Supreme Court: India - Revision history

Jyoti: /* Impeachment */

2026-05-30T00:40:59Z

‎Impeachment

Jyoti: /* High Courts’ judgements and the SC */

2025-10-15T16:13:23Z

‎High Courts’ judgements and the SC

Jyoti: /* 2022: SC reverses ex-CJI’s order */

2025-08-21T18:05:41Z

‎2022: SC reverses ex-CJI’s order

Jyoti: /* Subordinates courts disregard the SC */

2024-09-18T19:05:49Z

‎Subordinates courts disregard the SC

Jyoti: /* State legislatures’ powers */

2024-08-11T18:50:29Z

‎State legislatures’ powers

Pdewan: /* State legislatures’ lowers */

2024-08-08T21:47:47Z

‎State legislatures’ lowers

Jyoti at 16:56, 14 May 2024

2024-05-14T16:56:50Z

Jyoti: /* HCs should not interfere with trial courts’ acquittal orders: SC/ 224 */

2024-04-17T20:27:39Z

‎HCs should not interfere with trial courts’ acquittal orders: SC/ 224

Jyoti: /* Higher courts seeking explanations from trial judges deprecated: 2023 */

2024-04-08T19:57:21Z

‎Higher courts seeking explanations from trial judges deprecated: 2023

Jyoti: /* Retrospective application of laws */

2023-12-02T14:51:01Z

‎Retrospective application of laws

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:40, 30 May 2026
Line 540:		Line 540:

	The impeachment process is so time-consuming and tortuous that it practically gives judges immunity. We, therefore, must evolve other mechanisms to evaluate the performance of judges. Judicial accountability promotes at least three discrete values: the rule of law, public confidence in the judiciary, and institutional responsibility. Many US states have a 'merit plan' to evaluate judicial performance. States such as Arizona, California and Utah have Judicial Performance Review Commissions/ Councils. These consist of not only judges and lawyers but also laypersons. New York and Alaska have systems of evaluation by trained court observers who make unscheduled court visits. Judges are evaluated on their knowledge of law, integrity, sentencing, impartiality etc. Judges must be judged too, and we need mechanisms that enable this.		The impeachment process is so time-consuming and tortuous that it practically gives judges immunity. We, therefore, must evolve other mechanisms to evaluate the performance of judges. Judicial accountability promotes at least three discrete values: the rule of law, public confidence in the judiciary, and institutional responsibility. Many US states have a 'merit plan' to evaluate judicial performance. States such as Arizona, California and Utah have Judicial Performance Review Commissions/ Councils. These consist of not only judges and lawyers but also laypersons. New York and Alaska have systems of evaluation by trained court observers who make unscheduled court visits. Judges are evaluated on their knowledge of law, integrity, sentencing, impartiality etc. Judges must be judged too, and we need mechanisms that enable this.
		+
		+	==Judges impeached or sought to be impeached==
		+	===As of 2026===
		+	[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=11_04_2026_030_001_cap_TOI April 11, 2026: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	New Delhi : With his resignation, former Allahabad high court judge Justice Yashwant Varma saved himself from the embarrassment of being the first judge to be “removed” through a motion adopted in Parliament.
		+
		+	Lok Sabha had admitted the motion to initiate proceedings against him in Aug last year. The law for removal of a judge of a constitutional court requires a motion for removal to be endorsed by 100 MPs in Lok Sabha if it is to be adopted. The required number is 50 in the case of Rajya Sabha. Before Justice Varma, there have been five judges of constitutional courts against whom a removal motion was adopted in Parliament — the first was from Supreme Court, Justice V Ramaswami, in 1991.
		+
		+	However, he escaped “removal” as the motion failed to secure the required twothirds majority in LS.
		+
		+	In 2011, Justice Soumitra Sen of Calcutta high court was the first judge against whom Rajya Sabha had voted with the required majority on aremoval motion.
		+	But the judge resigned before the motion was voted on in Lok Sabha.
		+
		+	The same year, Justice PD Dinakaran, the then chief justice of Sikkim high court, resigned before removal proceedings were initiated against him in Rajya Sabha.
		+	In 2015, a motion was moved in Rajya Sabha against Justice JB Pardiwala of Gujarat high court — who has since been elevated to Supreme Court.
		+	However, the judge later removed a controversial statement from the judgment which had invited the action and escaped the proceedings. That same year, another motion for removal was moved in Rajya Sabha against Justice SK Gangele of Madhya Pradesh HC. However, an inquiry committee absolved the judge of sexual harassment charges.
		+
		+	In the case of Justice Varma, the Lok Sabha speaker had admitted a motion for his removal on Aug 12, 2025. A committee of inquiry was constituted, whose legality was upheld by SC.
		+
		+	Article 124(4) of the Constitution provides for removal of a judge of SC or HC only “by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament, supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting” on grounds of “proved misbehaviour or incapacity”.
		+
		+	The Judges (Inquiry) Act guides the removal proceedings; it provides for a threemember committee, under Section 3(2) of the Act, comprising the chief justice of India or a judge of Supreme Court, a chief justice of a high court and a noted jurist to probe on the basis of evidence if the judge was indeed guilty of “misbehaviour or incapacity”.
		+
		+	[[Category:India\|SSUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIA
		+	SUPREME COURT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|SSUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIA
		+	SUPREME COURT: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Pages with broken file links\|SUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIA
		+	SUPREME COURT: INDIA]]

