Surya Kant News

₹29,000-crore liability for unsettled cases.A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan reaffirmed that landowners whose land was acquired for highway projects between 1997 and 2015 are entitled to extra compensation, known as solatium, and interest, even for past acquisitions.The apex court maintained that financial implications of the judgment, estimated at around ₹29,000-crore by the NHAI—cannot be a ground to deny fair compensation to landowners.“The grant of solatium and interest cannot be made contingent upon the magnitude of the financial burden. The Constitutional guarantee of just compensation cannot be diluted on that basis.

Subscribe to enjoy similar stories.NEW DELHI: Next week, the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant will start hearing arguments for and against India’s first-ever data privacy law. After five separate public interest litigation petitions filed in February challenged the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, these hearings starting 13 May could determine the future of what companies and government bodies can do with the personal data of 1.4 billion people.Both the Centre and the litigators have deployed batteries of top lawyers.

School textbooks rarely get recalled after their rollout, but it happened this week with a social science book withdrawn by India’s National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), a government institution. Of the 38 copies sold on Monday at an NCERT counter in Delhi, 16 had been taken back by Wednesday, as reported, with UPI data trails being sought to retrieve a few proving hard to trace. This recall followed a swift order from the education ministry in response to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant’s objection to a part on “corruption in the judiciary.” A thin online sample suggests two kinds of reactions popped up on social media to the court’s intervention.

At one level, the Supreme Court’s (SC) chastisement last week of political parties and elected governments announcing freebies and direct cash transfers to woo voters ahead of elections might smack of judicial over-reach.Under India’s Constitution, all three arms of the state—the legislature, executive and judiciary—are required and expected to maintain a delicate balance without stepping on each other’s turf. However, a closer look at the object lesson delivered by the apex court to our political class on the long-term cost of such fiscal irresponsibility offers no reason to level that charge.

Subscribe to enjoy similar stories. Piramal Pharma Ltd has moved the Supreme Court against a Gujarat Pollution Control Board order directing the immediate closure of its Dahej manufacturing unit over alleged environmental violations. The company is also contesting a direction allowing the encashment of a ₹15 lakh bank guarantee.

Subscribe to enjoy similar stories. The week-long disruption at IndiGo—India’s largest airline—resulted in more than 1,500 flight cancellations and widespread delays across major airports, prompting the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) to issue a show-cause notices to chief executive officer (CEO) Pieter Elbers and other executives for failing to ensure reliable operations. The crisis has deeper roots in a decade-long legal dispute over the rights of pilots to regulated work hours and strict enforcement of fatigue-mitigation norms.

Centre for Public Interest Litigation, also sought direction of the court mandating that the CAG shall be appointed by the President in consultation with an independent and neutral selection committee comprising of the prime minister, the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) and the Chief Justice of India and in a transparent manner. It said that the direction for appointment of CAG should be similar to the appointment of other bodies including Information Commissions and the Central Vigilance Commission. The PIL will be taken up for hearing on Monday by a bench of justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh. The plea filed through advocate Prashant Bhushan contended that the present mode of appointment of the CAG, which is done solely by the executive i.e. by the prime minister who handpicks any individual and recommends his name to the President for appointment, is unconstitutional as it is violative of Article 14 and several basic features of the Constitution. «The appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India solely by the executive and the Prime Minister of India undermines the independence of the office of the CAG, suffers from grave conflict of interest and thereby is detrimental to good governance and democracy in India. It is also manifestly arbitrary, detrimental to institutional integrity and violates several basic features of the constitution,» the plea said.

Supreme Court on Thursday recommended the appointment of Calcutta High Court judge Justice Joymalya Bagchi as a judge of the Supreme Court. The five-member Collegium, headed by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, noted that no Calcutta High Court judge rose to become the Chief Justice of India since the retirement of Justice Altamas Kabir on July 18, 2013. The Collegium also took into consideration the fact that the Calcutta High Court has only one representation in the Supreme Court bench at present. If the Collegium's recommendation is cleared by the Centre, Justice Bagchi would have a tenure of more than six years at the top court during which he will also serve as the Chief Justice of India.

Expressing concern: The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed concern over ego clashes between IAS and IPS/IFS (forest service) officers. Speaking from his experience as a government lawyer and a judge for over two decades, senior SC Judge BR Gavai shared with solicitor general Tushar Mehta that there has always been a «conflict» between them. Justice Gavai said that IAS officers always show their «supremacy» over IPS and IFS officers. The development took place during a hearing pertaining to the omnibus forest protection matter. Displeasure with High Court The Supreme Court has recorded its displeasure with the way certain orders are passed by the Allahabad High Court. A bench headed by justice Abhay Oka on Wednesday disapproved of the way a revision appeal was decided by the high court. Remanding the case back to the Lucknow bench of HC for reconsideration, the top court directed the high court to call for the trial court record before deciding the matter. In January, another bench headed by justice Surya Kant had observed that the functioning of Allahabad High Court has been «worrisome». The bench had also observed that the filing and listing of cases in the Allahabad HC had «collapsed».

Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant referred to the data on pendency of criminal cases in several high courts and said in Allahabad High Court alone there were 63,000 criminal appeals pending.

Supreme Court on Thursday said it was concerned at the functioning of some of the high courts in the country, particularly the Allahabad High Court where filing and listing of cases have «collapsed».

Supreme Court on Wednesday indicated that it may take up the pleas challenging constitutionality of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners Act, 2023, through which the Chief Justice of India was removed from the selection panel appointing election commissioners, on February 4.

SC about a scheduled meeting with septuagenarian farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal, an SC-appointed panel met him at around 3.30 pm on Monday.

Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its judgment on a bail plea by former Trinamool minister Partha Chatterjee in a money laundering case filed by Enforcement Directorate in an alleged cash-for-jobs scam. A bench of justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that Chatterjee cannot claim parity with co-accused since they were not ministers. «On the face of it, you are a corrupt person. What message do you want us to send to society? That corrupt persons can get bail like this?,» justice Kant verbally told the counsel for the former education minister. The bench also found no force in the contention raised by Chatterjee's counsel that former ministers in other money laundering cases have been granted bail by the top court.

Supreme Court on Wednesday cautioned courts against making comments that may be construed as «misogynistic» or directed towards a particular «gender or community» and said no part of Indian territory can be called Pakistan. The apex court's strong observations came as it closed the suo motu proceedings over Karnataka High Court judge Justice V Srishananda's alleged objectionable comments during court proceedings. The Supreme Court also noted that he had apologised for his observations during open court proceedings on September 21. A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud observed that since Justice Srishananda was not a party to proceedings before it, «we desist from making any further observations save and except to express our serious concern about both the reference to gender and to a segment of the community». The top court on September 20 took suo motu cognisance of the judge's comments against a woman lawyer during court proceedings in a case and his reference to a Muslim-majority area in Bengaluru as «Pakistan» in another.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal was elected as the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) following the association's elections. Senior advocates Adish C Aggarwala, Pradeep Kumar Rai, Priya Hingorani, along with advocates Tripurari Ray and Neeraj Srivastava were also competing for the presidency. According to PTI sources, Sibal garnered more than 1,000 votes, while Rai received over 650 votes. Earlier, the top court directed that some posts in the executive committee of the SCBA be reserved for women members.

Bar and Bench, Pradeep Kumar Rai received 689 votes. This is the fourth time, Kapil Sibal will serve as the president of the SCBA. Sibal had announced his candidature for for the post of Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president on May 8.

suit against the Centre under Article 131 of the Constitution, contesting the Union's norms on borrowing limits and highlighting the unique financial landscape of the state. The bench, comprising justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan, today said the Centre had already agreed to provide around ₹13,000 crore to the state government for financial assistance.

Supreme Court on Tuesday directed the Ajit Pawar faction of NCP to issue a public declaration that the use of «clock» symbol by it for campaigning in the Lok Sabha and assembly elections is «sub-judice and subject to the outcome» of the challenge by the Sharad Pawar faction to the decision of Election Commission of India. ECI had recognised the Ajit faction as the real NCP. Aggrieved by ECI's decision, the Sharad faction had moved the apex court. A bench headed by justice Surya Kant directed the Ajit faction to issue a public notice in newspapers in English, Marathi and Hindi editions. The bench has ordered that such a declaration should accompany all advertisements to be issued by NCP. «Such declaration shall be incorporated in every template, advertisement, audio or video clip issued» on behalf of NCP, the court ordered. The Supreme Court bench also ordered that a «man blowing Turah (trumpet)» symbol shall not be allotted to any other political party, independent candidate and the same shall not be used in any manner by the Ajit faction. ECI and the Maharashtra State Election Commission have been directed to take necessary actions in this regard.

Chennai's famous mosque in Koyambedu, SC says that unauthorised religious structures on public land can never be a venue for preaching religion. «Move the mosque somewhere else, illegal encroachment in the name of religion will not be permitted, SC added. The apex court, presided over by justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan, underscored the obligation of states and high courts to ensure the eradication of such encroachments, regardless of whether they are temples, churches, mosques, or gurdwaras. The directive came in response to an appeal concerning a mosque unlawfully erected on public land in Chennai, Tamil Nadu. The Madras High Court had previously ordered the removal of the mosque, a decision contested by the Hidaya Muslim Welfare Trust, represented by senior advocate S Nagamuthu.