SC Collegium Recommends Nine Names For Appointment As High Court Judges

The Supreme Court Collegium headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud on Tuesday recommended the elevation of seven judicial officers and two advocates as judges of different high courts.

The Collegium in its meeting approved the proposal for the elevation of Judicial Officers -- Ramachandra Dattatray Huddar and Venkatesh Naik Thavaryanaik as judges in the Karnataka High Court.

Also Read: Supreme Court Directs Union Government To File Response In Plea Challenging Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991

"The Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on January 10, 2023 has, on reconsideration, resolved to reiterate its earlier recommendation for the elevation of Shri Nagendra Ramachandra Naik, Advocate, as Judge in the Karnataka High Court," the resolution stated.

In another decision, the Collegium approved the proposal for the elevation of advocate Neela Kedar Gokhale as a judge of the Bombay High Court.

Also Read: Supreme Court Declines To Stop Operations of Noida Metro To Protect Larger Public Interest

It also recommended the elevation of Judicial Officer Mridul Kumar Kalita as judge in the Gauhati High Court.

With regard to Andhra Pradesh, the Collegium okayed the promotion of Judicial Officers P. Venkata Jyothirmai and V Gopalakrishna Rao as judges of the high court there.

Also Read: Supreme Court Stays Interim Order of Meghalaya HC Staying The Implementation Of MoU Between CMs of Assam And Meghalaya

It also approved the proposal for the elevation of Judicial Officers Aribam Guneshwar Sharma and Golmei Gaiphulshillu Kabui as judges in the Manipur High Court.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Lawgic Simplified staff and is posted from a syndicated feed.)

Comments

Patna High Court Declares Bihar’s Reservation Amendments Ultra Vires

In a landmark decision, the Patna High Court has invalidated the Bihar government's legislative attempt to increase reservations for backward classes. The court's ruling focused on procedural flaws and the absence of a robust empirical basis for the hike, sparking a debate on judicial intervention in affirmative action policies. Background and Rationale Behind Setting Aside Bihar Reservation Increase Law The Bihar government had proposed an increase in reservations to address socio-economic disparities faced by backward classes. However, the court found that the state failed to follow due process, which includes conducting a thorough empirical study to justify the policy change. This procedural oversight led to the court's decision to strike down the increase. The High Court emphasized the necessity of a data-driven approach for policy changes related to reservations. The ruling underscored that without solid empirical evidence, such policies could not be justified within...

Pune Porsche Crash: Father of Minor Granted Bail

Image Credit: tv9marathi A Pune court has granted bail to the minor’s father, Vishal Agarwal, who faced charges under the Juvenile Justice Act for neglect and endangering the child by allowing him to drive without a license and consume alcohol. Additionally, bar owners and managers were arrested for serving alcohol to minors. The father, already in custody for other related charges, was implicated in the alleged manipulation of his son’s blood samples and in a separate case of kidnapping his driver. Advocate Prashant Patil argued that Vishal Agarwal's arrest was unlawful, contending that the charges were non-cognizable offenses and required a notice under the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Patil also highlighted contradictions in police reports, where the minor was listed as the accused in one FIR and as a victim in another. Also Read: Delhi High Court Stays Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Bail in Excise Policy Case Earlier Proceedings in the Pune Porsche Crash Inc...

Counsel's failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review: Bombay High Court

By - Sameeksha Negi* The Bombay High Court has observed that “If Counsel has not urged a point, the fact that there were written submissions is immaterial if those written submissions were never in fact argued.” The Bench also added that “Counsel’s failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review or, I dare say, even appeal. It is no ground to assail any order of any judge of any court.” The bench was hearing a review petition filed for seeking reinstatement of original arbitration petition on grounds some of which were never argued and others never pleaded and the said petition was filed after the original arbitration petition was fully argued, and then decided by pronouncement in open court. Also Read - The Pension Scheme for freedom fighters cannot be construed in a manner that the requirements prescribed are rendered a dead letter: Bombay HC According to Justice GS Patel allowing parties to take grounds in review pleas or in appeals that were not argued initi...

Lawgic Simplified

Search This Blog