Supreme Court Observer

☕ Good Morning! ⚖️ Today, a 5-Judge Constitution Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud will continue hearings on the Shiv Sena rift in the Maharashtra Legislature. The Bench is expected to decide how the Constitution governs splits and defections in political parties. Today, Senior Advocate Harish Salve will present the arguments for the Maharashtra government. Read SCO's Case Background here (https://bit.ly/3lD6gRC) 📄 Yesterday, Sr. Adv. Kapil Sibal for the Uddhav Thackeray fraction asked the Bench to refer the matter to a 7-Judge Bench. He argued that that defecting House members were able to escape disqualification by merely serving a notice to for the removal of the Speaker. Read SCO's Hearing Report here (https://bit.ly/3xodjAl) ✍️Thank you for following our daily updates. We'd love to hear from you on what you would like to cover next on the SC. Write to us at admin@scobserver.in. You can also reach out to us on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and Facebook. We hope to hear from you soon!

🌻 Good morning! It has been 8 months since the Shiv Sena Party ‘split’ in Maharashtra. Today, the CJI D.Y. Chandrachud Constitution Bench will begin hearing both sides to decide how the Constitution deals with party-splits. (https://bit.ly/3lD6gRC) 🪓 *How Did The Case Reach The SC?* In late June 2022, then MLA and current Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde went missing with a large group of Shiv Sena MLA’s and refused to attend party meetings. They claimed they formed the ‘real’ Shiv Sena and Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray was not the party’s true representative. Mr. Thackeray retaliated by claiming the Shinde faction defected from the party and urged the deputy speaker to initiate disqualification proceedings against them. The Shinde faction challenged the disqualification proceedings at the Supreme Court. (https://bit.ly/3HXoCoa) 👩🏾‍⚖️ *Why Is A Constitution Bench Hearing The Case?* Defections in political parties are governed by the 10th Schedule of the Constitution of India, 1950. However, the provisions on governing ‘splits’ within a political party were repealed in 2003, resulting in a lack of clarity on how the Court should approach this case. On August 23rd, 2022, a 3-Judge Bench led by CJI Ramana referred the case to a 5-Judge Constitution Bench. The Bench will determine how the 10th Schedule will apply to splits in political parties. (https://bit.ly/3lwkT9u)

☕ Good morning! 👨🏾‍⚖️ Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul has been at the SC’s forefront in the standoff with the Union government over Judge appointments. Today, he will continue hearing the contempt petition against the Union for delays in appoitntments. In the last hearing on February 3rd, Justice Kaul gave the Union an ultimatum. Process the pending Collegium recommendations within 10 days or the situation would become ‘very uncomfortable’.The Union is expected to give a status update on the concerned recommendations. Read SCO’s explanation of the judge appointment process (https://bit.ly/40SoQFw) 📖 Last Friday, the Constitution Bench led by Justice Kaul delivered the Judgment in two important cases. The Bench definitively upheld the Bar Council of India’s power to conduct the mandatory All India Bar Examination for law graduates who seek to become practicing advocates (https://bit.ly/3xiwlIE). However, the Bench did not give a final decision on if a religious community leader has the power ‘excommunicate’ or expel members of their faith. Instead they referred the question to the pending 9-Judge Bench which will review the 2018 Sabarimala decision (https://bit.ly/3ltQRDi). 📢 We are hiring Court Reporters! As a Court Reporter, you will act as the eyes and ears of the Supreme Court Observer. We are looking for individuals who are passionate about the Supreme Court’s work and enjoy writing and communicating about it to our dedicated and passionate group of readers. Visit our Careers Page for more details about the eligibility criteria and the application process.(https://bit.ly/3JxQ4er)

