The West Bengal government filed an appeal against the high court order in May that said the 77 communities were included on the OBC list on religious grounds for political gains

The Supreme Court on Tuesday announced it would hear the West Bengal government’s appeal this month against the Calcutta High Court’s ruling that struck down the inclusion of 77 communities, predominantly Muslims, in the Other Backward Classes (OBC) list for job and education reservations.

The Calcutta High Court had previously ruled in May that the inclusion of these communities in the OBC list was done on religious grounds for political gain, which led to the West Bengal government filing an appeal against the decision. The state government argued that the inclusion of these communities was justified, as it was aimed at providing them with social and economic benefits.

The Supreme Court has assured that it will deliver a decision on the matter before the new academic session begins, indicating that the issue will be resolved promptly to avoid any disruptions in the educational and employment opportunities for the affected communities.

This case has sparked significant debate in West Bengal, with supporters of the state government claiming that the move was in line with efforts to uplift marginalized sections of society, while critics view it as a political maneuver to gain votes. The outcome of the Supreme Court’s hearing is eagerly awaited, as it will have a significant impact on the reservation policy and the welfare of the communities involved.

The Supreme Court, on Tuesday, assured that it would make a decision on the West Bengal government’s appeal against the Calcutta High Court’s order before the new academic session begins. Justices Bhushan R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih stated that the matter would be heard on January 28 and 29, and a ruling would be given prior to the commencement of the academic year.

The West Bengal government has filed an appeal against the May ruling of the high court, which struck down the inclusion of 77 communities, mostly Muslims, on the OBC list for reservations in jobs and education. The high court had stated that these communities were added to the list on religious grounds, allegedly for political gain.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the state, along with advocate Astha Sharma, requested interim directions, as admissions for students belonging to these 77 communities had been delayed. The state argued that these communities were already included in the central OBC list and in neighboring states.

In August, the Supreme Court had issued a notice on the state’s appeal and granted time to the West Bengal government to present the basis for extending the OBC reservation to these 77 communities. The state further argued that the high court order had invalidated caste certificates issued since 2010, although the high court specifically protected those who had obtained jobs based on such certificates.

The outcome of this case will determine the fate of the reservation policy for these communities and could have significant implications for their access to education and employment opportunities.

The Supreme Court has emphasized the need for an elaborate hearing on the West Bengal government’s appeal, stating that even a temporary stay on the Calcutta High Court’s order would require careful consideration. The petitioners who had approached the high court have opposed the appeal, further complicating the case.

In its ruling, the high court had stated that the identification of 77 communities as Other Backward Classes (OBCs) for electoral gain would leave them vulnerable to political manipulation, undermining their rights. It added that such reservation, based on religious grounds, could violate the principles of democracy and the Constitution of India, potentially harming other communities who are also entitled to the benefits of reservation.

The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to stay the high court’s order or uphold it will have far-reaching consequences for both the affected communities and the broader reservation policy in the state. The hearing scheduled for January 28 and 29 is crucial for determining the future of OBC reservation in West Bengal and its potential impact on national governance.

West Bengal provides a 17% reservation to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in both admissions to educational institutions and government jobs. This policy is aimed at ensuring equal opportunities for OBC communities in accessing education and employment. However, the recent controversy surrounding the inclusion of 77 communities in the OBC list has raised legal and political challenges, leading to a Supreme Court hearing to resolve the issue.

