CJI sets up 5-judge constitution bench to hear major issues

Agencies
January 16, 2018

New Delhi, Jan 16: Amid a virtual rift between the Chief Justice Dipak Misra and four senior-most judges over assignment of important cases, the Supreme Court on Monday announced the composition of a 5-judge constitution bench headed by the CJI, which does not include them.

None of the four judges — Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph, feature in the list of members of the 5-judge constitution bench.

As per official information, the 5-judge bench, comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A K Sikri, Justice A M Khanwilkar, Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice Ashok Bhushan, will commence the hearing on a range of crucial matters from January 17.

Meanwhile, court sources said it was not confirmed whether the CJI on Monday met the four judges who had hurled accusations against him at their controversial press conference on January 12.

As per the list of business for Tuesday, the 5-judge bench will hear major cases such as those challenging the constitutional validity of the Aadhaar Act and its 2013 judgment re-criminalising gay sex between consenting adults.

The same combination of judges had last year heard various constitution bench matters from October 10, including the power tussle between the Centre and the Delhi government over administrative jurisdiction and a matter relating to passive euthanasia.

This bench would also hear the contentious issue of the ban on the entry of women between 10 and 50 years of age in Kerala's Sabarimala temple and resume hearing a legal query on whether a Parsi woman would lose her religious identity if she marries a man from a different religion.

Another contentious matter relates to the challenge to the validity of a penal law on adultery, which only punishes a married man for having an extra-marital sexual relationship with a woman married to someone else.

The other issues to be dealt with by constitution bench include the pleas, which have raised a question as to when will a lawmaker, facing criminal trial, stand disqualified.

All these matters were earlier referred to larger benches for adjudication by different benches of the apex court.

The daily list of business for tomorrow shows that the two PILs seeking probe into Loya's death are listed before a bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra, against whom aspersions were cast by a senior advocate in public.

In their unprecedented press conference on Friday, the four senior judges of the apex court had mounted a virtual revolt against the CJI, listing a litany of problems, including the assignment of cases. They had also raised questions over listing of PILs concerning Loya's death.

An office bearer of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) said a copy of their resolution was submitted by its president Vikas Singh to the CJI yesterday, but have not heard anything from the top court as yet.

Singh had expressed hope that all judges of the apex court would consider the SCBA resolution seeking a full court discussion to defuse the crisis plaguing the higher judiciary.

The SCBA, at an emergency meeting on Saturday, had passed the resolution expressing grave concern over the differences of four senior-most judges with the CJI.

It had said that all public interest litigation (PIL) matters, including the pending PILs, should be either taken up by the CJI or be assigned for adjudication to four senior judges who are part of the apex court collegium.

Comments

s
 - 
Tuesday, 16 Jan 2018

what about triple talaq that also looks like handiwork of BJP/RSS

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
coastaldigest.com news network
May 6,2020

Mangaluru, May 6: Three more coronavirus positive cases have been reported in Dakshina Kannada district. 

According to fresh bulletin of health and family welfare department, an 11-year-old girl and a 36-year-old woman from Boloor in Mangaluru and a 16-year-old girl from Bantwal tested positive for the covid-19. 

All of them are undergoing treatment at Wenlock Hospital. Their condition is said to be stable. 

With this the total number of cases in the district reached 28 including 22 residents of Dakshina Kannada, 4 from Kasaragod, 1 from Udupi and 1 from Uttara Kannada.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 13,2020

Visakhapatnam, Jun 13: A four-month-old baby who was on ventilator treatment for 18 days for COVID-19 was on Friday evening discharged from hospital after testing negative.

"A tribal woman of East Godavari named Laxmi was infected with COVID-19 in May, later the doctors confirmed that her four-month-old baby was also infected," said District Collector, Vinay Chand.

"The baby was shifted to Visakhapatnam VIMS hospital on May 25. She was treated for 18 days on a ventilator. Doctors again conducted baby's COVID-19 test recently, following which the reports came negative. After a health check-up, VIMS doctors discharged the baby on Friday evening," he added.

Meanwhile, 14 new COVID-19 positive cases have been reported in Visakhapatnam district on Friday, taking the total number of cases to 252 including one fatality due to the virus.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
January 19,2020

Mumbai, Jan 19: After Kerala and Punjab, the Maha Vikas Agadi (MVA) government is also mulling over a resolution against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 in Maharashtra Assembly.

Speaking to news agency, Congress spokesperson Raju Waghmare said: "Our senior party leader Balasaheb Thorat has also shared his stand on the CAA. Even Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray has said that we are against the CAA. As far as the resolution against CAA is concerned, our senior leaders of MVA will sit together and decide."

If this happens, then Maharashtra will be the third state to pass a resolution against CAA, which grants citizenship to non-Muslim refugees from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh, who came to India on or before December 31, 2014.

Emphasising that CAA is 'unconstitutional,' senior lawyer and Congress leader Kapil Sibal has said that every state Assembly has the constitutional right to pass a resolution and seek CAA's withdrawal.

He added that it would be problematic to oppose the CAA if the law is declared to be 'constitutional' by the Supreme Court.

"I believe the CAA is unconstitutional. Every State Assembly has the constitutional right to pass a resolution and seek its withdrawal. When and if the law is declared to be constitutional by the Supreme Court then it will be problematic to oppose it. The fight must go on!" Sibal tweeted.

Earlier speaking at the Kerala Literature Festival on Saturday, the Congress leader had said that constitutionally no state can say that it will not implement the amended Citizenship Act, as doing so will be "unconstitutional".

Kerala government has also approached the Supreme Court against the CAA following the passage of a resolution against it in the state Assembly.

Punjab chief minister Amarinder Singh has also announced that the Congress state government is going to join Kerala in the Supreme Court in the case.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.