	= ‘Indirect discrimination’ criterion=		= ‘Indirect discrimination’ criterion=

@@ Line 476: / Line 476: @@
  “It is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The court holds that it is a primary principle that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’. It has been held that the facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,”the bench said.
-[[Category:India|SSUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIA
+=Frivolous, vexatious complaints=
-SUPREME COURT: INDIA]]
+==HCs should intervene to protect the accused: SC, 2025==
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|SSUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIA
+[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=10_09_2025_020_022_cap_TOI  AmitAnand Choudhary, Sep 10, 2025: ''The Times of India'']
-SUPREME COURT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Pages with broken file links|SUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIA
+New Delhi : Observing that issuing summons to any person by a court on the basis of a frivolous or vexatious complaint is very serious as it tarnishes the image of the person, Supreme Court has said that in such cases HCs should intervene to protect the person by quashing the case as it would do not only justice to the accused but would save precious court time.
-SUPREME COURT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:India|SSUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIA
+[[Category:India|SSUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIA
 SUPREME COURT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|SSUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIA
+[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|SSUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIA
 SUPREME COURT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Pages with broken file links|SUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIA
+[[Category:Pages with broken file links|SUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIA
 SUPREME COURT: INDIA]]

@@ Line 204: / Line 204: @@
 “Shri Suryadevara has gained experience and expertise in the matters of Legislative functioning through his service of more than 12 years in the Legislative arena including over 11 years that he had spent in the service of Parliament of India out of a total of 23 years of service he had put in so far,” Goel had said in a statement made to the Assembly in September 2016 defending Suryadevara.
-[[Category:India|SSUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIA
+==Criticism of order castigating HC judge spurs SC to re-hear case it had disposed of/ 2025==
 SUPREME COURT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|SSUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIA
+[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|SSUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIA
 SUPREME COURT: INDIA]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:05, 18 September 2024
Line 2,168:		Line 2,168:

	SC, during the hearing, had said it was high time the people holding posts learn a lesson and had made it clear that they would be sent behind bars if needed. In this case, a Surat-based businessman was taken into custody despite the protection granted by the apex court on Dec 8 and was tortured by police.		SC, during the hearing, had said it was high time the people holding posts learn a lesson and had made it clear that they would be sent behind bars if needed. In this case, a Surat-based businessman was taken into custody despite the protection granted by the apex court on Dec 8 and was tortured by police.
		+
		+	=Suo motu cognisance of issues, cases=
		+	==The status of 10 cases taken up in 2024==
		+	[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=20_08_2024_013_017_cap_TOI Dhananjay Mahapatra, August 20, 2024: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	New Delhi : Supreme Court has exercised its suo motu power a record 10 times this year taking cognisance of diverse issues, the audacious judicial order of a Calcutta high court judge being the first and the rape-murder of a doctor at Kolkata’s RG Kar Medical College & Hospital being the latest. Most of them, however, have remained inconclusive.
		+
		+	While one needs to await the course of action of the CJI-led bench on Tuesday in the RG Kar hospital incident, a matter dealing with the remission policy of Chhattisgarh which attracted SC’s suo motu attention six months ago, is yet to be listed.
		+
		+	In another instance, SC took cognisance on its own of the Madhya Pradesh HC terminating the services of six women judicial officers. Though proceedings were initiated on Dec 17 last y ear, a bench led by Justice B V Nagarathna is yet to reach a conclusion.
		+
		+	Another Calcutta HC judgment passed sweeping remarks gratuitously asking adolescent girls to “control sexual urge as in the eyes of the society, she is the loser when she gives in to enjoy the sexual pleasure of hardly two minutes.” SC titled its proceedings ‘In Re: Right to privacy of adolescent’ and expunged the observations. But the verdict, reserved on May 17, is yet to be pronounced.
		+
		+	Between 1991 and 2022, it took suo motu cognisance of 50-odd cases, 10 of those, prompted by the depredations of the Covid pandemic in 2020.
		+
		+	This year’s first suo motu civil case was registered by SC on Jan 28, when it permanently stayed Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay’s order asking SC secretary general to send him the documents that were placed before the CJI.
		+
		+	Gangopadhyay has since resigned as a judge of Calcutta HC and was elected to Lok Sabha on a BJP ticket. Two more suo motu proceedings were initiated by SC relating to recruitment of persons with disabilities and visually impaired in judiciary. In April, S C had take n out proceedings against Gautam Budh Nagar District Bar Association office bearers for alleged assault on SC Bar Association members, who had appeared before the trial court despite a strike call. In May, CJI D Y Chandrachud had initiated suo motu proceedings for expediting the shifting Bombay high court to a new building. The HC, functioning since Jan 1879 from a four-storied stone structure resembling a castle built in gothic style and reflecting Mumbai’s multi-cultural ethos and exuberance, would move to a modern building to be constructed at a 30-acre plot in Bandra East.
		+
		+	The last suo motu proceedings before the CJI were provoked by the audacious order of a Punjab and Haryana HC judge, Rajbir Sehrawat, who had cast doubts on the wisdom and majesty of the highest court. SC had expunged the judge’s unwarranted remarks with a warning.
		+
		+	In 2023, SC took suo motu cognisance in three matters, one relating to management of Sariska Tiger Reserve and a temple within it attracting thousands of devotees. SC had constituted a committee to find a solution to this issue that could be a flash point between environment proection and pursuit of faith.

