English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Collegium recommends making 37 additional judges in 5 high courts permanent

Published

on

NRI admission to minority college: SC refers case back to high court

The Supreme Court Collegium of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices J Chelameswar and Ranjan Gogoi has unanimously recommended to the Centre to appoint 37 additional judges – including five women judges – serving across five high courts as permanent judges.

The decision of the Collegium comes at a time when there is uncertainty over whether or not the Centre will accept its earlier recommendation of appointing two judges to the Supreme Court.

The Collegium had last month unanimously recommended to the Centre to elevate Uttarakhand Chief Justice KM Joseph as judge of the apex court. It had also recommended the appointment of senior advocate Indu Malhotra as a Supreme Court judge; if the Centre accepts this recommendation then Malhotra would become the first ever woman lawyer to be elevated straight from the Bar to the Supreme Court bench. However, it is learnt that the Centre is reluctant to accept these recommendations, particularly the elevation of Justice Joseph, of the Collegium.

On Friday, the Collegium passed five resolutions recommending that the 37 additional judges in the high courts of Allahabad, Kerala, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Bombay be made permanent.

According to the Collegium’s resolution with regard to appointments at the Bombay High Court, additional judges Justices Prakash Deu Naik, Makarand Subhash Karnik, Swapna Sanjiv Joshi, Kishor Kalesh Sonawane, Sangitrao Shamrao Patil, and Nutan Dattaram Sardessai, have been recommended to be made permanent. They were appointed as additional judges of the High Court in March 2016.

Though not naming any particular judge from this list, the Collegium’s resolution states: “We have taken note of certain complaints making allegations against some of the above-named recommendees (of the Bombay High Court). We do not see any merit in the aforesaid complaints as the allegations made therein are false, frivolous or without any substance. In our considered view, the said complaints deserve to be ignored, particularly, in the light of positive material on record… the Collegium finds all the above-named Additional Judges suitable for being appointed as Permanent Judges.”

Similarly, the Collegium has recommended that all seven additional judges of the Gujarat High Court be made permanent. Justices RP Dholaria, Ashutosh J Shastri, Biren A Vaishnav, Alpesh Y Kogje, Arvindsingh I Supehia, and BN Karia figure in this list. Further, Justice KJ Thaker, an additional judge from the Gujarat High Court who had been transferred to the Allahabad High Court, has also been recommended to be made a permanent judge and will continue to serve in his current posting.

The Collegium’s resolution with regard to the additional judges of the Gujarat High Court states: “As per record, Dr. Justice K.J. Thaker (who hails from Gujarat High Court and at present is functioning, on transfer, in Allahabad High Court) and Mr. Justice R.P. Dholaria were initially appointed for a period of two years on 4th May, 2013 and their term as Additional Judges had to be extended for a period of one year w.e.f. 4th May, 2015 since at the relevant time permanent vacancies were not available to accommodate them. The record further shows that their term having been further extended for a period of two years is now due to expire on 3rd May, 2018.”

With specific reference to Justice KJ Thaker, the Collegium resolution says: “As regards Dr. Justice K.J. Thaker, the record shows that the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court has forwarded statistics for the period of his tenure in that High Court and has stated inter alia that he has not received any written complaint against Dr. Justice K J Thaker either from the office bearers or members of the Bar Association.” It further adds: “We have taken note of certain complaint/s placed in the file by the Department of Justice as well as those received in the office of Chief Justice of India. Therein, allegations have been made against some of the above-named recommendees (from the Gujarat High Court). We do not see any merit in the aforesaid  complaints as the allegations made therein are found to be false, without any substance or are not supported by any reliable evidence/document. As they do not call for any action, in our considered view, the said complaints deserve to be ignored…”

From the Kerala High Court, the Collegium has decided to recommend that additional judges Justices Sathish Ninan, Devan Ramachandran, P Somarajan, V Shircy, and AM Babu be made permanent judges.

The maximum number of additional judges to be recommended for being made permanent – 10 – are from the Rajasthan High Court.

From the Rajasthan High Court, the Collegium has recommended that Justices Ganga Ram Moolchandani, Deepak Maheshwari, Vijay Kumar Vyas, Goverdhan Bardhar, Pankaj Bhandari, Dinesh Chandra Somani, Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Dinesh Mehta, and Vinit Kumar Mathur be made permanent. The resolution noted that there were “certain complaints making allegations” against some of these judges too but that the Collegium did not see any merit in these complaints that the “complaints deserve to be ignored”.

The additional judges recommended to be made permanent at the Allahabad High Court are: Justices Rajul Bhargava, Siddhartha Varma, Sangeeta Chandra, Daya Shankar Tripathi, Shailendra Kumar Agrawal, Sanjay Harkauli, Krishna Pratap Singh, Rekha Dikshit, and Satya Narain Agnihotri.

Interestingly, while the Collegium of the Allahabad High Court, Uttar Pradesh Governor Ram Naik and Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath had collectively endorsed names of 10 additional judges of the Allahabad High Court to be made permanent, the Supreme Court Collegium has approved only the above mentioned nine judges while holding back the name of Justice Mr. Justice Virendra Kumar-II.

