New Delhi:

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud expressed concern over the rising instances of suicides among students in the country and ordered the Union Health Ministry to file an affidavit on steps being taken to prevent them.

Student suicide is a very serious social issue, the court noted.

Gaurav Bansal, an advocate, had filed a Public Interest Litigation, or PIL, demanding that measures be taken to stop the increasing tendency of suicides among children.

According to the Delhi Police’s response to an RTI query, over 400 students under the age of 18 died by suicide in the national capital Delhi between 2014 and 2018, Mr Bansal said.

Suicide is the largest public health crisis facing people, both the young and the old, in India, experts said, reported news agency IANS.

According to a National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) report released in April, 1.71 lakh people died by suicide in 2022 in India.

The suicide rate has increased to 12.4 per 1,00,000 people, the highest rate ever recorded in India.

New Delhi:

A Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud put tough questions to the West Bengal government today while hearing its appeal against a Calcutta High Court order to cancel about 25,000 appointments by the state school service commission.

At the outset, the Chief Justice asked the Bengal government why it created supernumerary posts and hired waitlisted candidates when the selection process itself had been challenged in court.

Taking the court through the high court order, the Bengal government’s counsel, Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul asked if such an order can be sustained. “It is not even CBI’s case that 25,000 appointments are all illegal. Everything, teacher-child ratio is gone for a toss,” he said.

Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, appearing for the school service commission, argued that the high court bench did not have the jurisdiction to cancel the jobs and its orders were in conflict with Supreme Court judgments in the matter. When the Chief Justice asked if OMR sheets and scanned copies of answer sheets had been destroyed, he replied in the affirmative. The Chief Justice then asked why a tender was not issued for “such a sensitive matter”.

The Chief Justice then asked it was the commission’s duty to keep digital copies of these sheets. When Mr Gupta responded that it is with the agency that the work was outsourced to, the Chief Justice asked, “Where? CBI did not find it. It is outsourced, not with you. Can there be a greater breach of security protocols? They were only hired for scanning, but you let them have the entire data. You cannot say they took it away, you are responsible for maintaining people’s data.”

The Chief Justice then asked if the commission had wrongly told RTI applicants that it had the data. “There is no data (with you) at all.” Mr Gupta replied, “That may be.” When he asked if the high court’s directions were fair, the Chief Justice replied, “But this is systemic fraud. Public jobs are extremely scarce today and are looked at for social mobility. What remains in the system if their appointments are also maligned? People will lose faith, how do you countenance this?”

Also appearing for the commission, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde said there is nothing in the high court judgment about irregularities on the part of the commission. “If we lose a whole chunk or generation in between, we will lose senior headmasters and examiners for the future. Lordships may bear in mind that many of them did not get any notice. When there is a headache, you do not cut off your entire head,” he said. 

The counsels also pointed out some candidates are completely untainted and their OMR sheets are seen as correct. A segregation between tainted and untainted candidates, they contended, was placed before the high court.

When the Chief Justice asked what was the basis on which a chart segregating tainted and untainted candidates was prepared, the Centre’s counsel, Senior Advocate Madhavi Divan, said the segregation is being created for the commission to save face.

Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharyya, who has been representing aggrieved job aspirants said, “OMR sheets were filed without any markings, shown as securing more marks. Discrepancy between digital and ssc data. Huge manipulation.”

“The point we wanted to identify is that was the ground to hold the process so tainted as to cancel all appointments?” the Chief Justice asked.

When Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for some of the affected teachers, raised the rulings by former high court judge and now BJP leader Abhijit Gangopadhyay, the Chief Justice responded, “Mr Dave we are not here to scrutinise the conduct of Mr Gangopadhyay. We have been here all morning listening to nitty gritties. Please show some decorum. Okay, no stay for now, we will issue notice and keep in July. We are finding it difficult to have an orderly hearing and now there is a slinging match going on. No stay or anything. How sensitive or politically fraught the matter is, we are lawyers at the end of the day. Levelling allegations at the HC judges will not help.”