🌞 Good Morning! Here are SCO’s updates for the day: ⁉️ Yesterday, the SC questioned the Gujarat government on its 8-year delay in carrying out judicial appointments and infrastructure development. These include 138 junior civil judge vacancies and 75 infrastructure development proposals. The 3-Judge Bench, led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, issued directions to process all pending proposals and provide an update by April 30th, 2023. Read more: (http://bit.ly/3HM6vS8) 📱 Last week, the SC heard a plea raising concerns over WhatsApp’s privacy policy. A Justice K.M. Joseph-led Bench agreed with the Union to wait until Parliament considers the Digital Data Protection Bill 2022 before hearing the case. SG Tushar Mehta, for the Union, assured the Court that the Bill would solve many of the issues raised by the petitioners. SCO Daily recaps the case so far: (https://bit.ly/3xtJgrj) 📩 Have you subscribed to SCO Desk Briefs yet? We send discussions on the most important developments at the Supreme Court straight to your inbox. Sign up here! (https://bit.ly/3ruI7fO)

🌞 Good Morning! Here are SCO’s updates for the day: 👨‍⚖ Five new Supreme Court Judges were sworn in on Monday bringing the SC’s working strength to 32. With Justice Dipankar Datta’s elevation in December, six Judges have been elevated to the SC in under three months. The newly inducted SC Judges previously served on different High Court Benches, with three of them having been HC Chief Justices. Read more about the five Judges here: (http://bit.ly/3HKoqZm) ✍🏽 The SC released 1,268 judgements in different vernacular languages on Republic Day 2023. CJI Chandrachud stated that work had already begun to provide SC judgements in all the Scheduled Languages to everyone. 92.25% of the translations are in Hindi, and the remaining in various other languages. Read more on SCO Court Data: (http://bit.ly/3HLpZWX) 📰 Have you subscribed to SCO's Desk Briefs yet? Join our 11,000 newsletter subscribers for analysis on the Court’s activities and institutional developments in 2023. Sign up here! (https://bit.ly/3SMjxml).

☀️ Good morning! The Supreme Court often deliberately keeps cases pending for long periods of time in order to make sure their directions are being followed. Three such cases are being heard today. 👩🏾‍⚖️ The Supreme Court will continue to monitor the steps taken by High Courts and State Governments to fill judicial vacancies in district and subordinate courts. Senior Advocate and Amicus Curiae Vijay Hansaria submitted a report to the Bench led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, highlighting States’ failure to adhere to the Court’s timeline for appointments and provide proper infrastructure (Such as courthalls and residence facilities) for Judges to perform their functions. Read SCO’s background of the case. (https://bit.ly/3JHQWxi) 🗳️ The CJI Chandrachud led Bench will also continue to hear submissions from various States which are trying to implement reservation schemes for Other Backward Classes in local elections. Many states like Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh have seen their schemes shot down for lack of reliable data. The Supreme Court is attempting to ensure elections take place in a timely manner, regardless of whether OBC reservation schemes have been finalised. (https://bit.ly/3jwHrqb) 🔇 In 2018, the SC provided guidelines for State governments and the police to follow in order to curb the rise of hate-speech incidents. However, many petitioners have approached the Court claiming that the guidelines are not being followed and hate-speech incidents have continued unchecked, without proper investigations taking place. Today, a Bench led by Justice Ajay Rastogi is expected to receive a status update on the compliance of various States with the SC’s 2018 guidelines. (https://bit.ly/3HYBRGh)

🌞 Good Morning! Here are SCO’s updates for the day: 🚫 Today, the Chief Justice’s Bench will hear a batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of sedition law. The law’s broad mandate has been used to arrest journalists and activists who claim it has been used as a tool to quell dissent. The petitions raise questions on the law’s effect on the rights to life, free speech and dissent, and equality (http://bit.ly/3HYbjF2). In May 2022, the SC stated that it ‘hopes and expects’ the Union not to apply sedition law under S.124 of the Indian Penal Code until the provision was re-examined (http://bit.ly/3la8RT7). In October 2022, the Union assured the SC that it had passed directives to police not to register cases under the law. Further, that the Parliament was likely to reconsider the law during its winter session. (http://bit.ly/3RxNM0W). 🪙 CJI Chandrachud’s Bench will also hear a batch of petitions concerning the rights of personal guarantors in insolvency proceedings. The petitions argue that personal guarantors are not informed about why an insolvency application against them is accepted or not. A moratorium is also placed on their assets, preventing the personal guarantors from transferring their assets (http://bit.ly/3wTkTD3).