COURTESY: India Today

References

• ^ “Chief Justice & Judges”. Supreme Court of India. Archived from the original on 25 October 2019. Retrieved 12 October 2017.
• ^ “Rule of law index 2016”. Archived from the original on 29 April 2015. Retrieved 13 January 2018.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b c d “History of Supreme Court of India” (PDF). Supreme Court of India. Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 December 2014. Retrieved 30 August 2014.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b “Constitution of India | Legislative Department | India”. Archived from the original on 23 December 2023. Retrieved 20 January 2024.
• ^ Zwart, Tom (2003). “Review of Judicial Activism in India: Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Rights”. Journal of Law and Society. 30 (2): 332–337. ISSN 0263-323X. JSTOR 1410775. Archived from the original on 15 December 2023. Retrieved 10 March 2023.
• ^ Chandra, Aparna; Hubbard, William H. J.; Kalantry, Sital (2019), Rosenberg, Gerald N.; Bail, Shishir; Krishnaswamy, Sudhir (eds.), “The Supreme Court of India: An Empirical Overview of the Institution”, A Qualified Hope: The Indian Supreme Court and Progressive Social Change, Comparative Constitutional Law and Policy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 43–76, ISBN 978-1-108-47450-4, archived from the original on 28 September 2023, retrieved 10 March 2023
• ^ Jump up to:^a b c d “History of the Supreme Court of India”. Archived from the original on 2 November 2022. Retrieved 2 November 2022.
• ^ “Supreme Court | Bar Council of Delhi”. Archived from the original on 28 January 2019.
• ^ Wagner, Anne; Marusek, Sarah (24 May 2021). Flags, Color, and the Legal Narrative: Public Memory, Identity, and Critique. Springer Nature. p. 406. ISBN 978-3-030-32865-8. Archived from the original on 28 September 2023. Retrieved 10 August 2022. A slightly different (32-spoke) version of the same wheel adorns the logo of the Supreme Court of India as a visual declaration of righteouness, authority and truth
• ^ Jump up to:^{a b c d e f g h i j} Kumar, Shailesh (2017). “Interpreting the Scales of Justice: Architecture, Symbolism and Semiotics of the Supreme Court of India”. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law – Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique. 30 (4): 637–675. doi:10.1007/s11196-017-9513-1. Archived from the original on 27 April 2024. Retrieved 12 May 2024.
• ^ “Waving flag”. Supreme Court Observer. Retrieved 24 September 2024.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b “Law is not ‘blind’: Lady Justice statue no longer unseeing, sword gone too”. The Times of India. 17 October 2024. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 20 October 2024.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b c “सुप्रीम कोर्ट में न्याय की देवी की आंखों से खुली पट्टी, अब एक हाथ में संविधान तो दूसरे में तराजू, CJI चंद्रचूड़ के ऑर्डर से बनी”. Jansatta (in Hindi). 16 October 2024. Retrieved 20 October 2024.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b c “अब कानून ‘अंधा’ नहीं… न्याय की देवी की आंखों से हटी पट्टी, हाथ में तलवार की जगह संविधान; तिलक मार्ग पर लगी जस्टिस क्लॉक – goddess of justice new statue in supreme court with law is not blind message”. Jagran (in Hindi). Retrieved 20 October 2024.
• ^ “Registry Officers | SUPREME COURT OF INDIA”. main.sci.gov.in. Archived from the original on 5 November 2020. Retrieved 8 August 2020.
• ^ “Constitution of Supreme Court”. Supreme Court of India. Archived from the original on 30 March 2013. Retrieved 31 March 2013.
• ^ “Organisational Chart of the Registry of the Supreme Court of India” (PDF). Supreme Court of India. Archived from the original (PDF) on 31 May 2014. Retrieved 26 April 2014.
• ^ “Supreme Court Rules, 2013” (PDF). sci.nic.in. Supreme Court of India. 27 May 2014. Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 July 2014. Retrieved 22 July 2014.
• ^ Chowdhury, Rishad Ahmed (July–September 2012). “Missing the Wood for the Trees: The Unseen Crisis in the Supreme Court” (PDF). NUJS Law Review. 5 (3/4): 358. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 December 2015. Retrieved 3 November 2015.
• ^ “Supreme Court of India — History”. Supreme Court of India. Archived from the original on 27 May 2012. Retrieved 21 June 2012.
