Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

Irked over truckload of bulky documents filed by parties in a batch of petitions arising out of the Amazon-Future Retail case (Reliance Industries acquisition deal with Future Retail), the Supreme Court Tuesday asked whether the purpose was just to drag on or harass the judges and sought a common small compilation of documents. A bench comprising Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justice A S Bopanna and Hima Kohli asked the counsel for parties to file small volume of documents so that the matter can be disposed of, and fixed the case for hearing on December 8. I am sorry to say to all of you. What is the fun in filing 22-23 volumes of records. How many documents both sides have filed repeatedly and is it the purpose of just dragging on or otherwise to harass the judges, said the CJI. It is completely unnecessary, senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the Future group, said and suggested that both sides can discuss and file a common document along with short written notes. There is a problem in locating the volume, the bench said, adding Give us some time. Do one thing. Can you make a small compilation of these documents which you are relying upon. Truckload of volume has been filed yesterday . Meanwhile, the bench allowed the IDBI trusteeship, which had moved the apex court seeking to de-freeze Future Retail shares pledged to it, withdrew its plea and said that it will go to the Delhi High Court with its plea. The pledged shares have been attached at the orders of the high court, senior advocate N K Kaul said, adding that since the apex court had barred the high court from proceeding with the case, the IDBI trusteeship has failed to access its shares. On November 11, the top court judge Justice Hima Kohli had offered to recuse herself from hearing the pleas, saying she and her family members have shares in Reliance Industries Ltd group firms, one of the interested parties to the litigation. We have no objection, said a battery of lawyers appearing for parties Amazon, Future Retail Limited (FRL) and Future Coupons Private Ltd (FCPL). The top court was hearing a fresh petition of Future Group against the Delhi High Court's recent order declining its plea for stay on an arbitration tribunal decision refusing to interfere with the Singapore International Arbitration Centre's (SIAC) Emergency Award (EA) which restrained it from going ahead with the Rs 24,731 crore merger deal with Reliance Retail. The bench was also hearing a counter plea by Amazon, seeking to restrain the regulators from approving the merger deal. It said the last order was passed with the consent of the parties that the regulatory authorities will not approve the merger deal without prior nod from the top court. The dispute over the merger deal has seen several rounds of litigation after SIAC passed the EA in favour of the US firm on October 25, 2020 staying the merger. On October 21 this year, a duly-constituted panel of arbitrators at SIAC reiterated the decision of the EA. Then on October 29, the Delhi High Court declined Future Group's plea for stay on the arbitration tribunal order refusing to interfere with the EA which restrained it from going ahead with the Rs 24,731 crore merger deal with Reliance Retail. The high court sought response from Amazon which had challenged the merger before the SIAC, and listed the appeals by FCPL and FRL for further hearing on January 4, 2022. FRL and FCPL moved the top court recently against the order with fresh pleas. Kishore Biyani and 15 others including FRL and FCPL have been embroiled in a series of litigations with Amazon, an investor in FCPL, over the deal with Reliance. Following the EA, subsequently, a three-member arbitral tribunal was constituted to decide the issues arising from the deal. On September 9, the apex court had stayed for four weeks all proceedings before the high court in relation to the implementation of the EA and also directed statutory authorities like National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Competition Commission of India (CCI) and Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) not to pass any final order related to the merger deal in the meantime. Subsequently, the arbitration tribunal under the SIAC rejected on October 21 the FRL plea to lift the interim stay granted by its EA on October 25 last year, observing that "the Award was correctly granted". Amazon had dragged Future Group to arbitration at SIAC in October last year, arguing that FRL had violated their contract by entering into the deal with rival Reliance. The FRL and FCPL had moved the top court against the high court order of August 17 which said that it would implement the earlier order by its single-judge restraining FRL from going ahead with the deal in pursuance of the EA's award. The high court had said that in the absence of a stay, it would have to enforce the order passed by its single judge, Justice J R Midha, on March 18. On March 18, besides restraining FRL from going ahead with its deal with Reliance Retail, the court had imposed costs of Rs 20 lakh on the Future Group and others associated with it and ordered attachment of their properties. On August 6, the Supreme Court gave the verdict in favour of Amazon and held that EA award, restraining the Rs 24,731 crore FRL-Reliance Retail merger deal, is valid and enforceable under Indian arbitration laws. The apex court had also set aside the two orders of February 8 and March 22 of the division bench of the Delhi High Court order which had lifted the single-judge's orders staying the FRL-RRL merger. A bench headed by Justice R F Nariman, since retired, had dealt with the larger question and held that an award of an EA of a foreign country is enforceable under the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act. SEE ALSO <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/telecom/news/jio-is-slowing-down-in-the-race-to-500-million-subscribers/articleshow/87862415.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink">Jio is slowing down in the race to 500 million subscribers – a goal set by none other than Mukesh Ambani</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/startups/news/nobroker-is-the-38th-indian-startup-to-be-valued-over-a-1-billion-in-2021/articleshow/87867289.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink">NoBroker is the 38th Indian startup to be valued over a billion dollars this year</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/telecom/news/vodafone-idea-hikes-tariffs-by-up-to-500-for-its-popular-plans/articleshow/87864183.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink">Vodafone Idea hikes tariffs by up to ₹500 for its popular plans</a>