☀️ Good Morning! 📌 Today, a 3-Judge Bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud is expected to hear a batch of petitions challenging the Anti-Conversion Laws enacted by various states. Since the last hearing on January 16th 2023, a petition has been filed to club all pending cases before various High Courts and transfer them to the Supreme Court. The Bench stated on January 30th 2023 that all the petitions would be heard today. Read SCO's Case Background here: (https://bit.ly/3RqplTc) ⚖️ Today, a Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and AS Oka is expected to hear a contempt petition filed against the Union Ministry of Law and Justice over delay in judicial appointments. During the last hearing on January 6th 2023, Attorney General R. Venkataramani told the Court that he was personally looking into the matter of appointments. Read more about tussle between the SC Collegium and the Union Government here: (https://bit.ly/3wQ2Ptn) 📢 We are hiring for Court Reporters! As a Court Reporter, you will act as the eyes and ears of the Supreme Court. We are looking for individuals who are passionate about the Supreme Court’s work enjoy writing and communicating about it to the rest of the country. Visit our Careers Page for more details about the eligibility criteria and the application process. (https://bit.ly/3JxQ4er)

☕ Good morning! Here are SCO’s must-reads for the day. 📱 Yesterday, a Constitution Bench led by Justice K.M. Joseph decided to hear the challenge to WhatsApp’s privacy policy in April 2023. Despite Senior Advocate Shyam Divan’s plea to hear the case immediately, the Bench maintained that a lot of the issues with the policy may be resolved by the pending Personal Data Protection Bill, 2022, as suggested by WhatsApp and the Union government. However, in the meantime WhatsApp must publicly announce that users can still use their services without accepting the new privacy policy. (https://bit.ly/3Rrq9qS) 🪙 Yesterday, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced that armed forces recruits under the Agnipath Scheme would benefit from signifant tax exemptions for any payments they receive. However, the Scheme still faces opposition. Following widespread protests in June 2022, challenges to the scheme remain pending at the Delhi High Court after the SC transferred all the pending challenges there in July 2022. Read SCO’s background of the case to learn more. (https://bit.ly/40nBc8I) 🇮🇳 Last week the Supreme Court’s near dormant Judgment translation project was revitalised. 1268 Judgments were translated into multiple vernacular languages and published on the Electronic Supreme Court Records (eSCR) portal. Hindi Judgment translations remain at the forefront, accounting for just over 92% of the total number of translated Judgments. SCO analysed the distribution of the translations and the intention behind the project. (https://bit.ly/3DzZrqp)

🌞 Good Morning! 💬 Today, the 5-Judge Constitution Bench led by Justice K.M. Joseph is expected to continue hearing the petition challenging WhatsApp’s 2016 and 2021 Privacy Policy. In yesterday’s hearings, Senior Advocate Kipal Sibal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, suggested that the matter be heard after The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 is introduced at Parliament. Senior Advocate Shyam Divan however, argued that the matter was independent of the Bill and must therefore be heard by the Court immediately. Read SCO’s Case Background here: (https://bit.ly/3RocSiH) 🎖️Yesterday, the Constitution Bench led by Justice K.M. Joseph also heard an application by the Union seeking clarity on how the Joseph Shine Judgment, which decriminalised adultery, applies to members of the Armed Forces. The Bench passed the Final Order in the matter and clarified that the Judgment delivered in the case of Joseph Shine did not in any way take into account the provisions of the Army, Navy or Airforce Acts and was therefore not connected to them. Read SCO's Hearing Report here: (https://bit.ly/3DslKy2) 💰 Yesterday, a Bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha heard challenges to how political parties are allowed to receive external contributions and donations. The Bench divided the petitions into three separate challenges, each dealing with a distinct issue, and passed an order directing the Union government to file a counter affidavit by the end of February. Read more about the division of issues in SCO's Hearing Report here: (https://bit.ly/3XUGqqS)