The Supreme Court had last week paused the high court order asking the CBI to investigate Bengal government officials in connection with the teacher recruitment scam. It had refused to stay the cancellation of the appointment of over 25,000 teaching and non-teaching staff.

The court had also asked if it was possible to segregate the valid and invalid appointments on the basis of the material available.

The state government has argued that the high court has cancelled the appointments “arbitrarily”.

“The high court failed to appreciate the ramification of cancelling the entire selection process, leading to straightaway termination of teaching and non-teaching staff from service with immediate effect, without giving sufficient time to the petitioner state to deal with such an exigency, rendering the education system at a standstill,” the petition says.

The high court has said in its April 22 order that the appointments are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The court had observed that it had given “anxious consideration to the passionate plea” that persons who obtained the appointments legally would be prejudiced if the entire selection process was cancelled, but added that it hardly had any choice left.

In its 282-page judgment, the court had said retaining appointees selected through “such a dubious process” would be contrary to public interest.

New Delhi:

The Chief Justice of India, Justice DY Chandrachud, on Saturday said that “the newly enacted criminal laws have transitioned India’s legal framework on criminal justice into the new age.”

Addressing a conference on India’s Criminal Justice System organised by the Ministry of Law and Justice, he said that much-needed improvements have been introduced to protect victim interests and carry out the investigation and prosecution of offences efficiently.

“India is set for a significant overhaul of its criminal justice system with the upcoming implementation of three new criminal laws. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam will replace the Indian Penal Code 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and the Indian Evidence Act 1872, respectively. These laws signify a watershed moment for our society because no law affects the day-to-day conduct of our society like the criminal law,” he said.

Criminal law directs the moral arc of a nation. The underlying justification for the substantive provisions is the age-old harm principle, which is best summarised in the saying, ‘Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins. Procedural law, which governs crimes from the state of setting the criminal process in motion to the conviction for the commission of the offence, ensures that no person is charged and subsequently convicted for offences without due process of law, he added.

While addressing the Conference on India’s Progressive Path in the Administration of the Criminal Justice System, Chief Justice Chandrachud said, “Our laws and their implementation are an ever-evolving area. There is no finality to any law or the manner of its implementation. However, we must be willing to embrace positive changes to meet the needs of our times.”

“I expect that with the implementation of the new criminal laws, we will discover loopholes and areas that need to be addressed. Such debates would be helpful in enhancing the efficiency of our criminal justice systems. However, the ideological framework at the heart of our analysis must be justice-oriented with a civil liberty-centric approach that balances the interests of the victim and the accused,” he added.

“Our laws need to address these concerns and obviate age-old issues like delays in examination of witnesses, conclusion of trials, overcrowding of prisons and the issue of undertrial prisoners,” he said.

The 248th Report of the Standing Committee of the Rajya Sabha on the Bharatiya Sakshya Samhita of November 10, 2023, noted that the Indian criminal justice system has struggled to keep pace with the profound technological changes our socio-economic milieu that have radically re-imagined the way in which crimes manifest in society.

The growing scope of technology and new-age crime, which use the digital landscape to create networks of collaborative units to commit crimes, cannot be pinned to investigative situations. This has presented challenges in the investigation of crimes, admission of evidence, prosecution, and delivery of justice, he said.

As the distinguished American jurist Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in “Law in Science–Science in Law”, that “everyone instinctively recognises that in these days, the justification of a law for us cannot be found in the fact that our fathers have always followed it. It must be found in some help that the law brings towards reaching a social end that the governing power of the community has made up its mind that it wants,” he added.

The three laws, ie, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, replace the earlier criminal laws, namely, the Indian Penal Code 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. As notified, these criminal laws are to take effect from July 1.

Other dignitaries who attended the conference include Arjun Ram Meghwal, Minister of State (independent charge) for the Ministry of Law and Justice, R Venkataramani, Attorney General for India, Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India, Rajiv Mani, Law Secretary, Government of India, among others.

