Within a month of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi proposing happiness classes in judicial academies, Ambedkar University Delhi (AUD) has started designing the curriculum. The curriculum, which will focus on behaviour of judicial officers, is likely to be ready soon to be a part of the syllabus at judicial academies.
“We are working on the programme. The curriculum is being designed based on the govt’s happiness curriculum. It will involve a lot of practical learning,” said Ambedkar University Delhi (AUD) vice-chancellor Anu Singh Lather. “A team of professors is already working on it. The course should be ready in another few months,” she added.
Kartik Dave, dean of the School of Business, Public Policy & Social Entrepreneurship (SBPPSE), said that the course will be participation-friendly & reflection-based. Kartik is also a part of the curriculum development. “The curriculum will encourage a judicial officer to have no conflict within him/herself. It will also help officers explore the inner happiness. The idea is to inspire them to introspect & find out their goals,” Dave added.
While the curriculum is being designed for the judiciary, it may have some common lessons for peace & happiness. “A person can explore happiness through human relationships like friends, family & colleagues,” Dave further said. The proposal to approve the course will be sent to the varsity’s academic council soon.
Five Supreme Court benches, presided over by five senior-most judges including CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Tuesday started court proceedings an hour later at 11:30 AM.
However, the other Supreme Court benches started functioning at 10:30 AM, the usual time for resumption of judicial proceedings in the apex court.
The Supreme Court display board notified that from court number 1, presided over by the CJI, to court number 5 would not be holding judicial proceedings till 11:30 AM.
According to sources, deliberations among top judges on certain issues were on.
On Monday, all the 15 Supreme Court benches had commenced judicial proceedings at 10:45am, 15 minutes after the usual time.
The delayed start of court proceedings had led to speculation among lawyers about some meetings of judges.
A three-judge bench headed by CJI on Saturday had held an unprecedented hearing in the wake of allegations made against the CJI.
Describing the allegations of sexual harassment against him as “unbelievable”, the CJI had convened an extraordinary hearing at the Supreme Court during which he said a larger conspiracy was behind it and he would not stoop too low even to deny these allegations.
The Supreme Court Tuesday sought response from a lawyer, who had made a sensational claim that there was a conspiracy to make CJI Ranjan Gogoi resign by “framing him” in a false case of sexual harassment.
A three-judge special bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra issued notice to lawyer Utsav Singh Bains and sought his response with regard to his claim that he was also offered Rs 1.5 crore to represent a former apex court woman employee and arrange a presser against the CJI at the Press Club of India here.
The bench, which also comprised Justices R F Nariman and Deepak Gupta, has now fixed the case titled as a matter of “great public importance touching upon the independence of judiciary”, for hearing tomorrow at 10:30 AM.
The lawyer had filed an affidavit on Monday following the unprecedented hearing on Saturday during which the CJI had said a larger conspiracy was behind it and that he would not stoop too low even to deny these allegations.
“The question that looms large and what the Court would like to be informed about is the precise relationship between the final N.R.C. which is due to be published on 31.7.2019 and the electoral rolls.” What would be fate of the persons whose names appear in the electoral roll but are not included in the final NRC?, a curious Supreme Court bench asked the Election Commission of India on Tuesday. The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Sanjiv Khanna observed that this question has ‘great significance for the future’. “Notwithstanding the contours of the present writ petition, the question that looms large and what the Court would like to be informed about is the precise relationship between the final N.R.C. which is due to be published on 31.7.2019 and the electoral rolls”, the bench said directing the ECI to file an affidavit within two weeks.
The bench was considering a writ petition filed by Gopal Seth raising allegation of deletion of the names of the petitioners from the voters’ list on the basis of their names not appearing in the draft N.R.C. As there was no representation of ECI during the last posting, the bench had directed personal appearance of its Secretary.
Mallay Mallick, ECI Secretary appeared before the bench on Tuesday and had an interaction with the bench. Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, who appeared for ECI, denied the allegations made in the writ petition and submitted that, at no point of time, the names of the petitioners have been deleted from the electoral roll. In this regard, the bench has asked ECI to file an affidavit within seven days. Posting the matter on 28th March, the bench further directed ECI: “We further direct the Election Commission of India to inform the Court the details with regard to the revision of electoral rolls under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 in the State of Assam with reference to 1.1.2017, 1.1.2018 and 1.1.2019 indicating the precise number of names included and deleted from the electoral roll in the aforesaid exercises of revision of electoral rolls.”
The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Centre on a petition demanding implementation of the plans and policies for adoption of electric vehicles to tackle air pollution and climate change. A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna ordered the government to apprise it of the status of implementation of the Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of (Hybrid &) Electric Vehicles in India (FAME India) scheme and listed the matter to be heard after one month.
The petition has been jointly filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation, NGO Common Cause and Sita Ram Jindal Foundation. The petitioners were represented by Advocate Prashant Bhushan. They bring to the attention of the court the fact that the government had released the National Electric Mobility Mission Plan, 2020 in 2012, making several recommendations for adoption of electric vehicles. Among other things, the plan had recommended that government fleets and public transportation be switched to electric vehicles; subsidies be provided to consumers for purchase of electric vehicles; provision of tax incentives & policy incentives; and requisite charging infrastructure be created by mandating fast and normal charging points in apartment buildings, parking lots, government offices, malls etc. Also Read – SC To Hear Rafale Review Petitions In CJI’s Chamber On 26th February The petition submits that in order to implement the plan, the government promulgated the FAME-India scheme that does provide subsidies to consumers.