🌅 Good Morning! 📳 Today the Constitution Bench led by Justice K.M. Joseph is expected to hear the challenge against WhatsApp’s 2016 and 2021 privacy policies. The petitioners claim that the policy allows WhatsApp to share user information with Facebook and other third-party companies, violating the right to privacy. However, the Union has claimed that the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2022 that is pending before Parliament may make this case infructuous. Read SCO's background of the case. (https://bit.ly/3jds2L0) 💸 A Bench led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud is expected to here the challenge to the Union's 2018 Electoral Bonds scheme. The Association for Democratic Reforms claims that the scheme allows private corporations to anonymously fund political parties and threatens the right to free and fair elections. The Union however, maintains that the scheme is completely transparent. Read SCO's background of the case. (https://bit.ly/3WV2no5) ✍️Thank you for following our daily updates. We'd love to hear from you on what you would like to cover next on the SC. Write to us at admin@scobserver.in. You can also reach out to us on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and Facebook. We hope to hear from you soon!

☀️ Good morning! Chief Justice Chandrachud’s courtroom is expected to see developments in key cases today. 🔇 Former Delhi Police Commissioner Rakesh Asthana continues to court controversy as he faces a contempt petition at the SC from Tushar Gandhi. The great-grandson of Mahatma Gandhi claims that the Delhi Police, with Mr. Asthana at the helm, failed to properly investigate hate-speech incidents that occurred in the national capital in December 2021. The SC has taken note of States’ failures to investigate hate-speech incidents in other cases as well and is monitoring their compliance with the SC’s earlier decisions. (https://bit.ly/3DouPI2) 📃 The Bench will also continue hearing the NGO Citizens for Justice and Peace’s petition to strike down anti-conversion laws enacted by a growing list of States including Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and Gujarat. The NGO and a host of other petitioners claim that the provisions making inter-faith marriages more cumbersome and requiring individuals to publicly declare their intention to convert violate the rights to freedom of religion and privacy. (https://bit.ly/40pxI5F) 📰 Have you subscribed to SCO's Desk Briefs yet? Join our 11,000 newsletter subscribers for analysis on the Court’s activities and institutional developments in 2023. Sign up here! (https://bit.ly/3SMjxml).

☀️ Good Morning! As part of SCO’s *Know Your Court* series, we discuss the rich history behind our Supreme Court: 🏫 *Presidency Town Courts* The earliest ‘Supreme Court’ in India was the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William in the then Presidency Town of Calcutta established in 1774. Two more similar Courts would follow in later years in Madras (1800) and Bombay (1823). They were replaced by the High Courts of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay under the India High Courts Act, 1861. These would continue to be the highest Courts for all cases in their respective jurisdictions until the Federal Court of India was created. ⚖️ *The Federal Court of India* The Federal Court was established in 1937 under the Government of India Act, 1935 (the Act). It had the power to settle personal disputes, disputes between the Union and the States, disputes between different States, and hear appeals against the Provincial High Courts. Most importantly, it could settle questions of law concerning the Act. However, the Federal Court was not the ultimate Court of appeal. In certain cases, parties could file appeals against the Federal Court’s decisions before the Privy Council based in London. The Federal Court continued to function until the establishment of the Supreme Court of India in 1950. 🌠 *The Rise of the Constitutional Supreme Court* While the Supreme Court came into existence on January 26th, 1950, with the coming into force of the Indian Constitution, it was formally inaugurated only two days later. Unlike the Courts before it, the SC is the highest Court in the land. Established under the Constitution along with the other governmental bodies, the Supreme Court is an independent body that enjoys several wide constitutional powers. Notably, it can strike down laws made by the Legislature if they do not adhere to constitutional principles, uphold the Fundamental Rights of citizens, and is the primary interpreter of the Constitution. (https://bit.ly/3XFSU5B) 📸 *The ‘Seat’ of the Supreme Court* The Supreme Court, like the Federal Court before it, did not have a separate building out of which it could operate. Until 1958 when the modern Supreme Court building was constructed, it carried out its functions from the Chamber of Princes in the Parliament building. Visit SCObserver on Instagram to see different Court buildings through the ages: (https://bit.ly/3j8mami) 👨‍⚖ The Supreme Court initially had a sanctioned strength of only 8 Judges, compared to sanctioned strength of 34 Judges today. SCO’s Instagram reveals who the first 8 Judges were: (https://bit.ly/3jhkLd4)