	[[Category:India\|SSUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIA		[[Category:India\|SSUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIA

@@ Line 2,147: / Line 2,147: @@
 Section 13 of the Chhattisgarh Act had provided that appeal against the order of a rent controller would be filed before the Rent Control Tribunal. But Section 13(2), which the SC struck down, provided that an appeal against the tribunal’s order would, as a matter of right, go before the SC.
-[[Category:India|SSUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIA
+=Subordinates courts disregard the SC=
-SUPREME COURT: INDIA]]
+==2024: Punjab & Haryana HC judge slams apex court==
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|SSUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIA
+[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=07_08_2024_039_013_cap_TOI  Dhananjay Mahapatra, August 7, 2024: ''The Times of India'']
-SUPREME COURT: INDIA]]
 [[Category:India|SSUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIA

@@ Line 2,131: / Line 2,131: @@
 SUPREME COURT: INDIA]]
-= State legislatures’ lowers=
+= State legislatures’ powers=
 == Cannot enact law intruding upon the Union’s jurisdiction ==
 [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL/2019/10/16&entity=Ar01709&sk=23D27321&mode=text  Dhananjay Mahapatra , Oct 16, 2019: ''The Times of India'']
@@ Line 2,150: / Line 2,150: @@
 SUPREME COURT: INDIA]]
 [[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|SSUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIA
 SUPREME COURT: INDIA]]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 |}
-[[Category:India|SSUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIA
-SUPREME COURT: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|SSUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIA
+=History=
-SUPREME COURT: INDIA]]
+==The origin of the concept of an ultimate Court of Appeal==
-[[Category:Pages with broken file links|SUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIA
+[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/idea-of-an-ultimate-court-of-appeal-originated-103-yrs-ago/articleshow/107214285.cms Dhananjay Mahapatra, January 29, 2024: ''The Times of India'']
-SUPREME COURT: INDIA]]
 =Article 142 in The Constitution Of India 1949=
@@ Line 2,173: / Line 2,187: @@
 [[Witness protection: India]]

@@ Line 430: / Line 430: @@
 ==HCs should not interfere with trial courts’ acquittal orders: SC/ 224==
-[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=04_04_2024_007_007_cap_TOI  AmitAnand.Choudhary , April 4, 2024: ''The Times of India'']
+[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=04_04_2024_007_007_cap_TOI  AmitAnand.Choudhary, April 4, 2024: ''The Times of India'']
 New Delhi: Supreme Court has held that high courts should refrain from interfering with a trial court order if there is no perversity of fact and law in the verdict. It further said that a person should not be convicted merely on the ground of suspicion no matter how strong it is.
@@ Line 441: / Line 441: @@
  “It is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The court holds that it is a primary principle that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’. It has been held that the facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,”the bench said.
 [[Category:India|SSUPREME COURT: INDIASUPREME COURT: INDIA