It, however, contends that this scheme failed to mandate demand and charging infrastructure. The petition further alleges that while a modest target of sale of 7 million electric vehicles was set by the 2012 plan, only 0.263 million vehicles have been sold as of January, 2019, “showing a total failure of that scheme”. It further claims that the government has thus far allocated less than 600 crores over a period of 7 years towards the entire scheme, despite the fact that the 2012 plan had called for an investment of 14,500 crores from the government to kickstart demand and creation of charging infrastructure. The petition goes on to rely on Niti Aayog’s policy framework on Zero Emission Vehicles as well, to assert that electric vehicles alleviate the effects of pollution, in terms of the total ‘life cycle’ cost of ownership as well as ‘life cycle’ emission of pollution vis-a-vis fossil fuel based vehicles. Furthermore, relying on Constitutional guarantees for securing healthy environment, it contends,”Articles 39(e), 47 and 48 of Constitution of India collectively cast a duty on the State to securethe health of the people, improve public health, and protect and improve the environment.
The lack of effort on the part of the enforcement agencies, notwithstanding adequate laws hasresulted into spiralling pollution levels. The quality of air is steadily decreasing and no effective steps have been taken by the administration in this behalf……government has abdicated its duty to protect the citizens right to health and clean environment under Article 14 and Article 21. Governmental apathy in suitably implementing there commendations of it’s own agencies has led to spiralling emissions from fossil fuel based vehicles contributing to the problems of Climate Change and Air Pollution turning our cities into virtual ‘gas chambers’.” The petition therefore demands implementation of the FAME-India scheme and Niti Aayog’s recommendations, as well as adoption of internationally recognised best practices for integration of usage of electric vehicles.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Monday refused to entertain a fresh petition on Article 370, that gives special autonomous status to Jammu and Kashmir. A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Ajay Rastogi asked the petitioner to file an application for impleadment in the pending matters.
Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah said they will hear the matter in the first week of April 2019 after Attorney General KK Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, sought adjournment on the grounds that the current situation is very sensitive. “We have heard the petitioner. The issues raised in the petition are part of the petitions pending,” said the bench.
Senior advocate Rakesh Dwivedi and advocate Shoeb Alam, appearing for Jammu and Kashmir said that a letter has been circulated seeking adjournment due to the ongoing nine-phase Panchayat polls in the state.
NEW DELHI: The probe on exiled CBI Director Alok Verma has given “mixed” findings and some charges needed to be investigated further, the Supreme Court on Friday said while examining the report submitted by the Central Vigilance Commission.
A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, is also likely to consider the report of the commission, placed before it in a sealed cover, with regard to the probe into the allegations against Verma. The court asked him to file his response in a sealed cover on Monday.
The vigilance body had to apologise for submitting its report a day late, on Monday. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said it was considered necessary to seek his response “keeping in mind the need to preserve and maintain sanctity and public confidence in the said institution (CBI)”.
Alok Verma, whose functions were taken over by an interim chief after the dramatic post-midnight government order sending him on leave, went to the Supreme Court.
NEW DELHI: Deputy Chief of Air staff, Air Marshal V R Chaudhari and two other officers from Indian Air Force appeared before the bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi to assist it on the issue of the procurement of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France.
The bench, also comprising Justices S K Kaul and K M Joseph, asked the officials about latest induction in the Air Force. “We are dealing with the requirements of the Air Force and would like to ask an Air Force officer on Rafale jets. We want to hear from an Air force officer and not the official of the Defence Ministry on the issue,” the bench said when the Attorney General began his arguments on behalf of the Centre in the pre-lunch session Wednesday.
Four top officers, including Vice Chief of Air Staff Air Marshall Anil Khosla, Air Marshall V R Chaudhari and J Chelapati, who appeared before the court, submitted that there has been no fresh induction after Mirage aircraft in 1985.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that an inquiry against Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Director Alok Verma must be completed who has been divested of his duties and sent on leave in view of feud between him and Special Director Rakesh Asthana.The
Bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph said the CVC’s inquiry would be supervised by former Supreme Court judge AK Patnaik. Senior lawyer General Fali S Nariman, who was representing Verma, had cited the Vineet Narain judgement to say that the CBI Director enjoys a protected two-year tenure.
Asthana has also approached the Supreme Court with a separate petition in the matter. Both Alok Verma and Rakesh Asthana were asked by the government to proceed on leave and Joint Director M Nageswara Rao was asked to officiate as interim Director of the CBI.
NEW DELHI: Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi on Saturday on Saturday disagreed with a suggestion by the apex bar body to lift a 16-year-old ban on strikes by lawyers, wondering why there should be a strike at all.
Justice Gogoi, who was sworn in as the CJI on October 3, said, “I don’t think it is an issue at all. Why go into the legalities. Why should there be a strike? I am sure there wont be any”.
Demanding lifting of the ban, the BCI Chairman said that if the mouth of lawyers are shut it will destroy the very democratic setup of the country”. “The legal fraternity has a great faith on the CJI. We are sure that you will restore our freedom,” he said.
The CJI’s view was also shared by apex court’s Justice Arun Mishra, who reminded the lawyers that their absence in court will affect people’s liberty and deny many of their rights. Justices N V Ramana and Mohan M Shantanagoudar, both apex court judges, were also present on the occasion.