The Collegium’s resolution on the Allahabad High Court judges says: “Taking into consideration the material on record, the recommendation of the High Court Collegium, views of our consultee-colleagues and the report of the Judgment Evaluation Committee, the Collegium finds the above-named Additional Judges, except Mr. Justice Virendra Kumar-II, suitable for being appointed as Permanent Judges. We are of the view that the working of Mr. Justice Virendra Kumar-II as Additional Judge needs to be observed for some more time.”

— With Agency inputs

India News

Can’t lathicharge a peaceful protest, says Supreme Court

Published

on

By

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Delhi Police action leading to lathicharges during the student protest at Jantar Mantar on July 20.

The bench of Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana observed that a peaceful protest can’t be net with a lathicharge. The court made the remarks while hearing petitions against excessive force used by Delhi Police against students protesting irregularities in the NEET-UG 2026 examination and other public examinations.

The court said the right to peaceful and lawful protest is under the protection of the Constitution. The court observed that the presence of a protest can’t be a ground for police action and said that any allegation of police excess has to be independently examined.

The petitions concern the events of July 20, when thousands of students and supporters of the Cockroach Janta Party tried to march from at Jantar Mantar to Parliament as the Monsoon Session opened. The protesters were demanding action on paper leaks, examination system reforms and government accountability.

Police said they had stopped the march because of security concerns and restrictions in central Delhi. There was a clash later and police used tear gas and lathi charge to disperse the crowd. Over a 100 protesters and a similar number of police were injured in the incident.

The petitioners had sought an independent probe into the police action during the hearing. They also demanded the retention of CCTV footage, body-camera recordings and other electronic evidence, as well as compensation for those injured in the crackdown.

The case comes amid a nationwide debate over reforms of examinations and the handling of student protests. The Centre has brought in legislative measures to strengthen anti-paper leak laws, even as student organizations continue to demand greater accountability.

Continue Reading

India News

Bill against paper leaks eclipsed by Opposition push for Amit Shah reply

Published

on

By

Amit Shah

The Monsoon Session of Parliament witnessed Opposition-Government scenes on Monday as Union Minister Dr. Jitendra Singh introduced the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 in the Lok Sabha.

The Bill aims to strengthen laws against examination paper leaks and organized cheating following the NEET-UG 2026 controversy.

During the discussions, the Opposition Congress demanded Home Minister Amit Shah’s reply to allegations of police excesses on July 20 during the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) march to Parliament. Over 100 students were treated for injuries ranging from fractures to pellet wounds. CRPF personnel have confirmed seven rounds of pellets were fired and five rounds were fired at the students.

Congress leader Pawan Khera said such force should not have been used against the students and the Home Minister must reply to the allegations. Following disruptions, the House was adjourned several times.

The legislation seeks to impose stricter penalties for paper leaks, organized examination fraud, and other unfair practices. It also provides for faster investigations, time-bound trials, and the establishment of a STF to investigate major examination-related offenses. According to the government, the amendments are intended to improve transparency, protect the credibility of public examinations, and restore students’ confidence in the system.

The Congress and several Opposition parties demanded a detailed discussion in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, arguing that the government must be held accountable for both the examination irregularities and the police response.

The debate comes days after the resignation of former Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, following weeks of nationwide protests over paper leaks and examination malpractice. While the Centre has announced reforms and introduced the amendment Bill, Opposition leaders maintain that legislative changes alone are insufficient without fixing responsibility for the controversy and the police action against students.

The government defended its response, stating that it has initiated investigations into examination fraud, introduced stricter legal provisions, and taken steps to strengthen the security of public examinations. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju urged MPs to participate in the debate and allow the House to function smoothly instead of disrupting proceedings.

Continue Reading

India News

E20 Janta Party set to follow in CJP footsteps

Published

on

By

Excise duty on petrol

After the success of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), a new outfit, calling itself the E20 Janta Party, has come into being.

It trended across social media platforms on Thursday after the CJP claimed victory following the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, with supporters applauding the outcome as a major milestone in the ongoing student-led movement over alleged NEET-UG examination irregularities.

Thousands of posts, memes and videos flooded social media with users celebrating what they described as the growing influence of the CJP-led agitation. The term “E20 Janta Party” quickly gained traction on X and other platforms as motorists worried over the mixing of ethanol in petrol claimed they would themselves stage protests a la CJP.

Motorists all over India have been protesting against the fuel mixture given that their cars and motorcycles bought earlier had not been tuned for such increase in ethanol ratio. Some have claimed damage, ranging from engine damage to lower mileage. The government has not conceded the engine damage claim but has accepted that mileage may be compromised. Further, they have been agitating for a lowered fuel price for E20 since it has 20% ethanol but the government has shown willingness only to lower prices for the E85 blend which is being introduced slowly.

The public outpouring of support for the anti-NEET protests seems to have egged the anti-E20 people to come out of the woodwork though they have been vocal on social media. The Delhi taxi drivers association is also believed to have lent support to this cause. Transporters are also expected to join the protest slated on August 4 year since there are moves afoot to introduce isobutanol-diesel blend this year.

During the protests at Jantar Mantar, many activists had raised the ethanol issue time and again targeting Road Transport and Highways Minister Nitin Gadkari, an overzealous advocate for ethanol blending.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com