The conference aims to bring out the highlights of the three criminal laws and organise meaningful interactions through technical and question-and-answer sessions. Besides, judges of various courts, advocates, academicians, representatives of law enforcement agencies, police officials, public prosecutors, district administration officials and law students also participated in the conference.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court today came down hard on the State Bank of India for not sharing the complete data on electoral bonds, a scheme that allowed individuals and businesses to donate anonymously to political parties. The court had struck down the scheme and directed the bank to share all details on the donations made in the last 5 years.

Hearing a petition by the Election Commission, the Supreme Court said that the data provided by the Supreme Court was incomplete. The five-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, directed SBI to disclose electoral bond numbers as well, in addition to the details it has already shared.

“Who is appearing for the State Bank of India? They have not disclosed the bond numbers. It has to be disclosed by the State Bank of India,” Chief Justice Chandrachud said right at the outset of the hearing.

In its notice to SBI, the Supreme Court bench has asked the bank to explain the lapse during the next hearing on March 18.

The electoral bond numbers would help establish the link between donors and political parties.

Electoral bonds allowed individuals and businesses to donate money to political parties without declaring it. They were introduced by the BJP government in 2018 as an alternative to cash donations and had been pitched as an initiative to bring transparency in political funding.

The Supreme Court struck down the scheme last month, terming it unconstitutional and over concerns that this could lead to a quid pro quo. The court also urged SBI to share all details about the purchase and redemption of the bonds with the Election Commission.

In its petition, the poll panel said the March 11 order had noted that the copies of the documents submitted by it to the court in a sealed cover during the course of the hearing be maintained at the office of the EC.

The EC said it did not keep any copy of the documents and added that those may be returned so that it can comply with the court’s directions.

The perception that adjournment has become a part of the judicial system is disheartening, underlined Chief Justice DY Chandrachud on Saturday, adding that it prolongs the agony of litigants and perpetuates the cycle of backlog.

“One of the major issues is that of “adjournment culture.” This practice, characterized by repeated requests for delays in proceedings, has far-reaching implications for the efficiency and integrity of our legal system,” said the Chief Justice addressing the All India District Judges Conference at Dhordo in Gujarat’s Kutch.

“The issue of adjournment and tareekh pe tareekh prolongs the agony of litigants. Common citizen feels that adjournment is part of judicial process and my experience is that it is easy to decide a complex case with a judgment than to persuade a lawyer to argue a case,” he said.

The Chief Justice also expressed concern that the longstanding principle of “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” is losing ground with district courts hesitating to deal with matters involving personal liberty.

“Imagine a victim of sexual assault whose case remains unresolved in the courts for several years. Isn’t this a clear violation of their fundamental right to access justice? The concept of access to justice should extend beyond mere access to the courts; it should also guarantee that citizens receive timely judgments from courts of law,” said the Chief Justice.

While even one adjournment might look like a routine affair, it can have severe ramifications for the litigants, said the Chief Justice.

“Often, the outcome of the legal battle never comes to light during the farmer’s lifetime. Instead, the burden falls upon their legal heirs, who find themselves embroiled in protracted legal proceedings long after their loved one’s passing. We should not wait for our citizens to die for their case to be decided by a court of law,” the Chief Justice said.

Courts nationwide, the Chief Justice noted, are grappling with a significant backlog and an “alarming level of pending cases”. This backlog and pendency of cases present a formidable challenge to the efficient administration of justice and the timely resolution of legal disputes, he said.

“Addressing the backlog and pendency of cases requires a multi-faceted approach encompassing systemic reforms, procedural enhancements, and the deployment of technological solutions. Efforts to streamline court procedures, expedite case disposal, and promote alternative dispute resolution mechanisms can help alleviate the burden on the judicial system,” said the Chief Justice.

Technology can be a great tool for improving efficiency, the Chief Justice noted.

