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

Veeramani POCSO case: Vijay questions Stalin over earlier probe

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Vijay has questioned MK Stalin over the handling of the Veeramani POCSO case, while Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected anyone.

Published

on

Actor Vijay

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president C Joseph Vijay has questioned DMK president MK Stalin over the handling of the POCSO case involving Gem Granites founder R Veeramani. The political exchange follows renewed investigation into allegations involving minor girls.

Vijay’s remarks came as the ruling TVK stepped up its questions about how the case was handled during the previous DMK government. The party’s IT wing has alleged that the earlier investigation was weakened and questioned why a final report was filed.

The allegations have been rejected by the DMK. Stalin has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to protect anyone in the case and has called the allegations false and defamatory.

What did Vijay say about the Veeramani case?

Vijay questioned Stalin over the handling of the case and demanded an explanation from the former chief minister.

The TVK has specifically questioned why action was not taken against Veeramani during the previous administration and why the earlier investigation resulted in a closure report.

The party has also raised questions about the role of officials involved in the earlier investigation. These are political allegations made by the TVK and have not been established as facts.

What is the Veeramani POCSO case?

The case concerns allegations of sexual abuse of minors involving R Veeramani, the founder of Gem Granites.

The case came under renewed scrutiny after a special POCSO court rejected an earlier closure report and ordered further investigation. The expanded probe has subsequently identified additional alleged survivors who were minors at the time of the alleged offences, according to current reporting.

The investigation is also examining the circumstances surrounding the earlier probe and whether there were any lapses in how the case was handled.

What has MK Stalin said?

Stalin has rejected allegations that the previous DMK government protected Veeramani.

He has said that no order was issued by the DMK government to shield anyone in the case. Stalin has also said that everyone responsible for the alleged offences, including anyone who aided or attempted to protect the accused, should face the law.

The DMK president has further said that the focus should remain on securing justice for the affected girls rather than making political allegations.

Why has the case become a political issue?

The Veeramani case has become the subject of a political dispute between the ruling TVK and the DMK over the handling of the earlier investigation.

The TVK is questioning the previous government’s handling of the case, while the DMK has denied that it intervened to protect the accused.

At this stage, claims about political interference or deliberate weakening of the earlier investigation should be treated as allegations unless established by the ongoing investigation or judicial proceedings.

Continue Reading

India News

Women wrestlers challenge Brij Bhushan’s acquittal in sexual harassment case

Four women wrestlers have challenged the acquittal of former WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and co-accused Vinod Tomar in a sexual harassment case.

Published

on

Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh

Four women wrestlers have approached a Delhi court challenging the acquittal of former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief and BJP leader Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in a sexual harassment case.

The wrestlers have also challenged the acquittal of co-accused Vinod Tomar. The matter is scheduled to be heard by a Special Judge at the Rouse Avenue Courts.

The appeal challenges the order passed by an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on August 3, 2026, when Brij Bhushan and Tomar were acquitted in the case.

Wrestlers challenge court’s reasoning

In their appeal, the wrestlers have argued that the acquittal order is legally unsustainable and that the evidence was not assessed appropriately.

They have also alleged that the order relied on assumptions about how victims of sexual assault and harassment were expected to behave instead of assessing the evidence and circumstances of the complainants.

The challenge seeks judicial scrutiny of the findings that resulted in the acquittal of Brij Bhushan and Tomar.

Brij Bhushan was acquitted in August

The Rouse Avenue court acquitted Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh on August 3 in the sexual harassment case involving women wrestlers. The court’s decision followed consideration of the evidence and statements presented during the proceedings.

The case had emerged after several women wrestlers accused the former WFI chief of sexual harassment. The allegations had led to a major protest by wrestlers in 2023.

The latest appeal means the acquittal is now being challenged before a higher court.

Continue Reading

India News

Congress protests against Gyanesh Kumar, demands Election chief’s resignation

Congress workers took to the streets against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, with protests and demonstrations held over the party’s allegations concerning the Election Commission.

Published

on

Congress stepped up its campaign against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, with party workers taking to the streets and demanding his resignation amid the ongoing row over the Election Commission.

The protests followed repeated criticism by Congress leaders of the poll panel and its functioning. The party has alleged irregularities in the electoral process and has sought accountability from the Election Commission.

Congress leaders have also targeted Gyanesh Kumar personally, with Rahul Gandhi among those calling for the Chief Election Commissioner to step down.

Congress takes protest to streets

Congress workers staged demonstrations in different places as part of the party’s campaign against the Election Commission.

The protests featured sharp symbolism, including masks and handcuffs, as Congress sought to highlight its allegations against the poll panel and demand action against Gyanesh Kumar.

The demonstrations are part of a wider confrontation between the Congress and the Election Commission over issues related to electoral rolls and the conduct of elections.

Congress demands Gyanesh Kumar’s resignation

The Congress has repeatedly demanded the resignation of Gyanesh Kumar, accusing the Election Commission of failing to adequately address the concerns raised by the opposition party.

Rahul Gandhi has also stepped up his criticism of the poll panel. In a statement on Thursday, he demanded that Gyanesh Kumar resign and alleged that the Election Commission had acknowledged the issue of “vote theft”. These are allegations made by the Congress and should not be treated as an established finding unless confirmed by the relevant authority.

The dispute comes amid a broader political debate over electoral rolls, voter verification and the functioning of the Election Commission.

Election Commission under opposition scrutiny

The Congress has intensified its campaign against the poll body in recent weeks, with party leaders repeatedly questioning its decisions and procedures.

The Election Commission, meanwhile, has maintained that India’s electoral process is conducted according to the Constitution, electoral laws and prescribed procedures. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar has previously defended the integrity of the electoral system and rejected claims that electronic voting machines can be remotely hacked.

The latest protests add to the continuing political confrontation over the Election Commission and the opposition’s demands concerning the poll panel’s functioning.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com