☕ Good Morning! Here are SCO’s updates for the day. ✍🏽 Yesterday, on the occasion of Republic Day, the Supreme Court released translations of over 1,000 Judgments in regional languages as a part of its Electronic Supreme Court Reports (eSCR). The eSCR portal currently has 34,000 Judgments available. CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, while announcing the release earlier this week, stated that the SC has commenced translation on all of these Judgments. The move will be a huge step forward in tackling criticism that the Supreme Court is only for English-speaking groups. In comparison, under 50 Judgments were translated in 2021. SCO analysed the Court’s Judgment translations in 2020 and 2021: (http://bit.ly/3JezZKJ) 🌽 On Wednesday, the Supreme Court granted bail to Ashish Mishra, who was accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence in October 2021, for 8 weeks on the condition that he cannot reside in Uttar Pradesh or the NCT of Delhi. Four farmers protesting the now-repealed farm laws at Lakhimpur Kheri were killed along with two BJP workers and two others during the incident. The farm laws, an attempt to liberalise the agricultural sector, were widely protested by farmers across the country who claimed that the laws left them at the mercy of private players. SCO recapped the issues involved and the protests: (http://bit.ly/3XSzJFq) 🔊 We're hiring! If you are passionate about producing crisp, accessible journalism on the SC, apply to work with us. (https://bit.ly/3OIsBb4)

🇮🇳 Good morning and happy republic day! January 26th marks the birth of the Constitution of India and the establishment of its most important interpreter and guardian, the Supreme Court of India. 👩🏾‍⚖️ The SC was granted a far larger mandate compared to its predecessor. The Federal Court of India was limited to settling personal disputes, disputes between the Union and States, and disputes between different States. It did not have the power to review laws, nor was it the final court of appeal. Parties could appeal decisions of the Federal Court to the Judicial Committe of the Privy Council based in London. (https://bit.ly/3Y02TCe) 📃 In comparison, the Supreme Court of India acts as a check against the possible excesses of the Executive and Legislature. The SC was charged with protecting the fundamental rights of citizens, interpreting the Constitution, and exercising the power judicial review to ensure that laws enacted by the Legislature did not interfere with fundamental rights. 📈 The Supreme Court has seen exponential growth since its establishment. The maximum number of sanctioned judges has increased from 8 to 34 since 1950. Further, Court activity has sharply increased as, in 1950’s, the Court only sat to hear cases for 28 days in a year. In comparison, the current Supreme Court sits for 190 days a year. (https://bit.ly/3JgdkOb) 📖 To learn more about the evolution of the Supreme Court, the history of the building itself, and the various procedures and individuals that make the Court what it is today, visit SCO’s ‘About the SC’ page. (https://bit.ly/3DgefdC)

☕ Good morning! Here are SCO’s must reads for the day. 🏥 Yesterday, a 5-Judge Constitution Bench passed an Order modifying the SC’s 2018 guidelines for terminally ill individuals who wish to exercise their right to die with dignity. The changes were based on a joint proposal submitted by the Indian Society for Critical Care and the Union government. The Bench led by Justice K.M. Joseph removed the requirement of seeking the Judicial Magistrate’s approval before withdrawing treatment and requiring the Collector to constitute a second medical board to review the decision of the primary medical board. Read SCO’s report of the hearing. (https://bit.ly/3XSxYb5) 🔊 Yesterday, Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju spoke against the SC revealing the Union’s concerns about the advocates recommended for HC judgeship, calling it a matter of ‘grave concern’. Specifically, he pointed out the decision to publicise comments in reports submitted by the Investigation Bureau and the Research and Analysis Wing which Mr. Rijiju claims were sensitive and secret. Read more about the resolutions and how the SC responded to the Union’s concern. (https://bit.ly/3wLZb3T) 🏭 Earlier this month, a 5-Judge Constitution Bench reserved Judgment in the Union’s plea to increase the compensation granted to victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. The Union, through a curative petition filed in 2010, claimed that new facts have emerged since the 1989 settlement with Union Carbide and that the damage is far greater than originally anticipated. However, the Bench led by Justice S.K. Kaul appeared hesitant to entertain this request in a curative petition case which greatly restricts the situations where the SC can provide relief. SCO explains the dispute so far and the Bench’s concerns. (https://bit.ly/3WvtN3S)

🌞Good Morning! Here are SCO's must reads for the day. 🧾 Today, the 5-Judge Constitution Bench led by Justice K.M Joseph will pass the final Order in the ‘right to die petition’. This petition was filed by the Indian Society for Critical Care and seeks to modify the 2018 SC guidelines on ‘Advance Directives’ (ADs). ADs are attested documents an individual may sign if they wish to refuse treatment when they become terminally ill. During the previous hearing on January 19th 2023, the Bench directed the parties to submit a joint proposal on the modifications they wanted the Court to make to the original guidelines. Read more:(https://bit.ly/3D7ibxh) 👨‍⚖️ Yesterday, CJI D.Y. Chandrachud agreed to consider the request for an urgent listing of the petition against the Hijab Ban in government institutions in the state of Karnataka. During the hearings, the petitioners stated that it was crucial to hear the matter soon, as students had exams commencing from February 6th and the exam centres were government colleges. In October 2022, a 2-Judge Bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia delivered a split decision in the case. While Justice Gupta upheld the ban, Justice Dhulia rejected it. Read more: (https://bit.ly/3iUyW7Z) ✍️Thank you for following our daily updates. We'd love to hear from you on what you would like to cover next on the SC. Write to us at admin@scobserver.in. You can also reach out to us on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and Facebook. We hope to hear from you soon!

🌞 Good Morning! Last week, the Union and the Supreme Court’s tussle over the appointments took a fresh turn. The SC Collegium released detailed Resolutions reiterating 5 recommendations for HC Jidges and berating the Union government for delaying Judge appointments in various High Courts. These delays come in light of several statements made by leaders such as Law Minister Kiren Rijiju and Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticising the Collegium system. 👨‍⚖ *What is the SC Collegium?* The Collegium is a body comprising the Chief Justice of India and the seniormost Judges at the SC. The Collegium considers candidates for elevation as Judges to the HCs or the SC, and recommends the selected names to the Union government for appointment. The body has been heavily criticised as the considerations made by them for recommendations are not made public. Further, as per the current system, the Union government has very limited say in the matter of appointments leading to friction between the SC and Union. Watch SCO’s video explaining the Collegium system: (https://bit.ly/3wmzs1C) ‼️ Until last week, the SC’s response to the Union’s barrage of criticism against the Collegium system has been minimal. However, these 4 Resolutions released by the Collegium strongly reiterated the Union’s duty to ensure High Courts do not suffer from the lack of Judges. The Resolutions categorically rejected the Union’s objections to 5 recommended names and asserted their qualifications. The Resolutions also criticised the Union for undue delay in appointments, some of which have been pending for 5 years. Read more: (https://bit.ly/3ZRE3GE)

