Jan 23
Supreme Court’s Big Direction in Bhoj Shala–Kamal Maula Mosque Dispute: Resolution for Basant Panchami & Namaz
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from China
seen from Türkiye
seen from China
seen from Colombia
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from Sweden
seen from Norway
seen from United States
seen from Italy
seen from Poland
seen from Russia
seen from Australia
seen from Italy
seen from Guatemala
seen from Singapore
seen from Türkiye
seen from Netherlands
Supreme Court’s Big Direction in Bhoj Shala–Kamal Maula Mosque Dispute: Resolution for Basant Panchami & Namaz
Karur Stampede: Karur Stampede Incident.. Supreme Court Verdict Reserved
తమిళనాడులోని కరూర్ ఘటనపై దాఖలైన పిటిషన్పై సుప్రీంకోర్టులో నేడు కీలకమైన విచారణ జరిగింది. ఇటీవల జరిగిన టీవీకే (తమిళగ రజినీ విజయ్) పార్టీ సభల
Supreme Court vs. Family Drama: 2025
In 2025, the Indian Supreme Court’s verdict on the Indian family drama read like a soap opera script. From surprise paternity twists to maintenance loopholes, the verdict sparked a wave of satire.
Keeping in mind the state's education system, they had a plea that those who are not 'tainted' or 'marked as ineligible' should continue to
সুপ্রিম কোর্টে আপাত-স্বস্তি চাকরিহারাদের একাংশের
https://durantbarta.com/country/apparent-relief-for-some-unemployed-people-in-supreme-court
SC Upholds Calcutta HC's Ruling on Bengal Teacher Recruitment Scam
The Supreme Court has upheld the Calcutta High Court's decision to annul the recruitment of 25,000 teachers and non-teaching staff in West Bengal government schools, citing widespread irregularities. The apex court termed the selection process "vitiated and tainted," reinforcing concerns over manipulation, fraud, and OMR sheet tampering.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar ruled that affected employees will not be required to return salaries or emoluments received during their tenure. "The entire selection process is beyond repair, with massive irregularities and fraud," the bench observed.
The Supreme Court, while partially intervening in the High Court’s order, directed the state government to conduct a fresh recruitment process within three months. However, in a humanitarian gesture, it allowed disabled employees to retain their jobs.
The court has scheduled a hearing on April 4 to review the Bengal government's plea challenging the High Court's order for a CBI probe into the scam. The ruling marks a significant setback for the Mamata Banerjee-led government, which now faces the task of restoring transparency in teacher recruitment.
Supreme Court Invalidates Electoral Bonds: Countering Arun Jaitley’s Arguments
In a landmark decision, a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court has declared the electoral bonds scheme unconstitutional, citing its violation of the Right to Information Act and thereby impinging on the Fundamental Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Former Finance Minister Arun Jaitley had introduced the Electoral Bonds Scheme on January 2, 2018, in the Lok Sabha, emphasizing its potential to mitigate the influx of black money into political party funding. However, the scheme faced judicial scrutiny, culminating in its recent nullification by the apex court.
Key Points from the Supreme Court Verdict:
The court asserted that transparency regarding political party funding is indispensable, highlighting that the electoral bonds scheme undermines the right to information.
Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud elaborated on the inherent quid pro quo between political funding and policy-making, deeming the lack of disclosure regarding corporate funding as unconstitutional.
Contrary to the government’s argument of curbing black money, the court held that the objective doesn’t justify compromising fundamental rights. It applied a three-pronged test, as outlined in the 2017 Justice K S Puttaswamy (retd) v Union of India ruling, emphasizing that the electoral bond scheme wasn’t the least restrictive method available.
The court invalidated amendments to the Income Tax Act and Section 29C of the Representation of the People Act.
Arguments Presented by Arun Jaitley:
In defense of the electoral bonds scheme, Jaitley contended that disclosing individual donor contributions would discourage donations, potentially reverting to less desirable cash-based donations. He argued that the scheme represented a significant improvement in transparency compared to the existing opaque funding system. Jaitley highlighted the prevailing non-transparent political funding ecosystem and emphasized the need for reform. He outlined the features of the electoral bonds scheme, emphasizing its transparency through banking instruments and mandatory disclosure requirements for both donors and political parties.
A recent Supreme Court ruling has invalidated the electoral bonds scheme, a brainchild of former Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, citing its infringement upon the Right to Information Act and fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. Introduced in 2018 as a measure to tackle black money in political funding, the scheme faced constitutional scrutiny, culminating in its annulment by the apex court.
The court’s decision underscored the imperative of transparency in political funding, rebuffing the government’s argument of curbing black money through the electoral bonds scheme. Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud elucidated the symbiotic relationship between political funding and policymaking, deeming the lack of disclosure regarding corporate funding unconstitutional. Additionally, the court applied a rigorous test, concluding that the scheme failed to meet the standards of least restriction on fundamental rights.
Jaitley, in defense of the electoral bonds scheme, argued that mandatory disclosure of donor contributions could dissuade donations, potentially reverting to less desirable cash-based transactions. He emphasized the scheme’s role in enhancing transparency compared to the existing opaque funding practices.
In essence, the Supreme Court’s verdict not only nullifies the electoral bonds scheme but also underscores the significance of transparency and accountability in political funding, setting a significant precedent for future electoral reforms.
कर्नाटक पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट का बड़ा फैसला: सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने फैसला सुनाते हुए विधानसभा स्पीकर रमेश कुमार द्वारा विधायकों को अयोग्य करार दिए जाने को सही ठहराया है।
कर्नाटक के कांग्रेस और जेडीएसके 17 अयोग्य विधायकों की याचिका पर सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने बुधवार को फैसला सुना दिया।सुप्रीम कोर्टने कर्नाटक के बागी विधायकों पर बड़ा फैसलासुनाते हुए उन्हें भी चुनाव लड़ने की इजाजत दे दी है। सर्वोच्च अदालत ने मामले की सुनवाई करते हुए कहा है कि सभी 17 बागी विधायक अयोग्य रहते हुए भी चुनाव लड़ सकेंगे। बता दें किन्यायमूर्ति संजीव खन्ना,न्यायमूर्ति एन. वी. रमण और न्यायमूर्ति कृष्ण मुरारी की 3 सदस्यीय पीठ ने इन अयोग्य घोषित विधायकों की याचिकाओं पर 25 अक्टूबर को सुनवाई पूरी की थी।