SC collegium picks 13 names for Bombay high court judge posts | India News – Times of India

Read More/Less


NEW DELHI: Weathering a storm within, the Supreme Court collegium headed by CJI S A Bobde on Friday recommended the names of 13 people to the Union government for appointment as judges of the Bombay High Court, which is functioning with 62 judges and has a vacancy of 32 posts.
The collegium, comprising CJI Bobde and Justices N V Ramana and R F Nariman, recommended the names of nine advocates — Aruna S Pai, Shailesh P Brahme, Kamal R Khata, Sharmila U Deshmukh, Amira Abdul Razaq, Sandeep V Marne, Sandeep H Parikh, Somasekhar Sundaresan and Mahendra M Nerlikar — and four judicial officers, Rajesh N Laddha, Sanjay G Mehare, G A Sanap and S G Dige, for appointment as Bombay HC judges.
The Bombay HC, during the very short tenure of Chief Justice B P Dharmadhikari, had recommended 22 names — 18 advocates and four judicial officers — for appointment as judges of the HC. However, the names had run into serious objection from two consultee judges, Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, whose parent HC is Bombay.
Justices Khanwilkar and Chandrachud had in writing asked CJI Bobde to send all 22 names back to Bombay HC CJ Dipankar Datta for effective evaluation of merit and maintaining objectivity in the constitutional process of selection of HC judges. Sources said the two judges believed that the Bombay HC, being in the financial capital of the country, required judges with domain knowledge in emerging fields of law and suggested that since Justice Datta had been chief justice for nearly 10 months, he should be asked to reconsider the names.
However, Justice B R Gavai approved the names of “deserving” candidates from among the 22 but agreed with Justices Khanwilkar and Chandrachud for returning the remaining names for reconsideration. Justice Gavai did not fault Justice Dharmadhikari for recommending a large number of people for appointment as judges. He said Justice Dharmadhikari had been a judge of the HC since 2004 and had functioned on various benches to have reasonable knowledge about the talent pool in the HC.
When CJI Bobde asked Justice Chandrachud to specify his objections against individuals, the latter wrote an even more stinging response and said when he was suggesting reconsideration of the entire list by the Bombay HC, to give opinion on individuals would amount to “cherry picking”, sources said. After less than encouraging views from Justices Khanwilkar and Chandrachud, the CJI had sought the opinion of Justice U U Lalit on the 22 names.
With just a little more than a month to go for his retirement, CJI Bobde believed the vacancies in Bombay HC needed to be filled urgently and scheduled the collegium meeting without waiting for Justice Lalit’s response. The meeting found 13 of the 22 names suitable for appointment as judges of Bombay HC. If these are approved by the government and they are appointed as judges, Bombay HC will still have 19 vacancies against a sanctioned strength of 94 judges.
Justice Dharmadhikari was acting CJ of Bombay HC from February 20 to March 19 last year. He was CJ from March 20 till his superannuation on April 27, 2020. Justices Khanwilkar and Chandrachud had said it was well nigh impossible for a chief justice to prepare a list of 22 probable candidates for appointment as HC judges within a short span of two months.
They said shortlisting a candidate for appointment as a judge required the HC CJ to watch the performance of the advocates, consult bar leaders and colleague judges about the integrity, ability and capability of each individual.
They said most of the recommended people were around 55 years old and appointing people of this age group was not advisable as they would have a short tenure of around six years as HC judges, who retire at 62. According to them, most HC judges take at least two to three years to get acquainted with the art of writing judgments and adapting to the discipline intrinsic to the constitutional post.
The two judges said it would be in the interest of the justice delivery system to return the 22 names for reconsideration. They said the selection of candidates needed to be broad-based keeping in mind the hopes and aspirations of deserving advocates practising not only in Bombay HC but before its benches in Aurangabad, Nagpur and Panaji.

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

CBI, ED summon six Bengal top officers, TMC cries foul | India News – Times of India