• ^ “Section 124, Constitution of India”. VakilNo1. Archived from the original on 14 March 2007. Retrieved 27 October 2012.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b “Minorities can rise to top jobs only in India: Chief Justice of India”. The Times of India. 16 August 2012. Archived from the original on 17 August 2012. Retrieved 16 August 2012.
• ^ “Accountability law must not encroach on judicial independence, cautions CJI”. The Indian Express. 16 August 2012. Archived from the original on 17 March 2013. Retrieved 16 August 2012.
• ^ Chandrachud, Abhinav (2011). “The age factor”. Frontline. Archived from the original on 26 April 2014. Retrieved 26 April 2014.
• ^ “Justices Arun Mishra, Adarsh Goel and lawyer Rohinton Nariman appointed Supreme Court judges”. The Economic Times. Press Trust of India. 26 June 2014. Archived from the original on 3 September 2014. Retrieved 30 August 2014.
• ^ “Supreme Court of India — Former Judges”. Supreme Court of India. Archived from the original on 5 December 2008. Retrieved 30 November 2014.
• ^ Bhadra Sinha (11 July 2014). “From trial court to Supreme Court, woman judge may go all the way”. Hindustan Times. Archived from the original on 17 August 2014. Retrieved 30 November 2014.
• ^ A Subramani (14 August 2014). “Justice Banumathi becomes 1st woman SC judge from TN”. The Times of India. Archived from the original on 13 October 2014. Retrieved 30 November 2014.
• ^ “Justice S H Kapadia sworn in as new Chief Justice of India”. The Times of India. 12 May 2010. Archived from the original on 26 May 2013. Retrieved 12 May 2010.
• ^ Kundu, Indrajit (13 April 2017). “Justice CS Karnan issues suo-moto order against CJI, 6 other Supreme Court judges; orders them to appear before his ‘Rosedale Residential Court'”. India Today. Kolkata. ISSN 0254-8399. Archived from the original on 25 March 2018. Retrieved 25 March 2018.
• ^ “Dr Ambedkar Wouldn’t Have Imagined SC Hearing Bail Pleas, It Was Intended To Decide Only Constitutional Matters: Justice Chelameswar”. 10 April 2018. Archived from the original on 13 April 2018. Retrieved 11 April 2018.
• ^ “Constituent Assembly of India”. 19 November 1948. Archived from the original on 11 August 2019. Retrieved 31 August 2018.
• ^ Kirpal, Bhupinder N., ed. (2013). Supreme but not infallible: Essays in honour of the Supreme Court of India (6th impr. ed.). New Delhi: Oxford University Press. pp. 97–106. ISBN 978-0-19-567226-8. OCLC 882928525.
• ^ Venu, M.K. (5 July 2013). “Government may drop gag clause, wants judges to show restraint”. The Hindu. Archived from the original on 6 January 2016. Retrieved 5 November 2015.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b Hegde, Sanjay (19 October 2015). “Judging the Judge-Maker”. The Hindu. Archived from the original on 6 January 2016. Retrieved 24 October 2015.
• ^ Sengupta, Uttam (21 October 2015). “SC Exposes ‘Tyranny Of The Elected'”. Outlook. Archived from the original on 17 September 2016. Retrieved 4 September 2016.
• ^ WP(C) No. 13/2015. “Report filed by Ms. Pinky Anand ASG and Arvind P. Datar on Representation/Suggestions for Improving the Collegium” (PDF). Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Govt. of India. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 November 2015. Retrieved 6 November 2015.
• ^ Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13 of 2015 (16 December 2015). “Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association & Anr. v/s Union of India” (PDF). Supreme Court of India. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 March 2017.
• ^ Transferred Case(C) No. 6 of 2009 (6 July 2009). “Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. Union of India & Ors”. Supreme Court of India. 2009 (8) SCC 273: 18/59. Archived from the original on 8 December 2015. Retrieved 7 November 2015.
• ^ Chhibber, Maneesh (25 April 2014). “CJIs must have fixed tenures: Sathasivam”. The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 26 April 2014. Retrieved 26 April 2014.
• ^ [[s:Constitution of India/Part V#Article 125 {Salaries, etc., of Judges}]]
• ^ “Salaries of SC, HC judges to increase three-fold”. The Times of India. Archived from the original on 7 May 2016. Retrieved 9 June 2014.
• ^ “THE SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO BAN CHANGE IN SC-ST ACT”. Archived from the original on 27 January 2019.