Amazon vs Future — 'Why file voluminous records, to drag the case or harass judges?' asks Supreme Court

<ul><li>The national capital of India may be facing a <keyword id="6355017" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="water-shortage">water shortage</keyword> over the next three days.</li><li>The water shortage will not only impact the general population, but also hospitals, which are currently reeling from the surge in COVID-19 patients.</li><li>According to the Delhi Jal Board (DJB), Haryana is to blame for reducing the supply of water by 20% to 30% as well as making the water dirtier.</li><li>The DJB has filed a petition with the Supreme Court to address the issue. The court will hear the cases tomorrow on May 6.</li></ul>India’s national capital, New Delhi, has been under lockdown for nearly three weeks now, due to the surging number of COVID-19 cases. And a water shortage will only make things worse. The city is already facing a number of shortages as it is, from vaccines to oxygen to medical supplies. The administration in Delhi saw this coming, more than a month ago. The vice chairman of the Delhi Jal Board (DJB), Raghav Chaddha, claims he has even written multiple letters to the Haryana Chief Minister to address the issue, but no resolution has been offered. With no other option on the table, the DJB finally moved the Supreme Court to help the national capital in its moment of crisis. It told the apex court that there is a critical shortage in water being supplied from the neighbouring states of Punjab and Haryana. Not only will the people in the city suffer at large, the water shortage could hit hospitals as well -- the same hospitals which are currently understaffed and overrun with COVID-19 patients. <div type="ExtQuote" text="&quot;Due to depletion of levels at Wazirabad Pond and reduction in the release of raw water by Haryana into Yamuna, water production has been curtailed from the water treatment plants at Wazirabad, Chandrawal and Okhla.”" auname="Notification by the Delhi Jal Board on May 5"></div> The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Nuthalapati Venkata Ramana, has decided to hear the matter tomorrow on May 6. <cmsannotation type="cmsannotation" annotationid="How bad is the water situation in Delhi?" comment="subhead" text="How bad is the water situation in Delhi?">How bad is the water situation in Delhi?</cmsannotation> The Yamuna River in Delhi gets around 250 million gallons of raw water from the Upper Ganga Canal. As of April, that flow was down to around which means only around 200 million gallons of water is coming in. As a result there was a shortage of water at the Sonia Vihar and Bhagirathi water treatment plants. To make matters worse, the water is dirtier than it used to be. The high ammonia concentration in the Yamuna has affected the productivity of the water treatment plants in Chandrawal and Wazirabad. These two plants are responsible for churning out an average of 228 million gallons of water a day for the people of Delhi. As per the latest estimates, levels at the Wazirabad water treatment plant have fallen by over 1% from the standard level of 674.5 feet to 667.2 feet of water. <cmsannotation type="cmsannotation" annotationid="Delhi saw the water shortage coming" comment="subhead" text="Delhi saw the water shortage coming">Delhi saw the water shortage coming</cmsannotation> This is not the first time that the DJB has had to go to the Supreme Court. On March 23, the DJB told the bench headed by CJI Sharad Arvind Bobde that Haryana has plans to cut 20% of its water to Delhi to repair work in one of its canals. Senior advocate AM Singhvi and advocate Gautam Narayan, appearing for the DJB, urged the court to order Haryana to postpone the work. They argued that a reduction in water supply during the peak summer months would adversely affect the national capital. At the time, the Supreme Court had ordered Haryana, as well as Punjab and the Bhakra Beas Management Board, to not make any changes to the supply of water to Delhi until April 6. The court then extended the water supply order to April 14. The following week, on April 19, the Supreme Court appointed a committee to conduct a local inspection with regard to the quality and quantity of water coming in from Haryana to Delhi. Disputes of water between Delhi and Haryana are not new. They happen every summer when the supply of water is limited and the national capital is dependent on its neighbour to ensure adequate supply. The only difference this time is the pandemic, which is putting the spotlight back on an already ongoing battle for survival. <cmsannotation type="cmsannotation" annotationid="This is the full list of areas in Delhi that are likely to be impacted by the water shortage between May 6 to May 8" comment="subhead" text="This is the full list of areas in Delhi that are likely to be impacted by the water shortage between May 6 to May 8">This is the full list of areas in Delhi that are likely to be impacted by the water shortage between May 6 to May 8</cmsannotation> <ol><li>Civil Lines</li><li>Hindu Rao Hospital and adjoining areas</li><li>Kamla Nagar</li><li>Shakti Nagar and adjoining areas</li><li>Karol Bagh</li><li>Pahar Ganj and NDMC areas</li><li>Old and New Rajinder Nagar</li><li>East and West Patel Nagar</li><li>Baljeet Nagar</li><li>Prem Nagar</li><li>Inderpuri and adjoining areas</li><li>Kalkaji</li><li>Govindpuri</li><li>Tughlakabad</li><li>Sangam Vihar</li><li>Ambedkar Nagar</li><li>Prahladpur and adjoining areas</li><li>Ramleela Ground</li><li>Delhi Gate</li><li>Subhash Park</li><li>Model Town</li><li>Gulabi Bagh</li><li>Punjabi Bagh</li><li>Jahangirpuri</li><li>Moolchand</li><li>South Extension</li><li>Greater Kailash</li><li>Burari and adjoining areas</li><li>Parts of the Cantonment areas, South Delhi, Central Delhi, West Delhi and North Delhi</li></ol>SEE ALSO:<a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/banks-respond-positively-to-indian-central-banks-covid-stimulus-package-check-out-the-list-of-top-gainers/articleshow/82400850.cms">Banks respond positively to Indian central bank’s COVID stimulus package – check out the list of top gainers</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/science/space/news/chinse-space-station-rocket-to-hit-earth-being-tracked-by-the-pentagon-us-space-command/articleshow/82402617.cms">The Pentagon has its eye on the out-of-control Chinese rocket that is expected to crash into Earth — but it’s not anything to lose sleep over</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/private-ambulances-in-gurgaon-are-on-strike-amid-the-surging-cases-of-covid-19/articleshow/82404211.cms">COVID-19 patients are the ones paying the price amid the tussle over rates between the government and ambulance operators in Gurgaon</a>