Read More/Less


KOLKATA: Two central agencies on Friday called six Bengal government officials for questioning as part of their ongoing probes in three separate cases, prompting the Trinamool Congress to call it an example of “brazen misuse of power” by the central government.
The officials called for questioning next week, by the Enforcement Directorate and the Central Bureau of Investigation, are state security advisor Surajit Kar Purakayastha (Saradha case); principal secretary in chief minister’s office Gautam Sanyal and state additional chief secretary BP Gopalika (Metro Dairy share transfer and disinvestment case); GST special commissioner (Durgapur) Arun Prasad, Kolkata Police additional commissioner Laxmi Narayan Meena and West Bengal Police officer Partha Ghosh (illegal coal-mining case).
The fresh notices to these six officials came on Friday, when the ED questioned Trinamool Congress candidates Vivek Gupta (Jorasanko) and Madan Mitra (Kamarhati) in the Saradha case. Another central agency, the National Investigation Agency, questioned another Trinamool candidate, Imani Biswas (Suti), in connection with the February Nimtita railway station blast case.
The Trinamool Congress saw political vendetta in the renewed activity of central government agencies in poll-bound Bengal. “The BJP is so brazen about all this now. They don’t even bother to make a pretence of fair play. This is classic Modi-Shah tactic,” Trinamool Rajya Sabha leader Derek O’Brien said. Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee, too, had urged the Election Commission to probe “the role of central agencies in Bengal” while releasing her party’s manifesto; it followed an ED notice to state home secretary HK Dwivedi to appear before it in connection with the Metro Dairy case.
A state official admitted the notices had come. “It seems to be part of a political carpet-bombing to keep the state administration under pressure,” he said. Another official close to the developments said there was no question of not cooperating with the agencies. “All things known will be shared. The reference points for the central agencies are, anyway, mostly out in the public domain,” he said.
Kamarhati Trinamool candidate Mitra on Friday said he had already submitted all necessary documents to the ED and there was nothing more to provide.
“I have come because they have asked me to do that. I have always cooperated with the agency,” he said.
The CBI and the ED are probing the Saradha Ponzi scam, which broke in 2013 and in which thousands of investors were alleged to have lost about Rs 2,400 crore. The ED is probing the Metro Dairy case, in which there have been allegations that the Bengal government sold its 47% stake in the firm at a lower-than-market value. The CBI is probing the illegal coal-mining case; it has accused several central government officials and Bengal residents of colluding to “cheat” central government agencies in coal auctions. Prime accused Anup Majhi has moved the Supreme Court, raising jurisdiction issues.

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

States can pass resolutions against Central laws: Supreme Court

Read More/Less


Court says they are merely opinions, do not have force of law.

The Supreme Court on Friday prima facie found no harm in State Legislative Assemblies, such as those in Kerala and West Bengal, passing resolutions against Central laws like the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act or the controversial new farm laws.

A Bench, led by Chief Justice Sharad A. Bobde, said these resolutions are merely “opinions” of the majority members of a Legislative Assembly and do not have the force of law.

Also read | Kerala Assembly passes resolution urging Centre to scrap farm laws

The court was hearing a PIL filed by a Rajasthan-based NGO, Samta Andolan Samiti, that said State Assemblies, such as of Rajasthan, Kerala, Punjab and West Bengal, have no business passing resolutions against Central laws that come under the Union List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.

The Samiti, represented by senior advocate Saumya Chakraborty, asked the Supreme Court to quash the resolutions and declare them void. The hearing mostly focused on the resolution passed by the Kerala Assembly on December 31, 2019, criticising CAA as a law violating the right to equality. The Assembly had called upon the Centre to abrogate the CAA.

“It is the opinion of the majority in the Kerala Assembly… They have not told people to disobey the law, they have only told Parliament to abrogate the law. It is only an opinion and does not have the force of law,” Chief Justice Bobde addressed Mr. Chakraborty.

Also read | West Bengal Assembly passes resolution demanding repeal of Centre’s farm laws

But the petitioner said that the Kerala Assembly should not be having an opinion whether the law is “good, bad or indifferent”.

“Since they (State Assemblies) cannot make laws on the subjects in the Union List, they cannot also have a casual opinion on them,” Mr. Chakraborty argued.

He said the Resolution was made even as about 60 petitions were pending in the Supreme Court against the CAA.

“We are with you if you say that Kerala Assembly has no jurisdiction to set aside the law made by Parliament. But do they have no right to express an opinion?” Chief Justice Bobde asked.

The senior lawyer said the Kerala Assembly procedure is clear in mandating that the House should not pass a resolution in matters which do not concern the State.

“How can you say this is not a concern of the state?” the CJI asked.

The court adjourned the case for four weeks, asking the petitioner to do further research on the issue.

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

SC panel on agriculture laws may support ‘legal guarantee for MSP’ demand | India News – Times of India

Read More/Less


NEW DELHI: The SC appointed committee on farm laws may consider backing protection for MSP in its report with several unions, pitching for stronger protection of a floor price.
There are indications that the three-member panel may speak favourably on the MSP demand — though its exact formulation is as yet unclear — as most unions who appeared before it or submitted their views strongly called for a legal guarantee to MSP to procure all crops.
In their representations they are learnt to have told the panel that any decision pertains to giving legal guarantee to the MSP may end the ongoing agitation as the protestors would not like to return to their villages empty handed.
Even RSS-linked organisations such as Bhartiya Kisan Sangh (BKS) and Swadeshi Jagran Manch (MSP) too have publicly spoken in favour of legal guarantee to MSP, besides submitting their other suggestions to the government. The SC-appointed panel is expected to submit its report by March 20.
Jai Kisan Andolan (JKA), on Thursday launched ‘MSP loot’ calculator to show losses incurred by farmers. Though the government’s figures show increase in procurement footprints this year during the ongoing ‘Kharif Marketing Season’ (KMS), the organisation led by Yogendra Yadav used official data to clarify how farmers actually incurred losses as they were forced to sell their crops much below MSP.
Terming it as the “loot of farmers”, Yadav said, “If the same trend of sale below MSP price continues and the government does not interfere, then in this year itself the farmers will be looted of Rs 870 crore.”

