accept what effectively amounts to a guilty plea from any defendant who doesn’t sincerely believe in their own guilt.
Adams, who told the Illinois newspaper he was recently fired from his job as a lawn care worker, acknowledged under oath Tuesday that he had committed the conduct Mehta ultimately found him guilty of. He acknowledged walking over broken glass as he went inside the Capitol and that he told the FBI his intent was to “occupy” the building for days, if necessary. Adams also acknowledged that he “knew that he did not have authorization” when he went into the Senate chamber and walked among the senators’ historic desks.
Entering the Senate chamber has been a sort of red line for prosecutors, with them insisting on felony guilty pleas or convictions to resolve cases against those who went inside, even briefly.
And so far they’ve been nearly unblemished in their prosecutions, though a judge recently acquitted a defendant of an obstruction charge despite his presence in the chamber.
Adams was on the Senate floor for about seven minutes before he was kicked out of the building, according to the statement of facts prosecutors and the defense agreed to in his case.
Stipulated trials have been used in recent months to seek to resolve about a dozen Jan. 6-related criminal cases where the defendant faced a felony charge of obstruction of a congressional proceeding. Almost 1,000 people have been charged criminally in connection with the unrest at the Capitol, which prompted a delay in the congressional session to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election.

One of Mehta’s colleagues, U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols, ruled that the obstruction charge did not apply unless prosecutors could prove that a defendant intended to tamper with or damage the actual electoral vote documents being tallied that day.
No other judge to consider the issue has agreed with Nichols. Meanwhile, prosecutors are appealing his decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Unlike the guilty pleas typically offered in deals with prosecutors, stipulated trials allow defendants in other cases to preserve their ability to wipe out their obstruction convictions if the D.C. Circuit sides with Nichols. The obstruction charge carries a maximum 20-year prison sentence, although no Jan. 6 defendant has received a sentence close to that in a case not involving violence.
The harshest sentence to date — 10 years — was delivered by Mehta to retired New York City cop Thomas Webster, who took his case to trial. Webster was convicted of a brutal assault of a Washington Metropolitan Police officer outside the Capitol, and Mehta found that Webster lied on the stand about his actions.
Adams also admitted Tuesday to the facts needed to convict him on a misdemeanor charge of entering and remaining in the Capitol without permission. That carries a one-year maximum sentence. Mehta has set sentencing in the case for June 16.
The FBI appears to have zeroed in on Adams after he said on the day after the Capitol riot that he enjoyed the experience. “It was a really fun time,” Adams told Insider. He has since said he did not know of the violence taking place elsewhere in the building and on the Capitol grounds.
[ad_2]
#Judge #demands #answers #Jan #defendant #recants #guilt
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

February 3, 2023
Teachers’ scam: Judge agrees that Partha Chatterjee is ‘privileged’

[ad_1]
Kolkata: A judge of the special court of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Thursday, during a hearing on the multi-crore teachers’ recruitment scam in West Bengal, observed that former West Bengal education minister and ex-Trinamool Congress secretary general Partha Chatterjee was a “privileged” person.
During the hearing in the matter, judge Arpan Kumar Chattopadhyay observed that of the seven accused in the scam presented at the court on Thursday was sitting on a bench, while two others were standing.
Besides Chatterjee, the four others sitting were former president of West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (WBBSE) Kalyanmoy Ganguly, former chairman of West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC) Subiresh Bhattacharya, former WBSSC secretary Ashok Saha and former head of the commission’s screening committee S.P. Sinha.
However, two middlemen arrested in connection with the scam, namely Prasanna Kumar Roy and Pradip Singh were standing in court.
“Why are they standing? I understand that Partha Chatterjee is privileged. It is all right that he is sitting. But if others get an opportunity to sit, then why are the remaining two standing? This does not look good. Everyone should have equal rights,” he said.
In fact, every time while objecting to Partha Chatterjee’s bail plea, the CBI counsel had given the argument of “privileged” and “influential” theory against him.
On Thursday, the bail application of Chatterjee and six others were rejected and all of them were remanded to judicial custody till February 16.

[ad_2]
#Teachers #scam #Judge #agrees #Partha #Chatterjee #privileged
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

February 2, 2023
Retd HC judge to monitor crime branch probe into Odisha minister’s murder case: Official

[ad_1]
Bhubaneswar: A former Orissa High Court judge will monitor the police crime branch investigation into the murder of health minister Naba Kishore Das, an official said on Wednesday.
The home department had earlier requested the Orissa High Court to name a judge to monitor the investigation being carried out by the crime branch of the police.
The administration had made such a request to the high court to “maintain transparency in the investigation” in the wake of a demand for an impartial inquiry into the incident, a home department official said.
“The high court suggested the state government to engage Justice (Retd) J P Das to supervise and monitor the probe,” he said.
The state government had earlier announced the crime branch inquiry into the incident immediately after the state health minister was murdered.
Das, 60, breathed his last on January 29 evening, hours after he was shot by a policeman at Gandhi Chhak in Brajrajnagar area of Jharsuguda district, where he had gone to attend an event.
Earlier, the opposition BJP had demanded a CBI probe into the incident, claiming that the “Odisha police could not deliver justice as a policeman was the prime accused in the case”.
The Congress also demanded a court-monitored special investigation team to probe into the incident or a judicial inquiry.