Water shortage might be on the way to worsen Delhi's COVID-19 crisis

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the life imprisonment of P. Rajagopal, the owner of south Indian hotel chain <keyword id="188781" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Saravana-Bhavan">Saravana Bhavan</keyword>, for murdering an employee in October 2001 so as to marry his wife. A bench headed by Justice N.V. Ramana gave Rajagopal time till July 7 to surrender. The ruling comes on the Madras High Court order upholding his life imprisonment. The High Court had enhanced the 10-year sentence given by a trial court. When contacted, Rajagopal's son P.R. Shivakumar told IANS: "I just got an SMS about the verdict. I have to get more details." The hugely popular hotel chain has outlets within and outside India and is now managed by Shivakumar. The South Indian restaurant chain, Saravana Bhavan has 33 outposts in India and 47 around the world. <a target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._Rajagopal_%28businessman%29">P. Rajagopal</a>, was sentenced to life in prison in India in 2009 on charges of murdering his employee, Prince Shantakumar, so as to marry his wife. However, India's highest court had granted him a bail in May 2009, when the lawyer of the accused claimed that Rajagopal needed to go through medical treatment for paralysis, reported One India News. He served just 11 months of that sentence. With IANS

Owner Of A Wildly Popular Restaurant Chain Gets Life Term In Murder Case

The <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> will hear SEBIs petition, in an open court, seeking review of its August 5 judgment, which directed the market regulator to share certain documents with Reliance Industries Limited (RIL). A bench headed by Chief Justice U.U. Lalit and comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Hima Kohli said: "Considering the facts and circumstances on record and the submissions advanced in the review petition, we deem it appropriate to allow application for listing of the instant petition in open court. Let this review petition be listed in court on October 12, 2022." <keyword id="35210" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="SEBI" source="Orion">SEBI</keyword> has refused to entertain RIL's request to share the privileged documents on the grounds that under the Sebi (Settlement Proceedings) Regulations, the accused company has no right to seek information from it. The <keyword id="6356229" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="apex-court" source="Orion">apex court</keyword>, in its judgement, had rejected this stand of the market regulator. RIL had claimed that documents will exonerate it and its promoters from criminal prosecution initiated in a case related to the alleged irregularities in acquisition of its own shares between 1994 and 2000. Last week, a bench headed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna had recused from hearing RIL's petition seeking to initiate contempt proceedings against SEBI for failing to provide certain documents to the company. On August 5, a bench led by then Chief Justice N.V. Ramana had said: "The approach of SEBI, in failing to disclose the documents, also raises concerns of transparency and fair trial. Opaqueness only propagates prejudice and partiality. Opaqueness is antithetical to transparency." The top court had said the market regulator should show fairness and furnish documents sought by RIL, and SEBI has a duty to act fairly, while conducting proceedings or initiating any action against the parties. RIL filed a contempt petition as SEBI has not shared three documents -- the two legal opinions by former apex court judge B.N. Srikrishna and former ICAI president Y.H. Malegam's report which examined the irregularities. The company claimed SEBI cannot continue to resist the production of these documents and it had also sent a notice to the regulator saying if documents were not received by August 18, then it will establish that SEBI does not want to comply with the apex court's judgment. In 2002, Chartered Accountant S. Gurumurthy filed a complaint with SEBI alleging irregularities by RIL, its associate companies and their directors/promoters, including <keyword id="3820" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="mukesh-ambani" source="Orion">Mukesh Ambani</keyword> and his wife, Nita; <keyword id="9171" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="anil-ambani" source="Orion">Anil Ambani</keyword> and his wife, Tina; and 98 others. The complaint cited the issue of two preferential placement of non-convertible debentures in 1994. SEBI had alleged that RIL along with Reliance Petroleum had circuitously funded the acquisition of its own shares in violation of the Sections 77 and 77A of the Companies Act, 1956. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/markets/news/sebi-tightens-disclosure-norms-for-ipo-brings-mutual-fund-transactions-under-the-gambit-of-insider-trading-rules/articleshow/94577801.cms">SEBI tightens disclosure norms for IPOs, brings mutual fund transactions under the gambit of insider trading rules</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/jio-will-launch-5g-for-the-entire-country-by-december-2023-mukesh-ambani/articleshow/94579338.cms">Jio will launch 5G for the entire country by December 2023: Mukesh Ambani</a>

