With Chief Justice of India, Justice S A Bobde, due to retire in just over a month, the collegium is yet to make its first recommendation of a judge to be appointed to the Supreme Court since he took office in November 2019.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court faces a crisis of sorts as its present judge strength has depleted below the numbers sanctioned more than a decade ago and the situation could worsen in future with no urgent steps being taken by the five-member Collegium led by Chief Justice S A Bobde to fill the vacancies.
The sanctioned strength of SC Judges was increased from 26 to 31, including the CJI, in 2009, but its present strength is 30 Judges. With five more retirements - Justice Indu Malhotra (March 13), CJI Bobde (April 23), Justices Ashok Bhushan (July 4), R F Nariman (August 12) and Navin Sinha (August 18) - scheduled in the next six months, the strength could deplete below 1988 level, when it was increased from 18 to 26. The number of SC judges was increased from 31 to 34 in 2019.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court faces a crisis of sorts as its present judge strength has depleted below the numbers sanctioned more than a decade ago and the situation could worsen in future with no urgent steps being taken by the five-member Collegium led by Chief Justice S A Bobde to fill the vacancies.
The sanctioned strength of SC Judges was increased from 26 to 31, including the CJI, in 2009, but its present strength is 30 Judges. With five more retirements - Justice Indu Malhotra (March 13), CJI Bobde (April 23), Justices Ashok Bhushan (July 4), R F Nariman (August 12) and Navin Sinha (August 18) - scheduled in the next six months, the strength could deplete below 1988 level, when it was increased from 18 to 26. The number of SC judges was increased from 31 to 34 in 2019.
In connection with the Maradu flat demolition case, the Supreme Court on Tuesday opined that once it has been established that the home buyers have in fact made payments to the two builders, they are.
In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court has held that an order refusing to condone the delay in filing an appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is appealable under Section 37 of the Act. ..the question of law is answered by stating that an appeal under section 37(1)(c)of the Arbitration Act, 1996 would be maintainable against an order refusing to condone delay in filing an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 to set aside an award , observed a bench comprising
Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph.
This important pronouncement settling a widespread confusion came in the case