Author Archives

Advocatetanmoy

Advocate, adviser and educator

Supreme Court has been laid down  guidelines for listing of urgent matters during   vacation from 13.5.2019 to 30.6.2019

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA New Delhi, May 9, 2019 F.No.14/Judl./2019         CIRCULAR It is hereby notified for the information of all concerned that the following norms/guidelines have been laid down for listing of urgent matters during the ensuing vacation viz. from 13.5.2019 to 30.6.2019 : Every   matter   to   be   moved   before   vacation   Court   should   be accompanied by an affidavit, indicating all the material facts necessary for the formation of opinion about its urgency. The required material facts and […]

Symbolum Apostolorum

Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem caeli et terrae. Et in Iesum Christum, Filium eius unicum, Dominum nostrum, qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, passus sub Pontio Pilato, […]

Supreme Court of India on Government Policies

It is not for the Courts to examine the relative merits of different policies, and consider whether a wiser or better one can be evolved. Nor are Courts inclined to strike down a policy merely because it is urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical.

Centre objected Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice A.S. Bopanna for Supreme Court elevation

May 8, 2019: The Ministry of Law and justice returned the names of the two Hich Court  Judges due to lack of seniority. The Collegium on April 12, 2019, recommended the names of the Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice A.S. Bopanna for their elevation to the Supreme Court after considering their “merit and integrity, combined seniority on all-India basis of Chief Justices and senior puisne Judges of High Courts”. It is understood that the Collegium already considered the seniority, therefore the Collegium may recommend the names again for the second time.

Praveen Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh [MPHC]

That lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike. The protest, if any is required, can only be by giving press statements, TV interviews, carrying out of Court premises banners and/or placards, wearing black or white or any colour arm bands, peaceful protect marches outside and away from Court premises, going on dharnas or relay fasts etc. It is held that lawyers holding Vakalats on behalf of their clients cannot refuse to attend Courts in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott. All lawyers must boldly refuse to abide by any call for strike or boycott. No lawyer can be visited with any adverse consequences by the Association or the Council and no threat or coercion of any nature including that of expulsion can be held out. It is held that no Bar Council or Bar Association can permit calling of a meeting for purposes of considering a call for strike or boycott and requisition, if any, for such meeting must be ignored.