Madan B Lokur

Even the dead have dignity: Supreme Court on revealing the name of rape victims

Just yesterday, BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra and attorney general KK Venugopal claimed 'all was well' in the Supreme Court of India.

The four most senior Supreme Court judges were, in an unprecedented move, “left with no other option” but to call a press conference after their private meeting with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra earlier today apparently failed to yield desired results for them.

The Supreme Court’s collegium of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra and the next senior-most judges, justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph, have begun to post recommendations for elevations and other business on a new ‘resolutions of the collegium’ section of its website according to minutes dated 3 October.

The Supreme Court collegium has finally completed its year-long-awaited draft of the memorandum of procedure (MOP), which would govern how judges are appointed in future, reported the The Times of India’s Dhananjay Mahapatra earlier today:

A seven apex court judge bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) JS Khehar, with justices Dipak Misra, J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur, PC Ghose and Kurian Joseph have today withdrawn all judicial and administrative work from Calcutta high court judge Justice CS Karnan, according to PTI.

Justice Jasti Chelameswar, the fifth-most senior judge of the Supreme Court, and a member of the SC’s collegium, made the news today with the New Indian Express publishing his refusal to participate in a Supreme Court collegium meeting, as a protest against the collegium’s failure to comply with the principle of transparency of its proceedings.

So, one of the longest fasts in world history has come to an end with the Iron Lady of Manipur, Irom Sharmila, abandoning her ineffective fast to force the Government to repeal the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA).

The Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution bench judgment of 13 July, quashing president’s rule in Arunachal Pradesh, was a massive judgment in every way, and not just because it set off a series of dramatic events loaded with suspense.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday rapped Haryana, Gujarat and Bihar on the drought issue and directed the Centre to convene an urgent meeting with their chief secretaries to assess the drought situations in these states.

There are many cases in the Supreme Court, which are under continuous monitoring of the court, meaning that the court, rather than dispose them of after issuing certain orders, monitors them once in a while, so as to ensure compliance with its orders by the authorities concerned. The petition, filed by senior counsel Ram Jethmalani in 2009, (writ petition [civil] 176 of 2009) is one such, which has seen several ups and downs.

The Supreme Court today cleared the decks for the revocation of President’s Rule in Arunachal Pradesh as it vacated its own order of status quo that it had passed yesterday.

The social justice bench comprising justices Madan B Lokur and UU Lalit, set up by the previous chief justice of India, justice HL Dattu on 12 December 2014 has now officially ceased, and the cases which were part-heard before that bench, have been distributed to other benches.

History was made today, with three Constitution benches sitting at the same time in the Supreme Court at 2 pm.

In the ongoing Extra Judicial Execution of Victim Families Association vs Union of India, being heard by justices Madan B Lokur and UU Lalit, the Attorney General had alleged that an article published in The People’s Chronicle (English) and Poknapham (Manipuri) carried certain “highly objectionable statements” by Babloo Loitongbam, who has been reporting the case.

Every Chief Justice of India (CJI), soon after taking over, would first try to get a grip over the bench composition, which was determined according to the requirements of his predecessor.

The future independence or otherwise of the judiciary will be decided today in the fourth judges case, ruling on the validity or otherwise of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).