Apurva Vishwanath

2 weeks ago | indianexpress.com | Apurva Vishwanath

Fifty years after the Allahabad High Court on June 12, 1975 declared as void the 1971 election of then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi — a judgment that set off a chain of events that led to the imposition of a national Emergency on June 25, 1975 — the ruling and what followed serve as a reminder of the fragility of democracy and the collective responsibility to guard against abuse of power.

1 month ago | indianexpress.com | Apurva Vishwanath

Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar said this week that the in-house inquiry ordered by the Supreme Court into the unaccounted cash found at the residence of Justice Yashwant Varma this March “does not have any constitutional premise or legal sanctity”, and sought an FIR against the judge. Dhankar also called for revisiting the SC’s K Veeraswami judgment, which he said has “erected a scaffolding of impunity” around the judiciary. The 1991 ruling deals with the filing of criminal cases against judges.

1 month ago | indianexpress.com | Apurva Vishwanath

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justice Augustine G Masih that began hearing the batch of petitions seeking an interim stay on the amendments observed that “a very strong and glaring case” is needed to pause the operation of the law. “There is a presumption of constitutionality in favour of every statute. For interim relief, you have to make out a very strong and glaring case. Otherwise, presumption of constitutionality will be there,” CJI Gavai observed.

1 month ago | tamil.indianexpress.com | Apurva Vishwanath

மாநில சட்டமன்றங்கள் அனுப்பும் மசோதாக்கள் மீது குடியரசுத் தலைவரும் ஆளுநர்களும் நடவடிக்கை எடுப்பதற்கான காலக்கெடுவை நிர்ணயிக்க முடியுமா? உச்ச நீதிமன்றத்திடம் ஆலோசனை கேட்ட ஜனாதிபதி திரவுபதி முர்மு; தமிழக ஆளுநர் ஆர்.என்.ரவி வழக்கில் வழங்கிய தீர்ப்பை உச்ச நீதிமன்றம் ரத்து செய்ய முடியுமா? மாநில சட்டமன்றங்கள் அனுப்பும் மசோதாக்கள் மீது குடியரசுத் தலைவரும் ஆளுநர்களும் நடவடிக்கை எடுப்பதற்கான காலக்கெடுவை நிர்ணயிக்க முடியுமா?

1 month ago | indianexpress.com | Apurva Vishwanath

President Draupadi Murmu has on Tuesday invoked the Supreme Court’s advisory jurisdiction on whether timelines could be set for the President and Governors to act on Bills sent by state Assemblies. As per Article 143(1) of the Constitution, the President may refer a “question of law or fact” to the Supreme Court for its opinion. The SC’s opinion, unlike a ruling, is not binding in nature.