August 23, 2025

Trending Today Kerala High Court Forms Committee to Strengthen Judicial Administration in Lakshadweep Madhya Pradesh Judge Aditi Kumar Sharma Withdraws Resignation After Harassment Allegations Presidential Reference on Governor’s Timelines: Supreme Court Hearing Day 3 Pune Court Summons Makers of Jolly LLB 3 Over Alleged Insult to Legal Profession Calcutta High Court Seeks State’s Response on Stray Dog Sterilisation Plea LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT FINJURIS LLP INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT SEMITA LEGAL, ADVOCATES & SOLICITORS, NOIDA LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LAW CHAMBERS OF PURTI GUPTA, DELHI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ARMS LEGAL AND ASSOCIATES, KOLKATA LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT KABI AND ASSOCIATES, DELHI Kerala High Court Forms Committee to Strengthen Judicial Administration in Lakshadweep     Prabhat Kumar Biltoria 02 June 2025 The Kerala High Court has formed a special committee to improve judicial infrastructure and access to justice in Lakshadweep, ensuring better technology-driven solutions for remote islands. Introduction On 21 August 2025, the Kerala High Court ordered the constitution of a Judicial Administration and Infrastructure Committee for Lakshadweep. This move addresses long-standing challenges in judicial accessibility, poor infrastructure, and limited staffing in the island territory. The decision was issued by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Ziyad Rahman AA, while hearing a suo motu matter highlighting systemic gaps in the delivery of justice across the islands. Composition of the Committee The newly formed committee will include members from judicial, administrative, law enforcement, and technological sectors. The directive ensures a multi-stakeholder approach for effective judicial reforms. Members of the Committee: Registrar General of the Kerala High Court Principal District Judge of Lakshadweep District Collector of Lakshadweep A nominee of the Lakshadweep Administrator Superintendent of Police Superintendent Engineer Registrar of Computerisation Representative from the National Informatics Centre (NIC) This broad-based composition ensures coordination between judiciary, administration, and technology for stronger judicial delivery. Judicial Challenges in Lakshadweep The suo motu case stemmed from issues of poor judicial facilities in Lakshadweep, further highlighted by a tragic suicide case. Major Concerns Identified: Out of 10 populated islands, only three have functioning courts. Lack of judicial presence denies access to justice for residents of seven islands. Low staff strength and inadequate infrastructure cause delays in case resolution. Residents are often forced to travel across treacherous seas to attend court hearings, undermining timely justice. Court’s Approach: Bridging the Gap in Justice The Division Bench emphasized that the right to justice is a constitutional right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar stated: “We have issued various orders, but the main order today is the constitution of this Committee.” The Court acknowledged that while interim measures had been taken in the past, systemic reforms were lacking. The new committee combines judicial and executive participation for practical implementation. Role of Technology: NIC’s Inclusion The inclusion of the National Informatics Centre (NIC) signals the Court’s focus on digital justice. Possible Reforms Under Consideration: Virtual court hearings to reduce travel burdens. Online e-filing and digital forms for litigants. Expansion of internet and video conferencing infrastructure. Strengthening e-courts initiatives in line with India’s digital judicial system. Wider Impact on Remote Territories The Kerala High Court’s move extends beyond Lakshadweep. It sets an important precedent for remote and tribal regions in India where judicial services are hard to access. Expected benefits include: Increased court presence across more islands. Reduced case backlog through better staffing and infrastructure. Stronger coordination between judiciary and administration. Sustainable, technology-driven solutions tailored for island ecosystems. Next Steps The Court has issued verbal directives and is expected to release a formal written order soon. The order will define: The committee’s mandate. Its reporting mechanism to the High Court. Periodic updates on judicial reforms in Lakshadweep. Conclusion The Kerala High Court’s proactive step demonstrates its commitment to ensuring equal access to justice in even the most remote regions of India. For the people of Lakshadweep, this marks the beginning of a technology-enabled, accessible, and efficient judicial system. By overcoming geographical barriers with institutional and digital reforms, the judiciary reinforces that justice must reach every citizen, whether on the mainland or in distant coastal islands.   Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Aliya Ansari. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu 2025: Supreme Court Recognizes Maternity Leave as Fundamental Reproductive Right Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Affinity Test in Scheduled Tribe Verification: Affinity Test Not Mandatory for ST Claims Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Section 37: Upholds Article 21 in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Trending Today Madhya Pradesh Judge Aditi Kumar Sharma Withdraws Resignation After Harassment Allegations Presidential Reference on Governor’s Timelines: Supreme Court Hearing Day 3 Pune Court Summons Makers of Jolly LLB 3 Over Alleged Insult to Legal Profession Calcutta High Court Seeks State’s Response on Stray Dog Sterilisation Plea LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT FINJURIS LLP INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT SEMITA LEGAL, ADVOCATES & SOLICITORS, NOIDA LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LAW CHAMBERS OF PURTI GUPTA, DELHI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ARMS LEGAL AND ASSOCIATES, KOLKATA LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT KABI AND ASSOCIATES, DELHI India Temporarily Removes Cotton Import Duty to Support Textile Sector Madhya Pradesh Judge Aditi Kumar Sharma Withdraws Resignation After Harassment Allegations   Prabhat Kumar Biltoria 02 June 2025   Madhya Pradesh Civil Judge Aditi Kumar Sharma withdraws her resignation after alleging harassment by District Judge Rajesh Kumar Gupta. Case sparks debate on judicial accountability, collegium system, and whistleblower protection in India. Introduction In a case that highlights the intersection of personal grievance and institutional accountability, Madhya Pradesh Civil Judge (Junior Division) Aditi Kumar Sharma has withdrawn her resignation from judicial service. Sharma had earlier accused District Judge Rajesh Kumar Gupta of harassment and protested his elevation to the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Her decision to resume office came after an internal two-member High Court committee assured her that her grievances would be addressed fairly and in accordance with the law. Protest Resignation On July 30, 2025, Gupta was sworn in as a judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, despite multiple complaints against him. In protest, Sharma submitted her resignation letter to the Chief Justice of the High Court, writing: “I resign my judicial office not out of a loss of faith in justice, but out of a loss of justice in the very institution…” Her resignation was seen not as a routine departure but as a symbolic protest against the promotion of a judicial officer facing misconduct allegations. Allegations Against Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta Sharma was not alone. At least two other judicial officers had filed similar complaints against Gupta, citing improper conduct. However, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended his elevation in early July 2025. On July 28, 2025, the Union Government cleared the recommendation. On July 30, 2025, Gupta officially took oath as a High Court judge. These developments deepened Sharma’s protest, ultimately leading to her resignation. Institutional Response Formation of an Internal Committee Following Sharma’s resignation, the Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court constituted a two-member internal committee on August 11, 2025, tasked with reviewing her complaints. The committee assured Sharma that: She would not face institutional alienation. She could pursue redressal through administrative or judicial means. Her dignity and concerns would be fully protected. Reinstatement On the basis of these assurances, Sharma withdrew her resignation and was reinstated as Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Shahdol on August 20, 2025. Larger Implications Judicial Accountability and the Collegium System This case raises pressing questions: Should judges facing unresolved complaints be considered for elevation? Does the collegium system ensure transparency and accountability? The Collegium’s recommendation, despite formal objections, has reignited the debate about whether internal judicial processes are robust enough to assess a judge’s character and fitness. Protection for Judicial Whistleblowers Sharma’s protest resignation underscores the need for stronger whistleblower protection within the judiciary. Without proper safeguards, judicial officers who raise concerns risk institutional isolation. Symbolic Impact Her act of protest — followed by reinstatement — serves as a reminder that judicial accountability cannot be compromised in the name of seniority or expediency. It emphasizes the urgent need for a transparent internal grievance redressal mechanism. Conclusion The case of Judge Aditi Kumar Sharma illustrates the delicate balance between individual grievances and institutional credibility. While Justice Rajesh Kumar Gupta continues in his elevated position, the controversy surrounding his promotion has amplified calls for reform in the judicial appointment system. The core question remains: Can the Indian judiciary strengthen its internal auditing mechanisms to prevent future crises of confidence? Sharma’s stand — both her resignation and withdrawal — may serve as a catalyst for change, urging the judiciary to prioritize fairness, transparency, and accountability.     Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Aliya Ansari. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu 2025: Supreme Court Recognizes Maternity Leave as Fundamental Reproductive Right Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Affinity Test in Scheduled Tribe Verification: Affinity Test Not Mandatory for ST Claims Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Section 37: Upholds Article 21 in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Trending Today Presidential Reference on Governor’s Timelines: Supreme Court Hearing Day 3 Pune Court Summons Makers of Jolly LLB 3 Over Alleged Insult to Legal Profession Calcutta High Court Seeks State’s Response on Stray Dog Sterilisation Plea LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT FINJURIS LLP INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT SEMITA LEGAL, ADVOCATES & SOLICITORS, NOIDA LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LAW CHAMBERS OF PURTI GUPTA, DELHI LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT ARMS LEGAL AND ASSOCIATES, KOLKATA LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT KABI AND ASSOCIATES, DELHI India Temporarily Removes Cotton Import Duty to Support Textile Sector India–China Border Rapprochement Signals Strategic Shift Amid U.S. Tensions Presidential Reference on Governor’s Timelines: Supreme Court Hearing Day 3   Prabhat Kumar Biltoria 02 June 2025 The Supreme Court of India continues its Presidential Reference hearing on whether Governors and the President of India can face judicially imposed timelines for decisions on State Bills. Introduction On Day 3 of the Presidential Reference hearing, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India examined whether the President and Governors can be placed under judicially determined timelines for decisions on State Bills. The five-judge Bench was headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, along with Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha, and Atul S Chandurkar. The Court heard detailed arguments from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocates representing Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta Continuing his submissions, SG Tushar Mehta opposed judicially setting deadlines for constitutional authorities. He argued: No timelines in the Constitution: Where the Constitution is silent, courts cannot impose artificial deadlines. Exceptions to aid and advice: Cited Articles 200, 356, and 174, as well as the Nabam Rebia judgment, where Governors may act with limited discretion. Case of Shamsher Singh (1974): Governors must not act as a parallel government. Political mechanisms exist: Disputes can be addressed through appeals to the Prime Minister of India, President, or political processes rather than judicial intervention. Mehta warned that allowing courts to fix such timelines would amount to judicial overreach. Bench Pushes Back on Indefinite Inaction The Bench, however, raised concerns over Governors potentially stalling Bills for years without action. Justice PS Narasimha: “Okay, we cannot specify a time limit, but a process needs to be worked out… how long can that be a dead end?” CJI BR Gavai: “If a constitutional functionary does not discharge functions without valid reasons, should the Court say we are powerless?” Justice Surya Kant: “What if Bills are pending for four years? Then what happens to the will of a two-thirds majority?” The judges suggested that absolute judicial restraint might undermine the functioning of State legislatures. Political Remedies vs. Judicial Remedies Mehta maintained that hard cases should not lead courts to create timelines, emphasizing that solutions lie in: Constitutional amendments Parliament processes Civic and political action However, the CJI countered: “Hard cases make good law.” He questioned the absence of safeguards when Governors delay Bills indefinitely. Mehta referenced Justice JS Verma, who cautioned against judicial encroachment into executive and legislative functions, arguing that failures should be corrected through democracy, not courts. Presidential Questions Discussed The Bench also briefly addressed some of the 14 questions referred by the President under Article 143: Question 8: Whether the President must seek the Court’s advice whenever a Governor reserves a Bill. CJI Gavai noted this would overburden the Court with advisory roles. Union–State disputes under Article 131: The CJI said such suits have proven ineffective in practice. Kapil Sibal’s observation: Senior advocate Kapil Sibal suggested broadening the scope of the reference beyond the core issue. Next Hearing The case will continue on Tuesday, August 26, 2025. Arguments are expected to focus on maintainability of the reference and the scope of judicial review over gubernatorial inaction. Conclusion The Presidential Reference on Governor’s timelines raises a constitutional dilemma — balancing judicial restraint with preventing executive inaction. The Supreme Court’s ruling could set a landmark precedent, defining the boundaries of judicial review, gubernatorial power, and State legislature functioning in India’s democracy.   Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Aliya Ansari. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws K Umadevi vs Government of Tamil Nadu 2025: Supreme Court Recognizes Maternity Leave as Fundamental Reproductive Right Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Affinity Test in Scheduled Tribe Verification: Affinity Test Not Mandatory for ST Claims Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Grants Bail Despite NDPS Act Section 37: Upholds Article 21 in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) Sada Law • June 20, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »