English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Justice Dipak Misra sworn in as 45th Chief Justice of India

Published

9 years ago

on

Justice Dipak Misra sworn-in as 45th Chief Justice of India

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]New Chief Justice will have the unenviable task of presiding over politically sensitive cases like the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmbhoomi land dispute, repealing Article 35A in Kashmir, among others

Justice Dipak Misra was, on Monday, sworn in as the 45th Chief Justice of India by President Ram Nath Kovind, taking over the mantle from Justice JS Khehar, who retired on Sunday. The newly sworn-in CJI is scheduled to retire on October 2, 2018 after a tenure that will last for 13 months and six days.

Justice Misra was appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court on October 10, 2011 and in the past six years has delivered several crucial judgments – those that were hailed as landmark verdicts and yet others that were criticised by legal experts for bordering on judicial over-reach.

Among the most defining moments of his stint as a judge of the apex court, perhaps came on the intervening night of July 29-30, 2015 when as part of a three-judge Bench, which also included then Chief Justice of India, HL Dattu, he dismissed the mercy petition of Yakub Memon, convicted in the Bombay blasts case. For the first time in the history of independent India, the Supreme Court had held a midnight hearing, discussing the arguments made in the case for nearly 90 minutes before reading out its verdict at 3 am. Memon was hanged at 3 am on July 30, 2015, amidst criticism and applause of the Supreme Court in equal measure.

A judgment passed on November 30, 2016 by a Bench headed by Justice Misra, however triggered a debate over whether an increasingly aggressive brand of nationalist fervour was stifling civil liberties. The verdict gave sanction for playing of the national anthem in cinema halls before the screening of a film began and made it mandatory for everyone present in the audience to stand up while the anthem was being played. In the days following the verdict, while a handicapped person, who could not stand up during the playing of the national anthem in a cinema hall, was severely heckled several similar reports of people being harassed by right-wing lumpens at movie theatres across the country collectively added to the narrative that whether the Supreme Court had erred in its verdict. A few months after the verdict, the Centre had informed the apex court that handicapped people who cannot stand when the anthem is played should be exempted from doing so.

On May 3, 2016, Justice Misra upheld the constitutional validity of the legal provision related to criminal defamation. Justices Misra and PC Pant had held that the reputation of an individual was an equally important right and stood on the same pedestal as free speech. The court said it would be a stretch to say that upholding criminal defamation in modern times would amount to imposition of silence. A section of the legal fraternity and advocates of free speech had termed the verdict as being regressive.

Then, on May 5, 2017, a bench headed by Justice Misra had upheld the execution of the three convicts in the highly publicised Nirbhaya gang rape case.

Just as verdicts passed by him or a bench that he was part of faced scrutiny by legal eagles, Justice Misra’s elevation as the CJI too had become a matter of some debate over the past few weeks. In July this year, Adish C. Aggarwala, president of the International Council of Jurists, had alleged that Justice Misra’s appointment as the CJI would “severely compromise the independence of the judiciary”. Aggarwala had written to then CJI Khehar – who had named Justice Misra as his successor – asking that an ongoing enquiry into allegations that Justice Misra had misrepresented facts in attempting to get hold of public land meant to be distributed to the landless poor for agricultural purposes in Odisha must first be resolved before he takes over India’s highest judicial post.

Aggarwala had raked up allegations made by an Odisha-based activist, Jayanta Kumar Das, who had claimed that back in 1979, when Justice Misra had not joined the judiciary but was a practicing lawyer, he had applied for allotment of the land to develop a fodder farm. While in his application to the Odisha government he had declared that his family owned 10 acres of land, Das had alleged that none of the said land was actually in Justice Misra’s name and that he had allegedly concealed this information in a subsequent affidavit. The affidavit later became the basis for allotment of two acres of land to Justice Misra.

The suicide note of former Arunachal Pradesh chief minister Kalikho Pul too had reportedly made some serious allegations against Justice Misra, which went uninvestigated.

However, these allegations notwithstanding, outgoing Chief Justice Khehar and the Narendra Modi government still went ahead with the appointment of Justice Misra as the CJI, sticking to the seniority rule.

On his hands, the new Chief Justice will have some critical cases to deal with. He might preside over the contentious Babri Masjid demolition case and also deal with the much popular BCCI reforms matter, as well as the Sahara SEBI case. The explosive issue of abrogation of Article 35A in Kashmir is also expected to be heard by the new Chief Justice.

Adding to the challenges he is certain to face is the seemingly perpetual problem of filling up vacancies in High Courts and the Supreme Court. High Courts in India are working with just 56% of their sanctioned strength while the shortfall in the Supreme Court will widen to 6 when Justice PC Pant retires on Tuesday, leaving only 25 judges in the apex court. The contentious MOP (Memorandum of Procedure) continues to remain an unresolved issue between the government and the SC collegiums, which has rejected the idea of including a security clearance clause that would allow the executive to veto superior court appointments in case of a negative remark against a proposed candidate.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

India News

India hits back at Shehbaz Sharif at UN, says terror will have consequences

India hit back at Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s UN speech, with New Delhi warning that terrorism will have consequences.

Published

6 hours ago

on

September 26, 2026

By

India has responded to Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s remarks at the United Nations, delivering a strong message on terrorism and warning that such actions will have consequences.

The response came after Mr Sharif addressed the UN and raised issues concerning India and Pakistan. New Delhi rejected the narrative presented by the Pakistani prime minister and highlighted the issue of terrorism.

India’s message was delivered by Petal Gehlot, who represented New Delhi in the response to Pakistan.

India warns Pakistan over terrorism

India’s response focused on Pakistan’s record and its approach towards terrorism. New Delhi made clear that terrorism cannot be separated from its consequences and that those responsible cannot expect such actions to go unanswered.

The Indian side also pushed back against the claims and allegations made by Mr Sharif during his UN speech.

The exchange comes amid continuing tensions between India and Pakistan, with terrorism remaining a major point of disagreement between the two countries.

Shehbaz Sharif’s UN remarks

In his address, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif spoke about India-Pakistan relations and raised several issues concerning New Delhi.

India subsequently exercised its right of reply to respond to Pakistan’s statements at the United Nations.

New Delhi’s response underlined its position that terrorism remains a serious issue in the relationship and that there would be consequences for terrorist actions.

The latest exchange at the UN adds to the continuing diplomatic confrontation between the two neighbouring countries.

Continue Reading

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

19 hours ago

on

September 25, 2026

By

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

20 hours ago

on

September 25, 2026

By

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

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com