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

Madras HC upholds EC order on voting through postal ballot facility | India News – Times of India

Read More/Less


NEW DELHI: The Madras high Court has upheld the postal ballot facility extended by Election Commission to absentee voters including persons above 80 years of age, persons with disabilities, essential services staff and Covid-19 patients/suspects, terming it as an ‘inclusive’ measure introduced by the poll panel in exercise of its plenary powers under Article 324 of the Constitution.
In its ruling on the plea challenging legality of the Section 60 (c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the corresponding rules extending postal ballot facility to these absentee voters, the high court said “it must be acknowledged that all that the Election Commission has done here is to be inclusive and allow certain classes of persons who would have been excluded from exercising their franchise the right to use the postal ballot and participate in the celebration of the festival of democracy”.
It added that if the process was made inclusive without compromising on secrecy of the ballot or fairness of elections, “it would be a greater cause to celebrate and compliment the conducting body.”
The Court did not find any arbitrariness in the classification of the persons committed by the Rules of 1961 to cast their vote by postal ballot. It held that the consideration appears to have been as to who may not be able to physically attend a polling booth to cast her vote.
The Court said the petitioner’s contention that EC has no jurisdiction to issue guidelines, has to be discarded in the light of the plenary authority conferred on such Commission by Article 324 of the Constitution. Further, the Supreme Court has in the past recognised the authority of EC to pass any orders in respect of the conduct of elections when there is no parliamentary legislation or rule made under the said legislation.
Commission had launched postal ballot option for 80-plus citizens. disabled voters and those engaged in essential services in Jharkhand elections of 2019. In Bihar polls last year, EC further extended this facility to those who had tested positive for Covid-19 or were suspected to be Covid-positive.

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

SC stays hearings related to Covid-19 vaccines in Delhi and Bombay high courts | India News – Times of India

Read More/Less


NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed all the hearings related to Covid-19 vaccines in Delhi and Bombay high courts. The court transferred to itself a case on the coronavirus vaccine which was pending before the Delhi high court.
The apex court issued a notice to Serum Institute, Bharat Biotech on pleas for transfer of cases to top court.
A bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde took note of the pleas of the two firms that the high courts are conducting parallel proceedings on vaccine related issues and they need to be transferred to the top court for an authoritative judgement.
It also sought responses from the Centre and others on pleas of the Serum Institute and Bharat Biotech seeking transfer of the cases from the high courts to the apex court.
The vaccine manufacturing firms have said different high courts are seeking data on how many vaccines are produced and when they will give vaccines to all.
( With agency inputs)

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

Supreme Court agrees to hear plea seeking release of Rohingya detained in J&K

Read More/Less


The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to take up for hearing a petition seeking the immediate release of detained Rohingya in Jammu and Kashmir, and directions to restrain the Centre from deporting them back to Myanmar. The apex court will hear the plea on March 25.

The plea, filed by a Rohingya refugee, Mohammed Salimullah, through Advocate Prashant Bhushan, said “these refugees have been illegally detained and jailed in the Jammu Sub Jail which has been converted into a holding centre with the IGP (Jammu) Mukesh Singh stating that they face deportation back to Myanmar following verification by their embassy”.

Referring to reports of their “imminent…deportation”, the plea said, “This goes against India’s commitment to refugee protection and its obligations against refouling refugees to a place where they face persecution and is a violation of the Article 21 rights of all Rohingya persons living in India.”

Though there can be national security exceptions to the non-refoulement rule, “any” such “exception” “must be rigorously and carefully proved”, the plea said.

Earlier this month, the J&K administration set up “holding centres” under the Foreigners Act in the Hiranagar sub-jail in Kathua, and rounded up 168 Rohingya refugees, including women and children, from Jammu and placed them there.

A senior government official told The Indian Express, “These immigrants were not holding valid passports required in terms of Section (3) of the Passports Act.”

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

Foreign cos use GST gaps, cause loss: PIL – Times of India

Read More/Less


NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought responses of the finance ministry, the GST Council and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) on a PIL seeking a mechanism to levy GST on foreign companies, like Facebook and Google, in business-to-business transactions for Online Information Database Access and Retrieval (OIDAR) services.
Petitioner Pradeep Goyal, through senior advocate Sonia Mathur, told the SC that the government had no mechanism to track total GST paid on OIDAR services used by Indian recipients, which do not qualify to be Non-Taxable Online Recipients (NTORs), under reverse charge basis.
“The nature of OIDAR services are such that they can be provided online from a remote location outside the table territory. The overseas suppliers of such services would have an unfair tax advantage should the services provided by them be left out of the tax net,” Mathur said.

A bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian termed the PIL, which the petitioner claimed to be non-adversarial or for any personal gain, to be a good one, needing adjudication by the apex court. The PIL, filed through advocate Charu Mathur, said the government was losing millions of dollars as goods and services tax as it did not have any mechanism to plug the gaps exploited by foreign entities.
“Figures of revenue generated out of services provided to non-NTORs are not reported anywhere in GST returns. As most overseas service providers maintain their accounts in foreign jurisdictions and are audited as per local laws of the country in which they are located, the Indian government has no mechanism to verify the total receipts earned by these service providers from India and check GST compliances,” the petitioner said.

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

Foreign companies use GST gaps, cause loss: PIL – Times of India

Read More/Less


NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought responses of the finance ministry, the GST Council and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) on a PIL seeking a mechanism to levy GST on foreign companies, like Facebook and Google, in business-to-business transactions for Online Information Database Access and Retrieval (OIDAR) services.
Petitioner Pradeep Goyal, through senior advocate Sonia Mathur, told the SC that the government had no mechanism to track total GST paid on OIDAR services used by Indian recipients, which do not qualify to be Non-Taxable Online Recipients (NTORs), under reverse charge basis.

“The nature of OIDAR services are such that they can be provided online from a remote location outside the table territory. The overseas suppliers of such services would have an unfair tax advantage should the services provided by them be left out of the tax net,” Mathur said.
A bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian termed the PIL, which the petitioner claimed to be non-adversarial or for any personal gain, to be a good one, needing adjudication by the apex court. The PIL, filed through advocate Charu Mathur, said the government was losing millions of dollars as goods and services tax as it did not have any mechanism to plug the gaps exploited by foreign entities.
“Figures of revenue generated out of services provided to non-NTORs are not reported anywhere in GST returns. As most overseas service providers maintain their accounts in foreign jurisdictions and are audited as per local laws of the country in which they are located, the Indian government has no mechanism to verify the total receipts earned by these service providers from India and check GST compliances,” the petitioner said.

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

Collegium split over selection of woman judge to Supreme Court | India News – Times of India

Read More/Less


NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court‘s five-member collegium headed by CJI S A Bobde failed to reach consensus over recommending Justice B V Nagarathna, a judge of Karnataka High Court, for appointment as judge of the SC as some said it would lead to supersession of many HC chief justices, who are far more senior than her.
CJI Bobde and another judge had placed Justice Nagarathna’s name for consideration before the collegium also comprising Justices N V Ramana, R F Nariman, U U Lalit and A M Khanwilkar with the hope that if she got through the process of scrutiny and the government appointed her, then she would go on to become the first woman CJI after retirement of Justice Surya Kant as CJI in February 2027.
But some members of the collegium argued that recommending Justice Nagarathna’s name, even in the women’s quota, would lead to supersession of several HC chief justices, including Justice Abhay S Oak (Karnataka) and two other senior judges from Karnataka — Justice L Narayana Swamy (present CJ of Himachal HC who belongs to the Scheduled Caste community) and Justice Ravi V Malimath (senior judge in Himachal Pradesh and belonging to OBC community).
A few members of the collegium said if Justice Nagarathna’s name was to be recommended for appointment as SC judge, then it should be along with that of Justice Oak.
But both the names appeared to be breaching the balance in regional representation among SC judges, as observed by the apex court in its fourth judges case judgment in 2015, while striking down the National Judicial Appointments Commission.
If Justice Nagarathna is appointed, there will be four judges from Karnataka in the SC. If Justice Oak’s name is recommended, there will be five judges from Maharashtra. If the collegium recommends Justice Nagarathna, then it could also be accused of ignoring Justice Hima Kohli, the senior-most among women HC judges in the country and the present CJ of Telangana HC. Justice Kohli’s parent HC is Delhi and her elevation would increase the number of judges from Delhi HC in the SC to four.
The collegium members appear to have been caught in a Catch-22 situation and the sharp division in views over Justices Nagarathna and Oak seems to have pushed the discussion over other names to the background. The SC has five vacancies at present against the sanctioned strength of 34.
With just a little over a month to go for CJI Bobde’s retirement on April 24, it is not clear whether there will be a collegium meeting again this week or next week to reach a consensus over some names so that the CJI does not retire without making any appointment to the SC. As per convention, the CJI writes to the government a month before his retirement for appointment of his successor and then refrains from holding any collegium meeting for selection of judges to the SC or HCs.

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

1 2 3