SC to hear SEBI's review petition against RIL on Oct 12

The Centre on Tuesday again urged the <keyword id="6354977" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> to urgently hear the matter connected with the validity of <keyword id="11939755" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="ews" source="Orion">EWS</keyword> quota in postgraduate courses in medical colleges. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, after failing to get the matter listed on Tuesday, requested a bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana to list the matter for hearing. Mehta emphasized that the matter needs to be considered on priority since resident doctors are protesting. The Chief Justice told Mehta that he has to constitute a special bench. Justice Ramana said: "Let me see tomorrow. This entire week is a miscellaneous week..." Mehta said the resident doctors are protesting and their concerns are genuine. The bench said: "If it is a three-judge bench matter, then it will be listed before a three-judge bench tomorrow". On Monday, Mehta asked a bench led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud to advance the hearing on the matter to Tuesday from January 6. The Centre has told the top court that Rs 8 lakh income criterion for determining the EWS is much more stringent than the one for the OBC creamy layer. The Centre has accepted the report of a three-member panel constituted to revisit the EWS criteria. The panel, in its report, said: "Firstly, the EWS's criteria relates to the financial year prior to the year of application whereas the income criterion for the creamy layer in OBC category is applicable to gross annual income for three consecutive years." The panel added, "Secondly, in case of deciding the OBC creamy layer, income from salaries, agriculture and traditional artisanal professions are excluded from the consideration whereas the Rs 8 lakh criteria for EWS includes that from all sources, including farming. So, despite being the same cut-off number, their composition is different and hence, the two cannot be equated". The panel comprised Ajay Bhushan Pandey, former finance secretary; Prof V.K. Malhotra of ICSSR; and Sanjeev Sanyal, principal economic advisor to the government. The panel was set up on November 30. On November 25, the Centre informed the Supreme Court that it has taken a decision to revisit the criteria of Rs 8 lakh annual income limit for EWS criteria and added that a fresh decision will be taken within a period of 4 weeks. On October 21, the Supreme Court had questioned the Centre over adopting the criteria of OBC creamy layer of Rs 8 lakh annual income for granting reservations under the economic weaker section (EWS), despite the latter not suffering from social and educational backwardness. The top court told the Centre's counsel "You just cannot pull out eight lakh from thin air. You are making unequal equal by applying the Rs eight lakh limit". In an affidavit, the Centre had told the Supreme Court that its decision to fix Rs 8 Lakh income limit for OBC and economically weaker section (EWS) is not arbitrary in the <keyword id="6361994" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="neet" source="Orion">NEET</keyword> All India Quota, and it was finalised after considering diverse economic factors in different states. The top court is hearing writ petitions challenging 27 per cent reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBC) and 10 per cent reservation for EWS in all-India Quota seats for postgraduate medical courses. As many as 15 per cent seats in <keyword id="48426" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="mbbs" source="Orion">MBBS</keyword> and 50 per cent seats in MS and MD courses are filled through All India Quota from the candidates selected through NEET. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/delhi-resident-doctors-call-off-their-14-day-long-nationwide-strike-over-neet-pg-counselling/articleshow/88612843.cms">Delhi resident doctors call off their 14-day long nationwide strike over NEET-PG counselling</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/education/news/neet-pg-counselling-not-to-commence-till-supreme-court-decides-on-obc-ews-quota-says-centre/articleshow/87253992.cms">NEET-PG counselling not to commence till Supreme Court decides on OBC, EWS quota, says Centre</a>