“Just as sunshine is said to be the best disinfectant, I believe that technology is the best tool at our disposal to eliminate the inefficiency and opacity surrounding judicial processes,” he said.

Emphasising the importance of inclusivity and diversity in the judiciary, Chief Justice Chandrachud said much improvement has been made towards achieving greater gender representation with women now constituting 36.3 per cent of the working strength of the district judiciary.

“However, while progress has been made in terms of gender representation, there remains a pressing need to ensure that our judicial institutions are truly inclusive and accommodating for all,” he added.

Judges should not be unduly affected by criticism and commentary on social media, he said.

“In recent times, there has been a noticeable increase in judges facing criticisms and commentary on social media platforms. And let me tell you, I have had my fair share of scrutiny too! Even if I say just a single word on the bench, it seems to get reported faster than a speeding bullet. But, should we, judges, be unduly affected by this? The role of a judge is to dispense justice impartially, without being swayed by external pressures or public opinions,” said the Chief Justice.

New Delhi:

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said he restrained himself from imposing cost on a man who requested the top court to give a direction for “digitally monitoring all MPs and MLAs”.

Rejecting the request and warning the petitioner against coming to the Supreme Court with such a petition again, Chief Justice Chandrachud said, “Should we put a microchip on the shoulders of MPs and MLAs?”

“How can any MP and MLA be digitally monitored? MPs and MLAs also have the right to privacy, how can we interfere in it? Such a petition should not be filed in future,” Chief Justice Chandrachud told the petitioner, Surinder Kundra.

At the beginning of the hearing, the Chief Justice warned Mr Kundra that the Supreme Court would impose a cost of Rs 5 lakh for loss of public time. Mr Kundra, however, said he would explain his request in just 15 minutes.

Citing the Constitution, Mr Kundra said MPs and MLAs “behave as if they are rulers” after winning elections, and demanded that CCTVs should be installed at the premises of MPs and every place they go, to be monitored 24×7.

“This footage should be available on the mobile phones of all citizens,” Mr Kundra said.

The Chief Justice then stopped the petitioner before he exceeded his 15 minutes.

Rejecting the petition, Chief Justice Chandrachud said he has restrained himself from imposing cost, and warned the petitioner not to waste court time.

Appreciating the live streaming of court proceedings, virtual hearing and use of technology at the Supreme Court of India, a top Bangladesh official told Chief Justice DY Chandrachud that they are closely following the Indian Supreme Court.

According to sources, Chief Justice Chandrachud was also told that Bangladesh wants to follow the Indian Supreme Court in these matters.

Chief Justice Chandrachud, speaking at the wo-day conference ‘South Asian Constitutional Courts in the Twenty-First Century: Lessons from Bangladesh and India’, said both India and Bangladesh share the tradition of constitutional and judicial systems largely aiming to ensure stability and both nations recognised their constitutions as “living documents”.

Bangladesh’s apex court judges took part in the conference, which drew many jurists, senior lawyers, and government leaders including Law Minister Anisul Huq.

“Our shared tradition aims to ensure stability, but when stability is desired, the stability must never be confused with stagnation,” Chief Justice Chandrachud said.

“We recognise our constitutions are living documents. The constitutions of Bangladesh and India proclaim that they are ‘given to the people by the people themselves’ as citizens of sovereign nations,” Chief Justice Chandrachud said.

Apart from Chief Justice Chandrachud, Supreme Court judges Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Dipankar Dutta were also present during the conference.

Chief Justice Chandrachud said the Indian and Bangladeshi court systems should encourage the enhanced practice of mediation for dispute resolution, discarding “adversarial litigations”.

“Today, we need to ensure that we look into the needs of our society, ensure social growth and social progress by allowing our marginalised groups to come to the mainstream,” said the Chief Justice, explaining how the judge’s role in the post-colonial era was undergoing a change.

In her address, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina said her government has made the judiciary totally independent, separating it from the administration by allocating a separate budget for it.

