English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Supreme Court has three women judges for the first time in its history

Published

on

Supreme Court has three women judges for the first time in its history

The Supreme Court of India has got, for the first time, three sitting women judges following the elevation of Madras High Court Chief Justice Indira Banerjee as the Supreme Court judge.

The other two are Justices R Bhanumathi and Indu Malhotra.

The President of India on Friday, August 3, appointed Justice Indira Banerjee, Orissa High Court Chief Justice Vineet Saran and Uttarakhand High Court Chief Justice KM Joseph as judges of the Supreme Court.

Justice Banerjee would be the eighth woman judge in the history of the Supreme Court. She succeeds the likes of Fathima Beevi, Sujata V. Manohar, Ruma Pal and Gyan Sudha Misra and Ranjana Prakash Desai. The top court that got its first woman judge only in 1989 with appointment of Fathima Beevi.

Banerjee, who is an alumnus of the Kolkata’s Presidency College, started her career in the judiciary as a lawyer. Elevated from the bar, she was directly appointed as the permanent judge of Calcutta HC on February 5, 2002. She is two years and eight months senior to Justice Joseph.

Justice Banerjee is currently the senior most judge from Calcutta and was appointed as the CJ of Madras HC on March 5, 2017. She turns 61 in September and will serve in the apex court for approximately four years. With her appointment to the SC, the Calcutta HC will have a representation in the apex court. Justice AK Ganguly was the last judge of SC, from the Calcutta HC.

Odisha High Court’s Chief Justice Vineet Saran had started out as lawyer in Allahabad High Court in 1980. A former law officer for the Uttar Pradesh government, Justice Saran was also elevated to the bench in 2002. He has been Odisha high court chief justice since February 2016.

At present, the SC has 22 judges. With Friday’s appointments, it will have six vacancies.

The appointments on Friday ended the six-month-long standoff between the judiciary and the executive over the elevation of Justice KM Joseph. The SC collegium, headed by CJI Dipak Misra, had on January 10, recommended the elevation of Justice Joseph along with senior advocate Indu Malhotra.

However, the government while agreeing to the elevation of Malhotra, returned the Joseph recommendation on April 26. The collegium reiterated his name for the post on July 16.

Government sources said Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad decided to process Justice KM Joseph’s appointment after the Supreme Court collegium sent back his name a second time.

The rules say if the collegium recommends a name a second time, the centre has no choice but to accept it. There had been speculation that the centre could have delayed his appointment but government sources had rejected this possibility, underlining that the centre’s reservations to his appointment were not personal, but procedural.

But it had led to accusations from the opposition that the government had targeted Justice Joseph for his verdict in 2016 cancelling President’s Rule in Uttarakhand, which helped the Congress retain power. The law minister had denied the allegation.

Meanwhile, Justice Geeta Mittal was appointed as the Chief Justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, becoming the first woman judge in the history to head it.

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

on

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

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

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com