• ^ “Motion for removal of Mr. Justice Soumitra Sen, Judge, Calcutta High Court” (PDF). Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi, October 2011. pp. 414–419. Archived (PDF) from the original on 26 August 2014. Retrieved 4 December 2014.
• ^ Bhushan, Prashant. “A historic non-impeachment” (PDF). Frontline (4 June 1993). Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 December 2014. Retrieved 5 December 2014.
• ^ Phukan, Sandeep; Nair, Sobhana K. (28 March 2018). “Talks revived to consider impeachment of CJI”. The Hindu. Archived from the original on 9 November 2020. Retrieved 31 March 2018.
• ^ “The Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act of 1971” (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 January 2017. Retrieved 2 July 2017.
• ^ “Post-retirement prospects for constitutional court judges tear the fabric of judicial independence”. 4 September 2019. Archived from the original on 5 September 2019. Retrieved 9 September 2019.
• ^ “Judges’ verdicts are influenced by post-retirement jobs: Arun Jaitley”. Archived from the original on 23 September 2019. Retrieved 9 September 2019.
• ^ Chowdhury, Rishad Ahmed. “Missing the Wood for the Trees: The Unseen Crisis in the Supreme Court” (PDF). NUJS Law Review. 2012 (3/4): 367. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 December 2015. Retrieved 3 November 2015.
• ^ “News, Breaking News, Latest News, News Headlines, Live News, Today News CNN-News18”. News18. Archived from the original on 15 November 2006.
• ^ “Maharashtra Minister gets one-month jail term”. The Hindu. Chennai, India. 11 May 2006. Archived from the original on 12 September 2011. Retrieved 30 November 2011.
• ^ “Maha minister gets jail for contempt”. News. 11 May 2006. Archived from the original on 12 August 2011. Retrieved 30 November 2011.
• ^ “Supreme Court rules,1966” (PDF). Supreme Court of India. Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 August 2014. Retrieved 22 July 2014.
• ^ “After Rift, Chief Justice Dipak Misra Makes Public Supreme Court Judges’ Roster”. Archived from the original on 1 February 2018. Retrieved 1 February 2018.
• ^ “Supreme Court Reports”. Supreme Court of India. Archived from the original on 23 April 2013. Retrieved 30 March 2013.
• ^ “Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society”. Archived from the original on 5 December 2014. Retrieved 1 December 2014.
• ^ “Types Of Legal Services Provided”. National Legal Services Authority. Archived from the original on 14 February 2015. Retrieved 1 December 2014.
• ^ “Supreme Court Legal Services Committee”. Archived from the original on 11 November 2014. Retrieved 1 December 2014.
• ^ “Facilities at Supreme Court of India” (PDF). Supreme Court of India. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 May 2014. Retrieved 14 May 2014.
• ^ “Golaknath vs. State of Punjab”. Official Supreme Court Judis site. Archived from the original on 25 October 2014. Retrieved 9 June 2014.
• ^ V R Krishna Iyer (27 June 2000). “Emergency — Darkest hour in India’s judicial history”. The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 23 August 2007. Retrieved 16 September 2007.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b Jos. Peter D ‘Souza (June 2001). “A.D.M. Jabalpur vs Shukla: When the Supreme Court struck down the Habeas Corpus”. PUCL Bulletin. Archived from the original on 26 May 2018. Retrieved 16 September 2007.
• ^ Anil B. Divan (15 March 2004). “Cry Freedom”. The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 24 August 2005. Retrieved 16 September 2007.
• ^ Ramachandra Guha (2008). India after Gandhi: The history of the world’s largest democracy. Macmillan/Picador, 2007. p. 500. ISBN 9780330505543.
• ^ “Personal law should be subject to fundamental rights: Jaitley”. The Times of India. 29 November 2015. Archived from the original on 6 January 2016. Retrieved 25 December 2015.
• ^ Shelton, Dinah; Kiss, Alexandre (2005). Judicial handbook on Environmental Law (PDF). United Nations Environment Programme. p. 8. ISBN 92-807-2555-6. Archived (PDF) from the original on 11 May 2015. Retrieved 1 December 2014.
• ^ “2008 ALL SCR 412 – Supreme Court Landmark Judgment [ Constitution of India, Article 245, Article 13, Article 372 ]”. Indian Journal of Supreme Court Reports. 1: 412. 2008. Archived from the original on 15 November 2018. Retrieved 15 November 2018 – via RNI Approved Legal Reporter.