☀️ Good Morning! It’s time for a *recap of this week* at the SC. 📄 On Monday, the SC heard a batch of petitions filed against anti-conversion laws across India, which petitioners claim are result of a ‘baseless rhetoric’ known as ‘love-jihad’. With numerous petitions pending before various High Courts, the Bench permitted parties to file transfer petitions to bring those cases to the Supreme Court. (https://bit.ly/3XKgOfB) 💪🏽 Over Tuesday (https://bit.ly/3kyNDy1 ) and Wednesday (https://bit.ly/3XnKXSe ), Solicitor General Mr. Tushar Mehta and Sr. Adv. Dr. A.M. Singhvi completed arguments in the NCT Delhi v Union tussle. The Delhi Government and the Union are jostling for control over civil servants in the Union Territory. Hearings before this 5-Judge bench have since completed, and the Judgement has been reserved. More on the case here (https://bit.ly/3ZVluBd). 🩺 On Wednesday and Thursday, the SC also heard arguments in the Right to Die challenge. In 2019, the Indian Society for Critical Care (ISCC) approached the Court requesting a 5-Judge Bench to modify some guidelines prescribed by the SC in a 2018 Judgment. They argued that the guidelines were too cumbersome, and made access to the right to die with dignity too complex. The Bench is now awaiting a joint proposal from both the ISCC and the Union on mutually agreeable modifications. (https://bit.ly/3Wte718) ✍🏽 On Thursday evening, the SC Collegium published 4 resolutions, reiterating the names of 5 candidates as judges at various HCs. This marked an important time in the ongoing clash between the SC Collegium and the Union Government. In many ways, these resolutions appear to be the SC Collegium’s response to the Union’s publicly made claims against the collegium system’s transparency, and the issues of pendency of cases and vacancies across courts in India. Read about what the SC wrote and why this is crucial in understanding the much contested appointment process. (https://bit.ly/3QWLzfh) ✨ That’s a wrap for the week. Goodbye for now, and see you on Monday!

🌞 Good Morning! Yesterday, the latest chapter in the tussle over judicial appointments between the Union and the Supreme Court unfolded. The Collegium reiterated 5 names for appointment to various High Courts. Most notably, for the first time since October 2019, the resolutions were accompanied by extensive reasons for repeating the same recommendations despite the Union's concerns. (https://bit.ly/3XlX1Dr) 👥 *What is the Collegium?* The Collegium system, set up in 1993, is a body of senior Judges who recommend candidates for the appointment of Judges to the SC and HCs. For HC appointments and transfers, it comprises the Chief Justice and the 2 other seniormost SC Judges. 🗣️ *What is the criticism of the Collegium’s appointment of Judges?* For over 20 years, there was no record of the factors considered by the Collegium in appointing judges. This lack of transparency raised concerns about social diversity and executive interference in the judiciary. (https://bit.ly/3Wl5TrS) 👨🏻‍⚖️ *What was the issue with the recommended names?* On February 16th, 2022, the SC Collegium recommended the name of *Mr. Sundaresan* for appointment as a Judge of the Bombay High Court. However, on November 25th, 2022, the Union wanted the Court to reconsider its recommendation claiming that Mr. Sundaresan was a ‘highly biased opinionated person’. The Union claimed that he has been critical of important policies, initiatives and directions of the Government on social media. Similar objections were also raised against *Mr. R. John Sathyan* for appointment to the Madras HC. The Union also objected to *Mr. Saurab Kirpal’s* recommendation as a Judge of the Delhi HC claiming that he was openly homosexual and his partner was a Swiss national. The last two names, *Mr. Amitesh Banerjee and Mr. Sakya Sen*, have been waiting for the Union’s approval since July 2019. The Union has returned these names 3 times so far despite the Collegium’s repeated reiterations. ⚖️ *What was the Collegium’s reason to reiterate its recommendations?* Considering the objections against Mr. Sunderasan and Mr. Sathyan, the Collegium said that all citizens have the Right to Free Speech and Expression. Thus, expressing views on social media does not disentitle a candidate from holding office as long as he is a person of competence, merit, and integrity. The reiterations asserted that there was no reason to believe either of these candidates were biased. The Collegium also reiterated Mr. Kirpal’s name, since he possesses the required qualifications. The Collegium noted that his recommendation has been pending for 5 years, despite his partner being from a friendly nation and homosexuality having been decriminalised. Notably, while reiterating the names of Mr. Amitesh Banerjee and Mr. Sakya Sen, the Collegium reminded the Department of Justice that they cannot repeatedly return recommendations after they are reiterated. Read more about the SC Collegium here: (https://bit.ly/3IZd99R)