Democratic Institutions

Four sensitive cases listed before this Supreme Court bench were withdrawn https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/four-sensitive-cases-listed-before-this-supreme-court-bench-were-withdrawn 
Accused in politically sensitive cases under the UAPA and PMLA seem to be avoiding a bench that has been rejecting similar bail pleas.

The recent spate of withdrawals of important cases listed before a Bench of Justices Bela Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal has led one to question the possible reasons behind the legal strategy.

1. Umar Khalid: Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal sought permission to withdraw the bail plea. Sibal referred to “changed circumstances” and said he would seek relief in the trial court. The Court permitted him to withdraw the plea.

2. Hany Babu, an accused in the 2018 Bhima Koregaon violence case, withdrew his bail plea from the Supreme Court on May 3, citing a change in circumstances. His counsel had added they would move the High Court afresh for bail.

3. Manik Bhattacharya  The Court allowed Bhattacharya to file a fresh plea with any additional documents before the High Court and asked the High Court to consider the matter afresh and expeditiously.Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra sought to place additional documents on record, but Justice Trivedi remarked that "procedurally no new documents could be relied upon before the Supreme Court if they do not form part of the earlier High Court records."

4.Salim Malik 

In response to protests against matters.. the Supreme Court had clarified that "any attempt of bench and judge hunting will be thwarted" and that the Supreme Court "cannot be a lawyer-driven court".

Does popular morality trump Constitutionally-guaranteed fundamental rights? Justice Renu Agarwal’s track record at the Allahabad High Court would seem to indicate so.

https://scroll.in/article/1065887/an-allahabad-hc-judge-is-using-archaic-morality-norms-to-deny-protection-to-live-in-couples 

Scroll’s analysis of Agarwal’s rulings in almost 400 petitions by couples seeking the High Court’s protection from the threat of violence from the community shows that she granted such orders only to married couples who had registered their marriages and had no first information reports pending against them.

On the other hand, unmarried couples were never granted protection from violence or interference.

In addition, Agarwal has, through her judgments, created the legal requirement that unmarried inter-faith couples may live together only if one of them converts to the religion of the other.

by Vineet Bhalla

09/04/2024

CJI Angry, Warns HC Judge; Very Disturbed by HC Trend https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV9FwrhTUng 

Reserved & wrong: CJI rightly calls out HC judges who waste judicial time by delaying judgments. Will it have an impact?
April 10, 2024 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-editorials/reserved-wrong-cji-rightly-calls-out-hc-judges-who-waste-judicial-time-by-delaying-judgments-will-it-have-an-impact/  

The practice of reserving judgments for months beyond stipulated periods, where judges put off announcing their decisions, long after hearings are over. This delay is entirely on the judge.  Yet, Chandrachud’s initiative, of seeking details from all HCs of cases awaiting verdicts for over 3 months, had an unforeseen fallout. CJI said several judges had hurriedly released cases for ‘fresh hearings’. This meant the entire process must start from scratch – a massive setback, and not just financially –for those who move court. Judges are burdening litigants, to simply avoid their inefficiency getting marked. CJI called it a “waste of judicial time, damaging for principles of judicial efficacy and speedy justice”. As if the egregious practice of inordinate delays wasn’t bad enough, judges, trying to dodge CJI’s initiative, were being deceitful at the workplace. Not for nothing are questions raised on judicial probity.

Under the Constitution, Parliament is entrusted with the responsibility of making laws. At times an easier route to change the legal jurisprudence to sail with the interests of the establishment seems to be through the judiciary. https://countercurrents.org/2024/03/changing-face-of-law-the-judicial-route/ 

 The Covid epidemic and the draconian powers under the Disaster Management Act were opportunistically used to repeal 29 legislations providing protection to workers like the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Factories Act and Minimum Wages Act. However, the judiciary had been changing the very face of industrial jurisprudence over the past thirty years. The courts had been quietly jettisoning well established principles like reinstatement with back wages in cases of wrongful dismissal of workers. The judges moved the law towards “hire and fire policy” being the prerogative of the employers, eroding protections and security of service of workers and employees and refused to interfere in cases of disproportionate punishments like dismissal for trivial acts of misconduct. The principles of ‘Equal work for equal work’ and abolition of contract labor for permanent work were steadily diluted by the courts.

by Rakesh Shukla

08/03/2024