• ^ 2G scam: SC scraps 122 licences granted under Raja’s tenure, trial court to decide on Chidambaram’s role – Times Of India . Articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com (2 February 2012). Retrieved 18 July 2013.
• ^ “Supreme Court challenges verdict bringing CJI under RTI”. The Hindu. 8 March 2010. Archived from the original on 11 August 2020. Retrieved 2 April 2018.
• ^ “CJI, governors should come under RTI: SC”. The Times of India. 7 July 2017. Archived from the original on 1 August 2018. Retrieved 2 April 2018.
• ^ “‘Democratize the position of CJI and High Court Chief Justices’, says Justice AP Shah”. The Hindu. 11 March 2018. Archived from the original on 13 March 2018. Retrieved 2 April 2018.
• ^ “Don’t let Hasan Ali leave country: SC”. The Times of India. 11 February 2011. Archived from the original on 31 May 2012. Retrieved 9 May 2011.
• ^ “Pranab Mukherjee refuses to spill names of LGT Bank account-holders”. The Times of India. 26 January 2011. Archived from the original on 13 March 2012. Retrieved 9 May 2011.
• ^ “Supreme Court: the balancing act”. 8 December 2011. Archived from the original on 13 April 2012. Retrieved 25 April 2012.
• ^ “Supreme Court upholds AP court order quashing minority sub-quota”. The Hindu. 13 June 2012. Archived from the original on 16 June 2012. Retrieved 13 June 2012.
• ^ NEW DELHI, 22 February 2013 DHNS (22 February 2013). “SC notice to Centre, EC on online voting for NRIs”. Deccan Herald. Archived from the original on 16 April 2014. Retrieved 16 April 2014.
• ^ “WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s). 80 OF 2013, NAGENDER CHINDAM & ORS. vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR”. Supreme Court of India. 21 February 2013. Archived from the original on 16 April 2014. Retrieved 9 June 2014.
• ^ Venkatesan, J. (1 November 2013). “Oral instructions undermine accountability: Supreme Court”. The Hindu. New Delhi. ISSN 0971-751X. OCLC 13119119. Archived from the original on 28 April 2014. Retrieved 21 February 2018.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b Balaji, R. (31 October 2013). “Chance to say ‘No, minister'”. The Telegraph. New Delhi. OCLC 271717941. Archived from the original on 21 February 2018. Retrieved 21 February 2018.
• ^ Nagpal, Deepak (31 October 2013). “IAS officers will no more act on oral orders: Supreme Court”. Zee News. New Delhi. Archived from the original on 21 February 2018. Retrieved 21 February 2018.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b “Fix bureaucrats’ tenure, free them from political influence: SC”. Firstpost. New Delhi. 1 November 2013. Archived from the original on 21 February 2018. Retrieved 21 February 2018.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b Venkatesan, J. (31 October 2018). “In major reform, SC orders fixed tenure for bureaucrats”. The Hindu. New Delhi. ISSN 0971-751X. OCLC 13119119. Archived from the original on 20 October 2017. Retrieved 21 February 2018.
• ^ Jain, Bharti (31 January 2014). “2-year fixed postings for IAS, IPS and forest service”. The Times of India. New Delhi. OCLC 23379369. Archived from the original on 12 March 2017. Retrieved 3 September 2017.
• ^ Chhibber, Maneesh (31 January 2014). “Centre notifies 2-yr tenure for IAS, IPS, Forest Service officers”. The Indian Express. New Delhi. OCLC 70274541. Archived from the original on 3 September 2017. Retrieved 3 September 2017.
• ^ “Civil services board to oversee officers’ postings”. The Hindu. Thiruvananthapuram. Special Correspondent. 1 May 2014. ISSN 0971-751X. OCLC 13119119. Archived from the original on 25 February 2021. Retrieved 21 February 2018.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b Panicker Radhakrishnan, K. S. (31 October 2018). “IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.82 OF 2011 T.S.R. Subramanian & Ors. … Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.234 OF 2011 J U D G M E N T” (PDF). Supreme Court of India. New Delhi. Archived (PDF) from the original on 21 February 2018. Retrieved 21 February 2018.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b “‘The Civil Servants Cannot Function On The Basis Of Verbal Or Oral Instructions”. Outlook. New Delhi. 1 November 2018. Archived from the original on 21 February 2018. Retrieved 21 February 2018.
• ^ “SC seeks to protect civil servants from their political bosses”. Business Standard. New Delhi. B. S. Reporter. 1 November 2013. OCLC 496280002. Archived from the original on 21 February 2018. Retrieved 21 February 2018.