Supreme Court agrees to hear Centre's plea on EWS quota for NEET-PG admissions

<keyword id="144015" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="kalanithi-maran" source="Orion">Kalanithi Maran</keyword> and <keyword id="169847" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="kal-airways" source="Orion">KAL Airways</keyword> informed the Supreme Court on Monday that <keyword id="6358032" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="spicejet" source="Orion">SpiceJet</keyword>'s offer of ₹600 crore towards full and final settlement of the share transfer dispute was not acceptable. Senior advocate Maninder Singh, representing KAL Airways, submitted before a bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana that it was not possible for his clients to consider the offer proposed by SpiceJet airlines. The bench, also comprising Justices A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli, inquired further whether none of the two offers proposed by SpiceJet was acceptable. Singh replied in the negative and added that as per the arbitral award SpiceJet has to pay them ₹920 crore. Singh also submitted that he could take the court through the calculations as per the arbitral award from the pleadings itself in support of the arguments. He also submitted that the matter may be listed for arguments on the next date of hearing. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing SpiceJet airlines, urged the bench to hear the matter within 2 weeks. Singh was assisted by advocates from Karanjawala &amp; Co. After hearing arguments, the top court has scheduled the matter for further hearing on March 2. On February 10, the Supreme Court asked Kalanithi <keyword id="44006" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="maran" source="Orion">Maran</keyword>, the former promoter of SpiceJet, to consider the full and final settlement offer made by SpiceJet to end the dispute in a share transfer matter. In a statement SpiceJet, after the hearing in the top court, said: "SpiceJet has offered to pay ₹600 crore in cash in the share transfer case with its former promoter Kalanithi Maran and his firm KAL Airways for a full and final settlement of all disputes. Out of the principal amount of ₹578 crore awarded in arbitration, SpiceJet has already paid ₹308 crore in cash and deposited a bank guarantee of ₹270 crore." SpiceJet's counsel had proposed to pay the bank guarantee equivalent amount of ₹270 crore in cash and top it up with additional ₹22 crore aggregating the total pay-out to ₹600 crore as full and final settlement of all disputes between the parties. Maran and his firm, KAL Airways, had urged the top court to lift the stay on a Delhi High Court order asking the low-cost airline to deposit ₹243 crore as interest on the amount of ₹579 crore in the dispute. In November 2020, the top court stayed the high court order. Maran sought the stay to be lifted to secure the decreed amount -- refund amount awarded and interest -- from SpiceJet. Singh had argued that the high court had asked them to pay the decretal amount and against which SpiceJet had deposited only ₹270 crore as bank guarantee and now there is a winding up order passed against SpiceJet by the Madras High Court in another case being Credit Suisse AG Vs SpiceJet. He added that in such a change in circumstance, SpiceJet should be directed to pay and deposit ₹242 crore otherwise his client will have to run from pillar to post. Karanjawala &amp; Co. in a statement said the top court proposed two offers to Maran and KAL Airways that SpiceJet will give ₹300 crore towards full and final settlement of the dispute and the matter finally gets settled and no further litigation. Second, out of the bank guarantee of ₹270 crore deposited with HC, SpiceJet will give ₹100 crore for now and the order will be passed by the top court to hear petitions, which are pending before the high court expeditiously. The top court asked Singh to discuss the settlement with his client. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/stock-market/news/sbi-and-icici-bank-lost-over-10000-crore-to-abg-shipyard-bank-fraud/articleshow/89559899.cms">SBI and ICICI Bank investors pay the price for the nearly ₹10,000 crore lost to the biggest bank fraud ever in India</a>