Meanwhile, the Odisha assembly informed the Election Commission that the Jharsuguda assembly seat fell vacant after the death of Das on Sunday.
According to norms, an assembly or Lok Sabha constituency cannot remain vacant for more than six months, the official said.
“As the election to the Odisha assembly is due next year, a by-poll to Jharsuguda seat may be held. The EC will take the final call,” he added.
[ad_2]
#Retd #judge #monitor #crime #branch #probe #Odisha #ministers #murder #case #Official
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

February 1, 2023
Federal judge blocks more of New Jersey’s new gun carry law

[ad_1]
The new law, which Gov. Phil Murphy signed in December, revamped the state’s gun carry application process and requirements, and established “sensitive places” where guns could not be carried. The law was in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in June which drastically expanded the scope of who could carry guns outside the home.
A legal challenge was filed immediately after Murphy signed the measure into law.
New York enacted a similar law prohibiting where guns can be carried, but that law is also the subject of ongoing litigation.
Gun rights groups did not get everything they sought from Bumb. For example, the judge said the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the prohibition of guns being carried in zoos, medical facilities, airports and on movie sets. Gun rights groups also wanted her to block the prohibition of carrying guns on playgrounds. Bumb denied that request, declaring that playgrounds were analogous to schools — area courts have suggested guns cannot be carried.
Challenges to those provisions of the law, however, are expected to resurface in later phases of the litigation.
“This marks the beginning of the end for Governor Murphy’s blatantly unconstitutional new carry law, which is going down in flames,” Scott Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, said in a statement. “Murphy has clearly demonstrated that constitutional issues are indeed above his pay grade.”
In her 46-page opinion, Bumb, sitting in Camden, wrote that the state failed to provide evidence that some “sensitive places” defined in the law were analogous to “a historical tradition of firearm regulation,” the legal standard for bearing guns being carried somewhere.
Democratic leaders have insisted the new law is consistent with the constitution and the Supreme Court’s June ruling. Senate President Nick Scutari and Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin, who played a key role in crafting the law, had their motion to intervene in the case to defend the law approved on Monday.

“Our law pursues common sense boundaries that keep dangerous weapons out of places of learning and recreation where there are children, families, and folks going about their lives in peace,” Coughlin said in a statement. “I am disappointed, but we have joined the lawsuit to ensure our voice is heard in the legal process and look forward to the full law taking effect to keep our communities safe.”
In separate statements, spokespeople for Murphy and Attorney General Matt Platkin also said they were “disappointed” by Bumb’s ruling.
“We are disappointed that the court invalidated common-sense restrictions on the right to carry firearms in public, which are fully consistent with the Second Amendment,” Murphy spokesperson Tyler Jones said. “We look forward to being able to appeal the ruling and are confident that it will be reversed.”
“We are disappointed that the court has undermined important and longstanding protections against firearms violence in our public parks and in casinos,” Platkin said. “Today’s order is bad for public safety and inconsistent with the Second Amendment. But these orders remain temporary, and we look forward to pressing our case, including ultimately on appeal.”
[ad_2]
#Federal #judge #blocks #Jerseys #gun #carry #law
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

January 31, 2023
SC judge recuses from hearing Punjab govt plea against bail to Majithia

[ad_1]
New Delhi: Supreme Court judge Justice Surya Kant on Monday recused himself from hearing a Punjab government plea challenging the high court order, which granted bail to Shiromani Akali Dal leader and former minister Bikram Singh Majithia in a drug case.
The matter was listed for Monday before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and J.K. Maheshwari.
As soon as the matter came up for hearing, Justice Surya Kant said he was part of the high court bench which passed directions to set up a special task force to investigate the matter.
Majithia, the brother-in-law of SAD President Sukhbir Singh Badal and brother of former Union minister Harsimrat Kaur Badal, had been lodged in the Patiala jail onFebruary 24 last year.
The Punjab government, represented by senior advocate Shyam Divan, moved the apex court challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court order dated August 10, 2022.
The bench ordered: “Let the matter be listed before a bench in which one of us (Justice Kant) is not a member.”
Granting bail to Majithia, the high court had observed that there were “reasonable grounds” to believe that he is not guilty. Majithia was released after spending more than five months in the Patiala jail in the drug case.
However, the high court had clarified that the trial court should proceed independently of the observations made by it. Majithia was booked on the basis of a 2018 report of the anti-drug special task force (STF) into a drug racket in the state.

Subscribe us on
[ad_2]
#judge #recuses #hearing #Punjab #govt #plea #bail #Majithia
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

January 30, 2023