• ^ “Year-end Special: 10 landmark judgments of 2013”. Rediff.com. 20 December 2013. Archived from the original on 21 February 2018. Retrieved 21 February 2018.
• ^ “India recognises transgender people as third gender”. The Guardian. 15 April 2014. Archived from the original on 15 April 2014. Retrieved 15 April 2014.
• ^ McCoy, Terrence (15 April 2014). “India now recognizes transgender citizens as ‘third gender'”. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 15 April 2014. Retrieved 15 April 2014.
• ^ “Supreme Court recognizes transgenders as ‘third gender'”. The Times of India. 15 April 2014. Archived from the original on 15 April 2014. Retrieved 15 April 2014.
• ^ Jump up to:^a b National Legal Services Authority … Petitioner Versus Union of India and others … Respondents (Supreme Court of India 15 April 2014), Text, archived from the original.
• ^ “India court recognises transgender people as third gender”. BBC News. 15 April 2014. Archived from the original on 15 April 2014. Retrieved 15 April 2014.
• ^ Bhandari, Vrinda; Kak, Amba; Parsheera, Smriti; Rahman, Faiza. “An Analysis of Puttaswamy: The Supreme Court’s Privacy Verdict”. IndraStra Global. 003: 004. ISSN 2381-3652. Archived from the original on 21 February 2024. Retrieved 28 April 2024.
• ^ “Supreme Court rights old judicial wrongs in landmark Right to Privacy verdict, shows State its rightful place”. Firstpost. 29 August 2017. Archived from the original on 6 December 2021. Retrieved 31 December 2021.
• ^ Rajagopal, Krishnadas (7 September 2018). “Supreme Court decriminalises homosexuality”. The Hindu. Archived from the original on 30 July 2020. Retrieved 2 June 2019.
• ^ “Ayodhya Verdict LIVE Updates: Entire Disputed Land Goes to Hindus for Ram Mandir, Muslims to Get 5 Acres of Alternate Land”. News18. 9 November 2019. Archived from the original on 9 November 2019. Retrieved 9 November 2019.
• ^ “Supreme Court hearing ends in Ayodhya dispute; orders reserved”. @businessline. Press Trust of India. 16 October 2019. Archived from the original on 23 October 2019. Retrieved 28 October 2019.
• ^ “Ayodhya Verdict Live Updates: Disputed Land To Be Given For Temple Construction, Muslims To Get 5-Acre Plot In Ayodhya, Says Top Court”. NDTV.com. Archived from the original on 9 November 2019. Retrieved 9 November 2019.
• ^ Kashyap, Gauri (15 February 2024). “Electoral Bonds Constitution Bench | Judgement Summary”. Supreme Court Observer. Archived from the original on 15 February 2024. Retrieved 28 April 2024.
• ^ “India’s Supreme Court scraps electoral bonds, calls them ‘unconstitutional'”. Al Jazeera. Archived from the original on 29 April 2024. Retrieved 15 February 2024.
• ^ “Why did the Supreme Court strike down the electoral bonds scheme? Explained”. The Hindu. 15 February 2024. Archived from the original on 28 April 2024. Retrieved 15 March 2024.
• ^ Krishnadas Rajagopal (15 February 2024). “Supreme Court declares electoral bonds scheme unconstitutional”. The Hindu. Archived from the original on 29 April 2024. Retrieved 15 March 2024.
• ^ Ex-chief justice under corruption panel scanner, Hindustan Times, New Delhi, 9 June 2008
• ^ Are judges holidaying at public expense? Archived 19 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine, May 2008
• ^ Judges’ asset declaration before CJI not for public eye: SC to CIC Archived 21 October 2018 at the Wayback Machine, The Indian Express, 6 November 2008
• ^ The case of judicial injustice, The Indian Express, 31 March 1999 ^{[dead link]}
• ^ RTI Act does not apply to my office: CJI, The Times of India, 20 April 2008
• ^ Is the CJI a public servant?, The Times of India, 22 April 2008
• ^ I am a public servant: CJI, The Times of India, 6 May 2008
• ^ Delayed justice leading to lynching mobs: Pratibha, The Times of India, 24 February 2008
• ^ Manmohan Singh calls for check on corruption in judiciary Archived 20 August 2018 at the Wayback Machine, Thaindian News, 19 April 2008
• ^ Pass Judges (Inquiry) Bill in next session, panel tells Govt. Archived 15 December 2020 at the Wayback Machine, Zee News, India Edition, 30 September 2008
• ^ Bill for probe panel against errant judges cleared, iGovernment, 10 October 2008 Archived 21 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine
• ^ “Supreme Court Quarterly Newsletter — Oct — Dec 2011” (PDF). Supreme Court of India. Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 February 2013. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
• ^ “Number of pending matters in Supreme Court as on 1st April 2014”. Archived from the original on 25 January 2018. Retrieved 18 January 2018.
• ^ “Proposal to make judiciary work throughout the year”. Archived from the original on 14 July 2014. Retrieved 9 June 2014.
• ^ Ranjan, Brajesh (25 August 2016). “What causes judicial delay? Judgments diluting time frames in Code of Civil Procedure worsen the problem of adjournments”. The Times of India. Archived from the original on 4 September 2017. Retrieved 5 May 2018.
• ^ Shailesh Gandhi, Ex Central Information Commissioner (29 May 2016). “Don’t need 70,000 judges. Just fill vacancies to cut backlog”. The Times of India. Archived from the original on 11 July 2018. Retrieved 3 May 2018.
• ^ “Access to justice: Indian Supreme Court’s backlog is ‘serious issue'”. www.ibanet.org. Retrieved 30 August 2024.
• ^ Venkatesan, J. (23 April 2014). “Supreme Court admits petition against formation Telangana”. The Hindu. Archived from the original on 3 July 2018. Retrieved 3 August 2014.
• ^ “SC declares NJAC unconstitutional, upholds Collegium”. The Hindu. 16 October 2015. Archived from the original on 8 November 2020. Retrieved 23 January 2018.
• ^ “Assets division between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh of Erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Education Council of Higher Education” (PDF). March 2016. Archived (PDF) from the original on 24 January 2018. Retrieved 3 August 2014.
• ^ “Issue of Telangana’s share in Krishna water may be referred to Tribunal: Centre to Supreme Court”. The Economic Times. Archived from the original on 27 January 2018. Retrieved 13 January 2018.
• ^ “Hyderabad High Court bifurcation: Centre approves judges’ proposal”. 26 October 2017. Archived from the original on 30 December 2017. Retrieved 13 January 2018.
• ^ “Rule of law: Justice in the dock”. 10 March 2018. Archived from the original on 10 March 2018. Retrieved 11 March 2018.
• ^ “Govt meddling in Supreme Court: Justice Chelameswar says CJI Dipak Misra has to take it forward”. 31 March 2018. Archived from the original on 31 March 2018. Retrieved 31 March 2018.
• ^ Bagriya, Ashok; Sinha, Bhadra (12 January 2018). “Turmoil in Supreme Court as four judges speak out against Chief Justice Dipak Misra”. Hindustan Times. Archived from the original on 12 January 2018. Retrieved 13 January 2018.
• ^ “Chief Justice Dipak Misra Faces Impeachment Motion, 71 Have Signed: 10 Facts”. NDTV. Archived from the original on 20 April 2018.
• ^ Phukan, Sandeep (23 April 2018). “Venkaiah Naidu rejects impeachment motion against CJI”. The Hindu. Archived from the original on 15 December 2020. Retrieved 8 May 2018.
• ^ “Decision to reject impeachment motion against CJI was not hasty: Venkaiah Naidu”. The Times of India. Press Trust of India. 23 April 2018. Archived from the original on 25 April 2018.
• ^ “10 reasons why Venkaiah Naidu rejected the impeachment notice against CJI Dipak Misra”. The Times of India. 23 April 2018. Archived from the original on 23 April 2018.
• ^ “Dont regret going to public, that is why: Interview with Justice Chelameswar”. NDTV. 23 June 2018. Archived from the original on 8 November 2018. Retrieved 8 November 2018.
• ^ Dev, Atul. “What the Indian judiciary has done to itself”. The Caravan. Archived from the original on 16 July 2019. Retrieved 16 July 2019.
• ^ “Indian Chief Justice Cleared of Sexual Harassment”. BBC News. 6 May 2019. Archived from the original on 20 August 2019. Retrieved 20 August 2019.
• ^ “Lawyers, Activists Protest against Clean Chit to CJI Ranjan Gogoi”. The Economic Times. 7 May 2019. Archived from the original on 23 October 2020. Retrieved 20 August 2019.
• ^ “Complaint in NHRC Seeking Sexual Harassment Report on CJI Ranjan Gogoi”. India Today. 27 May 2019. Archived from the original on 30 May 2019. Retrieved 20 August 2019.
• ^ “NLU Topper Skips Convocation in Protest against Ranjan Gogoi”. Money Control. 19 August 2019. Archived from the original on 20 August 2019. Retrieved 20 August 2019.
• ^ “Dejected and Terrified – Woman Complainant against CJI Ranjan Gogoi”. India Today. 6 May 2019. Archived from the original on 8 November 2020. Retrieved 29 December 2019.