English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Retired judicial officers can be judges of High Courts, rules SC

Published

on

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Supreme Court bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan also says Additional Judges can be appointed to high courts for tenure of less than 2 years

In a landmark judgment that could significantly bring down the large number of vacancies for judges, the Supreme Court, on Friday (February 23) ruled that retired judicial officers can be appointed as judges of any High Court under Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution of India.

Further, the court said that additional judges can also be appointed to high courts provided that their tenure is of less than two years and that the appointment is done in conformity with provisions laid down under Article 224 of the Constitution.

The judgement, passed by a Supreme Court bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, came in a petition filed by advocate Sunil Samdaria, who had challenged the appointments of two additional judges – Justices Virendra Kumar Mathur and Ram Chandra Singh Jhala – to the Rajasthan High Court. The top court has upheld the appointments of these two additional judges.

In his petition, Samdaria had submitted that the appointment of the said additional judges was a violation of Article 224.[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text css=”.vc_custom_1519376297857{padding-top: 10px !important;padding-right: 10px !important;padding-bottom: 10px !important;padding-left: 10px !important;background-color: #a2b1bf !important;border-radius: 10px !important;}”]Article 224, which deals with the “appointment of additional and acting judges”, lays down the following criteria:

  1. If by reason of any temporary increase in the business of High Court or by reason of arrears of work therein, it appears to the President that the number of the Judges of that Court should be, for the time being, increased the President may appoint duly qualified persons to be additional Judges of the Court for such period not exceeding two years, as he may specify
  2. When any Judge of a High Court other than the Chief Justice is by reason of absence or for any other reason unable to perform the duties of his office or is appointed to act temporarily as Chief Justice, the President may appoint a duly qualified person to act as a Judge of that Court until the permanent Judge has resumed his duties
  3. No person appointed as an additional or acting Judge of a High Court shall hold office after attaining the age of sixty two years

Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution which deals with appointment high court judges states:

A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judge of a High Court unless he is a citizen of India and

(a) has for at least ten years held a judicial office in the territory of India…[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]The petitioner had claimed that additional judges cannot be appointed to high courts under Article 224 for less than 2 years where pendency of cases is more than 2 years and that since the pendency of cases in the Rajasthan High Court was for a period exceeding 10 years, the appointment of the two additional judges for a tenure of less than two years was contrary to the constitutional provisions.

Samdaria had also argued that the Apex Court had, in Kumar Padma Prasad v/s Union of India, ruled that in order to qualify for appointment as a Judge of High Court under Article 217 (2) (a) of the Constitution of India, the candidate must hold judicial office in judicial service of the State. He had said that since the two additional judges had retired from the Rajasthan judicial service in 2016, thereby having ceased to hold judicial office, “they were neither qualified nor eligible to be appointed as Judge of High Court on the date of issuance of warrant of appointment by President of India”.

—With agency inputs, further details of the verdict are awaited

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

India News

Parliament winter session: Government lists 15 bills, including Waqf bill

The session will kick off on November 25 and conclude on December 20.

Published

on

The government has listed five new ones and one to amend the contentious Waqf law out of 15 bills for the winter session of Parliament. The session will kick off on November 25 and conclude on December 20.

The government has introduced five new bills, including the Coastal Shipping Bill, 2024, which aims to promote coasting trade and increase the participation of Indian-flagged vessels owned and operated by Indian citizens for both national security and commercial purposes.

Another significant legislation that will be introduced by the government is the Indian Ports Bill, 2024. This bill is designed to implement measures for the conservation of ports, enhance security, and manage pollution, ensuring compliance with India’s international obligations and statutory requirements.

Additionally, the government plans to introduce the Merchant Shipping Bill, 2024, which aims to meet India’s obligations under maritime treaties and support the development of Indian shipping while ensuring the efficient operation of the Indian mercantile marine in a way that serves national interests.

Pending legislation includes the Waqf (Amendment) Bill, which is awaiting consideration and passage after the joint committee of both Houses submits its report to the Lok Sabha. The committee is expected to report by the end of the first week of the winter session.

Currently, there are eight bills, including the Waqf (Amendment) Bill and the Mussalman Wakf (Repeal) Bill, pending in the Lok Sabha, while two additional bills are in the Rajya Sabha.