Kalanithi Maran and KAL Airways reject SpiceJet's ₹600 crore settlement offer

<ul><li>It said that the office of <keyword id="6363345" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="cji">CJI</keyword> will come under Right to Information act (<keyword id="6356198" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="RTI">RTI</keyword>). </li><li>This means that information can be sought by anybody by filing an application.</li><li>However, Justice Ramana who pronounced the verdict also said that RTI should not be allowed to be used as a tool of surveillance. </li></ul> The <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> of India has made its <keyword id="42759" type="POSITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Chief-Justice">chief justice</keyword> accountable to the public. It said that the office of CJI will come under Right to Information (RTI) which means that information can be sought by anybody by filing an application. “RTI office of <keyword id="45053" type="POSITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Chief-Justice-of-India">Chief Justice of India</keyword> is a public authority under RTI. Judicial independence has to be kept in mind while dealing with transparency,” ruled SC in its order. However, Justice Ramana who pronounced the verdict also said that RTI should not be allowed to be used as a tool of surveillance. "Nobody wants to remain in the state of darkness or keep anybody in the state of darkness. The question is drawing a line. In the name of transparency, you can't destroy the institution," the SC bench said. 2010 or now? This order mirrors the Delhi High Court judgement which said that judicial independence was not the privilege of a judge but a responsibility. The case was filed by an RTI activist S C Agarwal who had engaged prominent lawyer Prashant Bhushan to file the case. The controversial case had triggered a debate between transparency and judicial freedom. Bhushan had famously questioned if judges inhabit a “different universe” and described their reluctance to part information as “disturbing”. This is the second important judgement that Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi has pronounced in the last week, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/news/ayodhya-ram-mandir-case-supreme-court-verdict-top-highlights/articleshow/71979856.cms">after AYodhya case order on Saturday (November 9). </a>

