1. Supreme Court Suggests Additional Benches for Armed Forces Tribunal
On Monday, the Supreme Court proposed establishing additional circuit Benches of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) to address the heavy workload and expedite case resolutions. The Court specifically recommended creating regional Benches in locations like Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, to accommodate cases from nearby areas. During the hearing, the Court urged the central government to explore the feasibility of this proposal, emphasizing the need for accessibility and efficiency in handling matters concerning armed forces personnel.
2. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Plea Against Bihar PSC Exam; Directs Petitioners to High Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a petition alleging irregularities in the 70th Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) Preliminary Examination and police excesses against protesting candidates. The Bench observed that the petitioners should approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for redressal instead of directly filing a plea in the apex court. This direction underscores the principle of jurisdictional hierarchy, where High Courts are better positioned to handle such grievances in the first instance.
3. Supreme Court Criticizes States for Prioritizing Freebies Over Judges' Salaries
The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, questioned State governments for prioritizing freebies for non-working individuals while citing financial constraints in paying salaries and pensions to district judiciary judges. During the hearing of All India Judges Association v. Union of India & Ors., Attorney General R Venkataramani argued that budgetary concerns impact decisions on judicial officers' pay scales. The Court remarked that such financial justifications appear contradictory when States allocate funds generously for non-essential freebies. This observation highlights the judiciary's struggle for adequate compensation amidst broader financial challenges.
4. CJI Sanjiv Khanna Recuses from Indian Olympic Association and AIFF Case
Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna recused himself from hearing appeals related to the draft constitutions of the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) and the All India Football Federation (AIFF) on January 6, 2025. The case, involving proposed reforms in these sports bodies, was set to be heard by a bench comprising CJI Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar. The recusal was based on CJI Khanna's prior involvement in one of the matters during his tenure as a Delhi High Court judge.
5. NLU Graduates and Affluent Individuals Increasingly Joining Judicial Services: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, on January 8, 2025, noted a rising interest in judicial service as a career, especially among graduates of National Law Universities (NLUs) and affluent individuals. Justice BR Gavai remarked that this growing trend is linked to the independence of the Indian judiciary, which continues to attract capable and ambitious individuals. The observation highlights the judiciary's evolving appeal as a desirable and respected profession. This shift underscores the changing dynamics in legal career aspirations, with more individuals opting to contribute to the justice delivery system.
6. Supreme Court Orders Release of Man Wrongly Convicted as Adult for 25 Years
On January 9, 2025, the Supreme Court ordered the release of a man who had been wrongfully incarcerated for nearly 25 years. He was initially convicted in a murder case and sentenced as an adult. However, it was later discovered that he was a juvenile at the time of committing the crime. The Court clarified that a claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage of the legal process, even after the Supreme Court confirms a conviction, provided it was not adequately examined earlier. This decision highlights the importance of properly assessing the age of the accused during judicial proceedings.
7. Supreme Court Criticizes Issuance of Bailable Warrants in Domestic Violence Cases
The Supreme Court expressed disapproval over the issuance of bailable warrants by trial courts in domestic violence cases under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court emphasized that the DV Act is a civil remedy and does not carry penal consequences unless a protection order is violated. The Court’s criticism aimed to underline the need for courts to approach such cases with appropriate sensitivity, focusing on protection rather than punitive measures unless essential.
8. Supreme Court Orders Centre to Implement Cashless Medical Treatment Scheme for Accident Victims
The Supreme Court directed the central government to introduce a scheme that ensures cashless medical treatment for motor accident victims during the "golden hour" period, which is crucial for survival and recovery. The Court set a firm deadline of March 14, 2025, to notify this scheme and clarified that no further extensions would be granted. The decision highlights the need for timely medical intervention for accident victims to reduce fatalities and long-term health complications.
9. Supreme Court Supports Consolidation of Krishna Janmabhoomi - Shahi Idgah Dispute Suits
The Supreme Court expressed a prima facie favourable view of the Allahabad High Court's decision to consolidate all suits related to the Krishna Janmabhoomi—Shahi Idgah dispute. The Court noted that clubbing the cases would benefit both parties by streamlining the proceedings and ensuring a more efficient and unified approach to the dispute. This move is seen as a step toward reducing delays and clarifying the complex legal issues surrounding the case.
10. Supreme Court Seeks BCI Response on Background Checks and CCTV Mandates in Law Colleges
The Supreme Court issued a notice to the Bar Council of India (BCI) in response to petitions challenging two circulars issued by the BCI in September 2024. The circulars introduced mandatory criminal background checks for law students and required declarations on academic pursuits, employment status, and attendance. Additionally, the circulars mandated the installation of CCTV cameras in law colleges. Petitioners Prakruthi Jain and Keyur Akkiraju, final-year law students, argue that these measures infringe upon constitutional rights, including freedom of speech, privacy, and autonomy of educational institutions. The case raises concerns about the chilling effect on academic freedom and self-censorship due to surveillance.
