Surya Kant News

Supreme Court on Saturday stayed all proceedings before the Calcutta High Court in a matter relating to alleged irregularities in the issuance of reserved category certificates and admission of MBBS candidates in state-run medical colleges and hospitals in West Bengal. In a special hearing, a five-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, Surya Kant, and Aniruddha Bose issued notice to the West Bengal government and the original petitioner in the case.

Also Read: Bharat Jodo Yatra faced problems in Assam, now in Bengal': Congress complains of hurdles in organising gatherings in WB The other four members of the bench will be justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Aniruddha Bose. The case title "In Re: Orders of Calcutta High Court dated 24.01.2024 AND 25.01.2024 and Ancillary Issues," arose out of some orders passed by Calcutta High Court's single judge bench and division bench disagreeing with each other.

Supreme Court on Monday upheld the Centre's decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution, which conferred special status on the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir, ruling that it was a temporary provision and that the President had the power to revoke it. A five-judge Constitution bench also unanimously upheld the Centre's decision, of August 5, 2019, to divide the former state into two Union Territories of J&K and Ladakh, while directing that statehood be restored to J&K «at the earliest» and that elections be held to its legislative assembly by September next year. The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, held that «Article 370 was a feature of asymmetric federalism and not sovereignty». It delivered three judgments, one authored by the CJI, with inputs from justices BR Gavai and Surya Kant, and two separate yet concurring judgments by justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sanjiv Khanna. 'No Internal Sovereignty for J&K' The bench ruled that the former state did not «retain any element of sovereignty after the execution of instrument of accession and issuance of the Proclamation (November 25, 1949) by which the Constitution of India was adopted» and that J&K does not have «internal sovereignty which is distinguishable from the powers and privileges enjoyed by other states in the country». It ruled that «the President in exercise of power under Article 370(3) can unilaterally issue a notification that Article 370 ceases to exist».

Also Read: SC upholds reorganisation of Ladakh as Union Territory The top court said no maladies in the exercise of power under Article 370(3) by the President to issue an August 2019 order. “Thus, we hold the exercise of Presidential power to be valid." “The power of the President under Article 370(3) to issue a notification that Article 370 ceases to exist subsists even after the dissolution of the J&K Constituent Assembly. The recommendation of the Constituent Assembly was not binding on the President.

Article 370 verdict LIVE updates: PM Modi terms SC verdict on abrogation of Article 370 historic 1) The Supreme Court has upheld the central government's decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution, while holding that Jammu & Kashmir has no internal sovereignty different from other states of the country. CJI DY Chandrachud, while writing the judgment for himself, Justices Gavai and Surya Kant, observed, "All provisions of the Indian Constitution can be applied to J-K… We hold the exercise of presidential power to issue constitutional order abrogating Article 370 of Constitution as valid," 2) The 5 judge bench of the apex court also upheld the government's decision to carve out the union territory of Ladakh from the erstwhile state of Jammu & Kashmir.

Supreme Court and once they take oath, the top court will function with its full strength of 34 judges. Delhi High Court Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Rajasthan High Court Chief Justice Augustine George Masih and Gauhati High Court Chief Justice Sandeep Mehta were appointed as top court judges.

Supreme Court on Tuesday referred to a seven-judge bench the issue of reconsidering the correctness of a verdict delivered by a five-judge bench which had said that unstamped arbitration agreements are not enforceable in law. A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud passed the order while considering a curative petition in which the matter regarding the need for reconsideration of the five-judge bench judgement delivered on April 25 this year was raised.

Supreme Court on Monday relieved the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case, saying it has already completed its probe and submitted a charge sheet in the trial court. The case pertains to the incident of violence on October 3, 2021, in which eight people, including four farmers, were killed in Lakhimpur Kheri district's Tikunia. Issuing the order on Monday, a bench of justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta also said that if there arises any necessity to reconstitute the SIT, an appropriate order shall be passed. The apex court had appointed Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain, a former judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, to supervise on a day-to-day basis the Uttar Pradesh Police SIT's probe into the case. Three senior IPS officers, S B Shirodkar, Deepinder Singh and Padmaja Chauhan, were part of the SIT. The top court on July 11 had extended till September 26 the interim bail of Union minister Ajay Kumar Mishra's son Ashish Mishra, who is facing prosecution in the case. The violence had erupted when farmers were protesting against Uttar Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Keshav Prasad Maurya's visit to the area. Four farmers were moved down by an SUV.

Supreme Court of India on the twelfth day of hearing petitions challenging the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019 granting special status to Jammu and Kashmir noted that the reorganisation of the state was not ‘one of a kind’ as was pointed out by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. The five judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant noted that the case of Jammu and Kashmir bifurcation was no different than other Indian states that have undergone the same.

NEW DELHI : Underlining that restoration of democracy in Jammu and Kashmir is “very important", the Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Union government to indicate a timeframe to restore the statehood of J&K, prompting the Centre to seek 48 hours for making what it called a “positive statement" in this regard. “The government has to make that statement before us that its (J&K’s) progression back to state has to take place.

Jammu and Kashmir. On Tuesday the Indian government informed the apex court that that the union territory status of Jammu and Kashmir is not a “permanent thing". "The union territory status of Jammu and Kashmir is not a permanent thing.

Centre's submission on pleas challenging the abrogation of Article 370 that the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir is «subordinate» to the Indian Constitution, which is on a higher pedestal.

Article 35A of the Indian Constitution that was scrapped in 2019, ‘took away fundamental rights’. The CJI made the comments during the hearing of petition challenging the abrogation of Jammu and Kashmir's special status. A Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai and Surya Kant for the eleventh day on Monday, continued hearing petitions challenging the Centre's decision to repeal the special status of Jammu and Kashmir by diluting Article 370 and Article 35A.

Supreme Court said on Thursday the surrender of Jammu and Kashmir's sovereignty to India was «absolutely complete» with the accession of the former princely state in October 1947, and it was «really difficult» to say that Article 370 of the Constitution, which accorded special status to the erstwhile state, was permanent in nature. Observing that once Article 1 of the Constitution says India shall be a Union of States, including Jammu and Kashmir, the transfer of sovereignty was complete in all respects, a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said.

Supreme Court was told on Wednesday. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud was told by senior advocate Gopal Subramanium, appearing for petitioner Muzaffar Iqbal Khan, that the Jammu and Kashmir constituent assembly did not want to abrogate Article 370 and instead permitted its continuance.

Supreme Court has stayed a Madras High Court order that declared as «null and void» the 2019 election of expelled AIADMK member P Ravindhranath from Tamil Nadu's Theni parliamentary constituency. A bench of justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta admitted the appeal filed by Ravindhranath against the high court order for hearing and issued notice to P Milany, who filed the petition challenging his election from the Theni constituency.

abrogate Article 370 even when the people of Jammu and Kashmir want it, the Supreme Court asked on Thursday and wondered if the now repealed provision can't be touched will it not amount to creating a «new category» beyond the basic structure of the Constitution. Hearing for the second day a clutch of petitions challenging the Centre's 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution that accorded special status to Jammu and Kashmir, a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud wanted to know how the provision could be revoked in the absence of a constituent assembly.

constituent assembly exists there? The Supreme Court Wednesday put this question to the petitioners who have challenged the abrogation of the constitutional provision that bestowed special status on the erstwhile state. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud today commenced hearing a batch of pleas challenging the Centre's August 5, 2019 decision to abrogate Article 370, a move that had come in for vicious attack by some major opposition parties but earned fulsome praise from those supporting the BJP.

Supreme Court on Tuesday said it will commence final hearing of a clutch of petitions challenging abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution — which granted special status to Jammu & Kashmir — on a daily basis from August 2. A Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud also allowed bureaucrat Shah Faesal and activist Shehla Rashid to withdraw their petitions challenging the 2019 government decision.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it will begin day-to-day hearings from 2 August on a clutch of petitions pertaining to the nullification of Article 370, and recorded a statement by the Union government that it will not rely upon the contents of an affidavit filed a day ago to bring on record the scenario in Jammu and Kashmir since the move. Observing that the challenge to the abrogation of Article 370—which conferred special status on J&K until August 2019— is a “pure question of constitutional validity", a five-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y.

The Supreme Court collegium headed by chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud Wednesday recommends Telengana High Court chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Kerala High Court chief justice S Venkatanarayana Bhatti for the appointment as judges in the apex court. The Supreme Court collegium, which also comprises Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai and Surya Kant, took the decision in a meeting and the resolution was uploaded on the top court website today.