Chief Justice of India will now come under RTI lens, says Supreme Court

<ul><li><keyword id="53964" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Soli-Sorabjee">Soli Sorabjee</keyword>, the <keyword id="2500151" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Former-Attorney-General-of-India">former Attorney General of India</keyword>, passed away on 30 April at the age of 91 due to complications from COVID-19.</li><li>The Padma Vibhushan awardee is most recognised for his work defending people’s freedom of expression as well as human rights. </li><li>Sorabjee is also one of the few well known names in the profession who have openly opposed lawyers that charge big bucks.</li></ul>Former <keyword id="458351" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Attorney-General-of-India">Attorney General of India</keyword>, Soli Sorabjee, passed away on Friday, at the age of 91 due to COVID-19 related issues. “He will be remembered as a legend who added strength to the pillars of democracy. I pay my deep respects to the departed soul. Condolences to the family, friends and fans,” said the Chief Justice of India NV Ramana. Sorabjee had a career that spanned across seven decades during which he served two terms as the Attorney General, once from 1989 to 1990 and again from 1998 to 2004. “Despite possessing a different political persuasion, Soli [Sorabjee] has steadfastly believed in Voltaire [sic] famous dictum that he would disagree violently with anyone but defend to death that person’s right to disagree with him,” said Abhishek Manu Singhvi, a senior Member of Parliament (MP) and senior advocate in the Supreme Court, in a <a href="https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/straight-candid/down-the-memory-lane-reminiscing-soli-sorabjee/?source=app&amp;frmapp=yes">Times of India</a> op-ed. <cmsannotation type="cmsannotation" annotationid="Work in the field of human rights and freedom of expression" comment="subhead" text="Work in the field of human rights and freedom of expression">Work in the field of human rights and freedom of expression</cmsannotation> Sorabjee is known for his work in the area of the protection of human rights and freedom of speech — an endeavour that eventually won him the Padma Vibhushan, India’s second-highest civilian honour, in March 2002. “If Soli was forced to choose amongst his many passions, I would guess freedom of speech and press would be his choice. His commitment to it has been unfailing and unflagging, never affected by the vicissitudes of contemporary ambiance or the burdens and exigencies of high office,” noted Singhvi. Sorabjee is also one of the few well known names in the profession who have openly opposed lawyers that charge big bucks. According to him, anyone charging ₹30 to ₹40 lakh is in the business of extortion. "If a man is willing to be robbed, will you be a thief," he <a href="https://www.shiksha.com/law/articles/5-famous-indian-lawyers-and-where-they-studied-blogId-8656">said.</a> The man has many a feather in his cap, including being the chairman of Berlin-based nonprofit organisation Transparency International and the convenor of the Minority Rights Group, in addition to being the <a href="https://www.un.org/press/en/1997/19971020.HRCN814.html">special rapporteur </a>to the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) since 1997. He also worked on the Citizen’s Justice Committee, which represented pro bono — without any legal fees — the victims of 1984 anti-Sikh riots. The champion for freedom of speech and expression also defended the press in many landmark Supreme Court cases revoking censorship orders and bans on publications. The most recent example of this was lawyer and activist <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/supreme-court-holds-prashant-bhushan-guilty-of-contempt-of-court-punishment-to-be-announced-on-august-20/articleshow/77539437.cms">Prashant Bhushan’s case</a>. Before the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/supreme-court-tests-prashant-bhushans-resolve-with-a-1-fine-for-critical-tweets/articleshow/77846880.cms">₹1 verdict</a> came in, Sorabjee felt the apex institution overreacted over a couple of tweets. “The court may at most give a lecture to Prashant (Bhushan) now. Warn him, but not punish him… It is a rather delicate balance to keep,” he told <a href="https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/soli-sorabjee-interview-supreme-court-overreacted-in-prashant-bhushan-contempt-case/article32420327.ece?homepage=true">The Hindu. </a> Sorabjee was born on 9 March 1930 and after studying at St. Xavier’s College and the Government Law College in Mumbai, he enrolled at the Bar in 1953. Zora Mody, Sorabjee’s daughter, is also a lawyer and a published author. She wrote the book 10 Judgements that Changed India. Sorabjee also has three granddaughters — Anjali, Aarti and Aditi.

You Searched For "ramana cases" and got 8 results

Amazon vs Future — 'Why file voluminous records, to drag the case or harass judges?' asks Supreme Court

PTI

Water shortage might be on the way to worsen Delhi's COVID-19 crisis

Prabhjote Gill

Owner Of A Wildly Popular Restaurant Chain Gets Life Term In Murder Case

BI India Bureau

SC to hear SEBI's review petition against RIL on Oct 12

IANS

Supreme Court agrees to hear Centre's plea on EWS quota for NEET-PG admissions

IANS

Kalanithi Maran and KAL Airways reject SpiceJet's ₹600 crore settlement offer

IANS

Chief Justice of India will now come under RTI lens, says Supreme Court

Preeti

Katya

Former Attorney General of India Soli Sorabjee passes away at 91

BI India Bureau

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides