Supreme court justice | Business Upturn

Supreme Court Justice MR Shah suffers heart attack, reportedly critical

News Desk — Thu, 16 Jun 2022 11:00:07 +0000

On Thursday, Supreme Court Justice MR Shah suffered a heart attack. Justice MR Shah is being rushed to the national capital in an air ambulance from Himachal Pradesh, according to reports. The SC Justice is reportedly in a critical state.

Reacting to this, Bharatiya Janata Party spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia tweeted, “Hon’ble Justice MR Shah Judge Supreme Court of India has suffered a heart attack while he was in Himachal Pradesh. Arrangements being made to rush him to Delhi. Praying to God for his speedy recovery.”

Hon'ble Justice MR Shah Judge Supreme Court of India has suffered a heart attack while he was in Himachal Pradesh. Arrangements being made to rush him to Delhi. Praying to God for his speedy recovery. 🙏

— Gaurav Bhatia गौरव भाटिया 🇮🇳 (@gauravbhatiabjp) June 16, 2022

The Supreme Court is coordinating with the Home Ministry to transport him to Delhi via air ambulance for treatment. Justice MR Shah previously served as the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court. He is also a former Gujarat High Court Judge. He will retire on May 15, 2023.

Supreme Court: Resumption of intellectual debate in Parliament, Assemblies is the need of the hour

United News of India (UNI) — Sat, 29 Jan 2022 08:51:21 +0000

The Supreme Court on Friday said that Parliament and Assemblies are becoming insensitive places and to get out of such a hopeless situation, it was necessary to take corrective steps towards restoring the dignity and standard of intellectual debate of the highest order. “It is high time that corrective steps are taken by all concerned and the elected representatives would do enough to restore the glory and the standard of the intellectual debates, which should be of the highest order, as have been chronicled of their predecessors,” said a bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar and also comprising Justice C T Ravikumar. The Court made these observations while setting aside the indefinite suspension of 12 BJP MLAs from Maharashtra Assembly, after noting that such suspension could be only limited to the Monsoon session 2021. This was not a case of mere procedural irregularity committed by the Legislature, but of substantive illegality, noted the Bench, adding that Parliament or state legislatures are not a place to create a ruckus, but a place where policies and laws are enacted for the welfare of citizens. The Court said, “To become a world leader and self-reliant/ dependent, the quality of debate in the House should be of the highest standard. The debate should be directed towards the internal, constitutional and federal issues, being faced by the common man.” The Top Court also made it clear that aggression during the debates has no place in the setting of a country governed by the Rule of Law. Even a complex issue needs to be resolved in a congenial atmosphere by observing collegiate and showing full respect and defence towards each other. This would also be violative of basic democratic values, allowing a coalition government with a thin majority to manipulate numbers, it added. “Anything in excess than for a day or the remainder of the ongoing Session, would not be necessary much less rational exercise of the inherent power of the Assembly,” the bench said. The Apex Court passed the order on a joint appeal filed by the 12 suspended BJP MLAs, led by Ashish Shelar. Calling the suspension unconstitutional and arbitrary, the Bench observed, “It is a drastic measure trenching upon imposing penalty more than disciplinary or corrective measure, beyond the limited inherent powers of the House.” The Bench said, “We have no hesitation in concluding that the resolution suffers from the vice of being unconstitutional, grossly illegal and irrational to the extent of period of suspension beyond the remainder of the concerned Session.” The Court in its judgement held that the suspension could have only been for the ongoing Monsoon session in July ’21. The Supreme Court had on January 19, reserved its order on a plea of 12 Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Member of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) from Maharashtra challenging their one-year suspension from the state Legislative Assembly for allegedly misbehaving with the presiding officer. On July 22 last year, they had filed the plea in the top court, challenging the resolution passed by the Assembly to suspend them for one year. The 12 suspended members are- Ashish Shelar, Sanjay Kute, Abhimanyu Pawar, Girish Mahajan, Atul Bhatkhalkar, Parag Alavani, Harish Pimpale, Yogesh Sagar, Jay Kumar Rawat, Narayan Kuche, Ram Satpute and Bunty Bhangdia. They were suspended on July 5, 2021, from the Assembly for one year after the State government had accused them of “misbehaving” with presiding officer Bhaskar Jadhav in the Speaker’s chamber. The motion to suspend these MLAs was moved by state Parliamentary Affairs Minister Anil Parab and passed by a voice vote. During the course of the arguments, the Apex Court had said suspension from Legislative Assembly for one year should be linked with some purpose and there has to be an “overpowering” reason that the member should not be allowed to even attend the next session. The Bench had observed that the resolution passed by the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly suspending 12 BJP MLAs, is prima facie “unconstitutional” as such a suspension cannot operate beyond six months owing to a constitutional bar. It had said explicit outer limit as per the Constitution for an MLA to be absent from his seat is 60 days, after which the seat is deemed to be vacated. “How long can seat remain vacant? At the most six months, the outer limit can be there. Here we are talking about a constituency being represented in a parliamentary form of democracy? Is this not hitting the basic structure of the constitution when the 12 constituencies are unrepresented?” the Bench had asked. “We can say that the decision to suspension can only operate till 6 months and later than that it will be hit by the constitutional bar,” it had added. The Bench had also taken exception to the arguments of senior advocate Aryama Sundaram, for Maharashtra Assembly, that the House has absolute powers to frame its own rules including on period of suspension of its members. To this, the bench had then said that even if the Assembly rules are read in consonance with the Constitution, the maximum bar could be for six months only. It further had opined that the decision of suspension is even worse than expelling them since no one can then represent the constituents of the suspended representatives in the Assembly. The court favoured a graded approach in dealing with members of the House, saying suspension beyond the Session would be bordering on punishing not only the member concerned, but also inevitably impact the legitimate rights of his constituency.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Business Upturn staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Tamil Nadu won’t be able to form a panel to go into impact of NEET without apex court nod

Govindraj Muttepawar — Tue, 29 Jun 2021 14:53:48 +0000

Madras High Court have noticed in Tuesday that the Tamil Nadu Government cannot constitute a committee for going Into the impact of the NEET aspirants wanting to do MBBS from the socially Backward classes on India without leave from the Supreme Court.

The bench of the Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Sethikumar Ramamoorthy said that there could be a little room for the state for setting up any commitee for the purpose of ascertaining whether the NEET-based admision processes has been prejudicially affecting the socially backward students on India.

The court had made this observation by studying the basis of the submissions which were made by the petitioner that any recommendations made by the committee cannot be implemented in the view of of the order passed by the the supreme Court on the national eligibility entrance test (NEET). After this statement the court gave Tamil Nadu Government which time to respond to this plea.

The PIL moved by BJP state secretary K Nagarajan seeking to quash the order which was issued by Tamil Nadu Government. When the plea came up for hearing, the advocate R Shunmugasundaram argued that the constitution for the committee was a policy decision for the state backed by the election manifesto by the ruling party.

Before adjourning the session the bench said that maybe if this is contrary to the Supreme court order, then this plea cannot be permitted.

SC: Public places cannot be occupied indefinitely for protests

Arnav Dogra — Sat, 13 Feb 2021 06:50:39 +0000

The Supreme Court today dismissed a review petition on the anti-CAA, NRC protests which were being held in Delhi’s Shaheen Bagh in 2019-20 saying that the right to protest and express dissent comes with certain duties and cannot be held “anytime and everywhere”.

SC had in the previous ruling had condemned the Shaheen Bagh protests and ruled them illegal stating that, “we have to make it clear that public places cannot be occupied indefinitely whether in Shaheen Bagh or elsewhere. These sort of protests are not acceptable and authorities should act and make sure to keep such spaces free from obstruction.”

An activist group of about 12 individuals had submitted a review petition on this ruling.

A three-judge bench of Justices SK Kaul, Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari in dismissal of the plea stated, “the right to protest cannot be anytime and everywhere. There may be some spontaneous protests but in case of prolonged dissent or protest, there cannot be continued occupation of public place affecting the rights of others.”

The SC has consistently maintained that protests are very important of a democratic country but a protest that has been happening for a longer duration can only be displayed in designated areas adding that any protest that hampers the rights of others is to be deemed illegal.

US Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Pioneer of women’s legal rights dies at 87

Anjana Krishna — Sat, 19 Sep 2020 06:16:47 +0000

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a judge of ‘historic stature’ and a champion of gender equality died on Friday, the Supreme court said. She passed away following a battle with metastatic cancer of the pancreas, in her Washington home, surrounded by close family members. She was 87.

“We at the Supreme Court have lost a cherished colleague. Today we mourn but with confidence that future generations will remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as we knew her, a tireless and resolute champion of justice,”Chief Justice John Roberts said.

Ginsburg is credited with leading the legal fight for women’s rights movement in the 1970s and was the second female justice in the history of the top court. Popularly known as ‘RGB’ or the ‘notorious RGB’, she had become both a feminist and a legal icon in the 80s. Her life has inspired a lot of books and movies too.

The outspoken associate justice also criticized President Trump for his actions and policies regularly and her death is set to cause a political turmoil over the selection of her successor with Trump seeking to appoint a conservative judge.