The Supreme Court has been criticized by some BJP leaders and has made two major decisions. First, the ruling to set a deadline for bills passed by the state legislature. The above judgment was brought by a bench led by JB Pardiwala and Judge R Mahadevan. Judge Padivara is expected to become CJI in May 2028.
Another case has become the center of dispute in the recently revised WAQF Act. Last week, three members led by India’s chief justice Sanjiv Khanna said they expressed “concern” about certain provisions of the amendment law and pointed out that key provisions should be retained.
However, the Centre assured the Supreme Court that certain key provisions – including non-Muslims on the Central WAQF Commission and the WAQF Board of Directors and the relevant property declared by the Court as WAQF – will be temporarily enforced.
“As it is, we are facing charges of assault against executives,” said a judge on Monday, a judge led by Justice Gavai, who passed the observation at a plea hearing requiring the deployment of paramilitary forces following the violence in Murshidabad against the WAQF (Amendment) Act.
The petitioner’s lawyer believes that the immediate deployment of paramilitary forces is needed. Attorneys urged the bench to list the matter on Monday. While Gawai Justice refused to list the matter urgently, in the judicial proceedings of residents in Bangladesh, Spain, the lawsuits of the Commission were rejected. As a committee that constituted the committee, the judge rejected the lawsuits of the Commission on the basis of rejecting the emergency, otherwise, you hope that we would like us to issue a certain mandala order to the President to impose the matter. Ask about Mercidabad’s violence. Requests seek instructions to the central government to deploy paramilitary forces in West Bengal. The case is scheduled to be tried on Tuesday. The same seat made similar remarks, including Justices Br Gavai and Augustine George Masih, at another PIL hearing against social media platforms, allegedly allowing the distribution of obscene materials on their platforms. Justice Gawai verbally observed: “We are accused of interfering in legislative and administrative functions.” The bench released the matter for hearing two weeks later.
In the related development, the Supreme Court told a lawyer on Monday that he would have to seek permission from Attorney General Venkataramani to view the case of BJP MP Nishikant Dubey with a temption, demanding his remarks against the top court and CJI Khanna.
Under the contempt of the Court Act 1971, private individuals can file a contempt petition in the Supreme Court only after obtaining the consent of the Attorney General or the Attorney General.
Dolby reportedly said in an interview last week that the Supreme Court should be accused of “all civil wars in the country.” After Dubey’s remarks, some lawyers have written to AG, demanding permission to despise Dubey under the Contempt Court Act. Previously, Vice President and Chairman of Rajya Sabha Jagdeep Dhankhar had said that judges have no responsibility and the law of the land does not apply to them.
