Connect with us

Indian law

SC sent J&K advocate name thrice for HC, govt yet to clear it

Published

3 years ago

on

SC sent J&K advocate name thrice for HC, govt yet to clear it

Six months after the Supreme Court once again reiterated its recommendation to appoint a lawyer as a judge of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, it once again deviated from the procedural memorandum governing the appointment of judges to the higher judicial body.

The government has not yet taken action on this. As an advocate for Jammu, Nagral  served as a Senior Additional Advocate General of the former state of government, he has represented security forces in the High Court, including the Army, BSF and CRPF. Nagral  ‘s name was first proposed by the collegiate panel of the High Court on August 24, 2017.

His candidacy was approved by the collegiate panel of the Supreme Court on April 6, 2018. Subsequently, in January 2019 and March this year, the collegiate panel of the Supreme Court reiterated its decision.

Advertisement

By convention, if the decision is reiterated, the government will inevitably accept the college’s recommendation. In addition to Nagral  , the Supreme Court Academy also reiterated the names of two other J&K High Court judges, which are still awaiting trial by the government. On September 1, it reiterated the names of its supporters Khajuria Kazmi. Kazmi’s name was first recommended in October 2019, and Bharti’s name was recommended in March. Khajuria Kazmi is a senior advocate who served as an additional attorney general during the governor’s reign in 2016 and continued to serve in the PDP-BJP government of J&K led by Mehbooba Mufti until her service was terminated.

The names of Khajuria Kazmi and Bharti were among the 12 names reaffirmed by the Supreme Court Academy led by Chief Justice N V Ramana of India on September 1. Regarding the Allahabad High Court, the college reiterated its recommendation to appoint three judicial officials, OOm Prakash Tripathi, Umesh Chandra Sharma and Syed Waiz Mian. Regarding the Rajasthan High Court, the college reiterated its recommendation to Farzand Ali, an additional defense lawyer for the state government led by Congress. On October 11, Ali’s name-the first recommendation of the Supreme Court Academy in July 2019-was approved by the government.

News Source : The Indian Express

Advertisement
Related Topics:
Continue Reading

india

Suprme Court pulls up Delhi body for not conducting tree census

Published

4 weeks ago

on

November 23, 2024

By

Suprme Court pulls up Delhi body for not conducting tree census

The court said that it will order the constitution of an expert body to vet every proposal for tree felling in the city

The Supreme Court on Friday pulled up the Delhi Tree Authority (DTA) for failing to carry out a tree census in the Capital as required under the Delhi Tree Preservation Act (DTPA). The court added that it will order the constitution of an expert body to vet every proposal for tree felling in the city, observing that DTA lacks the expertise to do this job.

A bench headed by justice Abhay S Oka was considering an application filed by a Delhi resident, Bhavreen Kandhari, which raised questions over the performance of DTA — a statutory body under DTPA that has allowed more than 60,000 trees to be felled between 2015 and 2021. The court had issued notice on the application on November 8 as the data presented by Kandhari suggested that Delhi was losing five trees every hour.

Advertisement

On Friday, the bench, also comprising justice Augustine George Masih, took up DTA’s response and said, “We want to know how DTA is functioning. Has it carried out any census of trees?” The court cited Section 7 of DTPA, 1994 (or is it 1995), which says “carrying out census of the existing trees” and “preservation of all trees” in Delhi is one of the functions of DTA.

“We intend to pass an order that no permission for tree cutting shall be passed unless it is vetted by this expert body. Unless there is a record of the number of trees, nothing can be done. Has this been undertaken? It was the duty of DTA to do this under the Act,” the court said.

The bench asked senior advocate Guru Krishnakumar, who was assisting the court as amicus, to indicate whether there should be a threshold, such as cutting of 100 or more trees, when an issue can be sent for consideration to the expert body. “Considering the diminishing green cover, we are considering whether a body of experts should consider every permission for felling of trees. We will pass orders that no permission for tree felling shall be passed unless vetted by this body. Some threshold can be fixed and DTA will have to comply with the recommendation made by the expert body,” the court said.

Group Media Publications
Entertainment News Platforms – anyflix.in      
Construction Infrastructure and Mining News Platform – https://cimreviews.com/
General News Platform – https://ihtlive.com/

Advertisement

Continue Reading
Anyskill-ads

Facebook

Trending