Furthermore, the government has also listed the Punjab Courts (Amendment) Bill for introduction, consideration, and passage, which seeks to increase the pecuniary appellate jurisdiction of Delhi district courts from Rs 3 lakh to Rs 20 lakh.

The Merchant Shipping Bill, along with the Coastal Shipping Bill and the Indian Ports Bill, is slated for introduction and eventual passage.

Continue Reading

India News

International Criminal Court issues arrest warrant against Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu over war crimes

The court accused Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defence Minister Gallant of crimes against humanity, including murder, persecution, inhumane acts, and the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare.

Published

on

International Criminal Court issues arrest warrant against Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu over war crimes

The International Criminal Court (ICC) today issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The court accused Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defence Minister Gallant of crimes against humanity, including murder, persecution, inhumane acts, and the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare. The leaders allegedly restricted essential supplies such as food, water, and medical aid to civilians in Gaza, resulting in severe humanitarian crises and deaths, including among children.

Last year in October, Israel had launched attacks on Gaza in retaliation for the surprise attack by Hamas. The Israel-Hamas war has led to the death of thousands of civilians, while lakhs have been displaced. The major infrastructures in Gaza, including hospitals and schools, were also destroyed as Israel vowed to wipe out Hamas.

The International Criminal Court stated that it found reasonable grounds to believe the accused intentionally targeted civilians and limited medical supplies, forcing unsafe medical procedures, which caused immense suffering. This ruling was based on the findings from at least October 8, 2023 until at least May 20, 2024.

The court remarked that it has assessed that there are reasonable grounds to believe that PM Netanyahu and Defence Minister Gallant bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population of Gaza.

Furthermore, it also noted that the lack of food, water, electricity and fuel, and medical supplies created conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of the civilian population in Gaza, leading to death of civilians, including children due to malnutrition and dehydration.

Additionally, the International Criminal Court dismissed two challenges by Israel against its jurisdiction in the situation in the State of Palestine.

Notably, Israel had contested the ICC’s jurisdiction, claiming it could not be exercised without Israel’s consent. Nonetheless, the Chamber ruled that the Court has jurisdiction based on Palestine’s territorial scope, including Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem. It further noted that Israel’s objections were premature, as jurisdictional challenges under the Rome Statute can only be made after an arrest warrant is issued.

Reportedly, Israel had also requested a fresh notification regarding the investigation, started in 2021. Denying the request, the court stated that Israel had earlier declined to request a deferral, making additional notifications unnecessary.

Continue Reading

India News

Yogi Adityanath accords tax-free status to Sabarmati Report film in Uttar Pradesh

Earlier, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah have also praised this film.

Published

on

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath on Thursday accorded a tax-free status to ‘The Sabarmati Report’ film, based on the train burning incident at Godhra in Gujarat in 2002, in the state.

The announcement was made after Chief Minister Adityanath attended the screening of Vikrant Massey and Raashii Khanna-starrer ‘The Sabarmati Report’ in Lucknow with the film’s cast.  

Speaking to reporters, actor Vikrant Massey thanked the Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister for making ‘The Sabarmati Report’ film tax-free in the state. “I want to thank Yogi Adityanath ji. This is an important film and I appeal to everyone to go and watch this film,” he said.

Chief Minister Adityanath along with many of his cabinet colleagues watched the film ‘The Sabarmati Report’ under a special screening at a cinema hall in the capital, said a spokesperson of the state government.

Several people associated with the film unit were also present on the occasion. Later the chief minister announced to make this film tax-free in UP.

The BJP-ruled states have been praising the makers of The Sabarmati Report, claiming the team has tried to bring out this truth in front of the people of the country through the film.

The saffron party is appealing to people to watch this film and try to get closer to the truth of Godhra.

Uttar Pradesh becomes the sixth BJP-ruled state after Haryana, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat to declare lead actors Vikrant Massey and Raashii Khanna’s film tax-free.

Adityanath said along with identifying the faces of those who are conspiring against the country for political gains, there is also a need to expose them. The film team has discharged its responsibilities to expose the truth, he said, adding an attempt has been made to bring the real truth in front of the country in a big way through the film.

The Sabarmati Report is said to be based on the incident of setting fire to a train full of ‘karsevaks’ in Godhra on February 27, 2002, killing 90 devotees. After this incident, communal riots broke out in Gujarat. Earlier, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah have also praised this film.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com