New Delhi:

Chief Justices have been in the minority in 13 significant judgments, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud has said, standing by his recent ruling in the marriage equality case. He was speaking yesterday at the 3rd Comparative Constitutional Law discussion on ‘Perspectives from the Supreme Courts of India and the United States’, hosted by Georgetown University in Washington, DC

“I do believe it is sometimes a vote of conscience and a vote of the Constitution. And I stand by what I said,” the Chief Justice said on the Supreme Court’s October 17 judgment in which it stopped short of legalising same-sex marriages.

All the judges on the five-member Constitution bench agreed that tweaking laws to bring about marriage equality would amount to encroaching into the legislature’s domain. There was, however, a difference of opinion on the question of the right to civil union and adoption rights. Chief Justice Chandrachud and Justice SK Kaul were in favour of recognising same-sex unions. The majority of the bench took a different view, with Justice S Ravindra Bhat saying he disagreed with the court directing the State to provide for a new legal framework to formalise such relationships.

The Chief Justice also stood by the Supreme Court’s judgment of leaving the decision on marriage equality to Parliament.

“By the unanimous verdict of all the five judges on the bench, we came to the conclusion that while we have progressed a great deal in terms of decriminalising homosexuality and recognising people belonging to the queer community as equal participants in our society, legislating on the right to marry is something that falls within the domain of Parliament,” the Chief Justice said.

In his judgment in the closely-watched case, the Chief Justice had said choosing a life partner is an integral part of choosing one’s course of life. “Some may regard this as the most important decision of their life. This right goes to the root of the right to life and liberty under Article 21,” he said.

“The right to enter into union includes the right to choose one’s partner and the right to recognition of that union. A failure to recognise such associations will result in discrimination against queer couples,” the Chief Justice said, adding, “the right to enter into union cannot be restricted on the basis of sexual orientation”.

Supporting adoption rights for queer couples, he said there is nothing to probe that only heterosexual couples can provide stability to a child. “There is no material on record to prove that only a married heterosexual couple can provide stability to a child,” he said.

New Delhi:

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud today said Mahatma Gandhi’s ideas have persisted over time as a tool of social change, non-violent ways of life and humanism. The Chief Justice of India was speaking at a programme organised on Gandhi Jayanti in London.

“In India, he is lovingly referred to as ‘Bapu’ which means ‘father’. In a spiritual sense, he is a guiding light for all of us. His ideas have persisted over time as a tool of social change, non-violent ways of life and humanism,” Chief Justice Chandrachud said.

“Bapu’s legacy extends far beyond the boundaries of India. His ideas have inspired countless individuals and people’s movements around the world, transcending cultural and geographical barriers. His philosophy continues to influence and guide those who strive for a more equitable and just society,” Chief Justice Chandrachud said.

The Chief Justice of India said Bapu’s commitment to social justice and equality continues to “inspire us to fight against injustices”.

“His unwavering belief in the inherent dignity and worth of every individual serves as a reminder that we must strive for a society where everyone is treated with fairness and respect. Bapu’s vision of a more equitable and just society encourages us to challenge systems of oppression, advocate for the rights of marginalised communities, and work towards creating a society where everyone has equal opportunities and access to necessities,” Chief Justice Chandrachud said.

He said Bapu’s lessons on sustainability are a guiding light for today’s world. “As we face the pressing issue of climate change and environmental challenges, his emphasis on living in harmony with nature and practising sustainable lifestyles provides us with valuable guidance,” the Chief Justice of India said.

“Bapu believed in the philosophy of ‘plain living and high thinking’, thus advocating for a lifestyle that is mindful of our impact on the environment. His ideas on sustainability remind us of the importance of contentment and responsible consumption, conservation of resources, and the need to protect the natural world for future generations,” Chief Justice Chandrachud said.

“As we remember and pay our tribute to Mahatma Gandhi on his birth anniversary, let us re-dedicate ourselves to upholding his principles and working towards a more peaceful, just, and sustainable world,” he said.