1. Calcutta High Court Appoints Former Chief Justice Manjula Chellur To Head SIT Constituted To Probe Post Poll Violence Cases

• The Calcutta High Court notified that Justice Manjula Chellur, former Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court would head the Special Investigation Team (SIT)constituted by the High Court to probe into allegations of post poll violence that had erupted in the State of West Bengal after the declaration of the 2021 assembly elections.

• "The working of the SIT shall be overviewed by a retired Hon'ble Judge of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, who shall be requested to take up the assignment after taking his/her consent. He will be required to only review the working of the SIT and ensure that it is moving on a right track. Any report(s), pleadings or applications shall be filed in court only by and under the signatures of the Head of SIT. The idea being to inspire confidence regarding the independence of system being followed for investigation of cases", the order dated August 19 had stated.

• A 5 judge Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice I.P Mukerji, Justice Harish Tandon, Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Subrata Talukdar informed the concerned parties that Justice Manjula Chellur would monitor the functioning of the constituted SIT pursuant to its earlier order. The Bench had assembled to oversee compliance of its earlier directions.

• "On account of immediate non-availability of a retired Hon'ble Supreme Court Judge to take up the assignment, we deem it appropriate to modify the aforesaid part of the order. While adding that the working of the SIT is to be monitored by a retired Chief Justice of a High Court. Further we had requested Hon'ble Ms. Justice Manjula Chellur, retired Chief Justice of this Court to take up the assignment. She has very graciously accepted our request. We accordingly appoint her to overview the working of SIT", the Bench observed.

Source: Bar & Bench

2. Depression Can Be Classified As 'Serious Illness' In COVID's Context: Gujarat High Court

• Depression can be classified as a serious illness, especially in the context of the COVID, observed the Gujarat High Court on Tuesday as it set aside the order and decision of a government college to cancel the registration and admission of a student as he failed to appear for the examination due to depression and suicidal thoughts.

• The Bench of Justice N. V. Anjaria observed thus: "Approach of sympathy is not the rule of law, yet the law has to be benevolent to sub-serve the interests of justice, wherever the facts and circumstances so justify and demand. This is one such case."

• The Court has now directed the University to reconsider their decision to cancel the registration and undertake the exercise of arriving at a fresh decision in light of the facts and findings discussed by the Court.

• It may be noted that earlier, the Gujarat High Court on 23^rdApril had allowed the student to take the supplementary exam, which he has cleared.

• Court's observations "The depressive cycle which the petitioner suffered was during the period of COVID-19 pandemic itself. It was a period of widespread despondence. It is reasonable to believe that the situation brought about by the pandemic created an adverse effect on the tender mind of the petitioner, who disengaged himself from the studies"

• The Court also opined that the ground advanced by the petitioner could be viewed as genuine as there is nothing to disbelieve the same and that the stand of the respondent Institute to doubt is insensitive and departs from the facts stated in the letter of the parents fortified by the certificate of the doctor.

Source: Bar & Bench

3. No 'Distinguished Jurist' Appointment As Supreme Court Judge Yet

• The President of India appointed eight High Court Judges and one Senior Advocate as Judges of the Supreme Court of India. If we survey the appointments since 1950, it can be seen that most of the appointees are from 'High Court judges' category. Senior Advocate PS Narasimha is the ninth lawyer (since 1950) to be appointed as judge directly from the bar. But not even one appointment has been made from 'distinguished jurist' category till date.
•  As per Article 124 of the Constitution of India, a person is eligible to be appointed as Judge of the Supreme Court if he/she (a) has been for at least five years a Judge of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession; or (b) has been for at least ten years an advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession; or (c) is, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist.
  
  
• On this issue, it is apt to quote Professor Upendra Baxi, who in an interview to LiveLaw in 2014, said: "In 67 years of Independence, the Presidents of India have been looking with a telescope and have not found any jurist worth appointing as a Supreme Court Judge! So obviously jurists don't exist in India. Hence, I think this is a dead issue.". He responded thus while he was asked about his views on appointing academicians as Judges. We are now celebrating 75 years of Independence, but the President of India has not yet 'found' one. But that does not mean, they do not exist.

• Hope President 'Finds' A Distinguished Jurist Soon: Judges (Inquiry) Act is a law to regulate the procedure for the investigation and proof of the misbehaviour or incapacity of a judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court. This Act contemplates a committee to be formed to conduct investigation into misbehaviour or incapacity of Judge. One member of the three member committee shall be a person who is, in the opinion of, the Speaker of Lok Sabha or Chairman of Rajya Sabha, a distinguished jurist. If there has to be a 'distinguished jurist' to conduct an investigation against a judge, why should not a 'distinguished jurist' be made a judge to hear and decide important constitutional issues?

• In its suggestions for improvement of the collegium system submitted before the Supreme Court, the Centre had stated that non-consideration of 'distinguished jurists' (experts in law) as judges of the SC despite the Constitution so mandating was wrong. It had also suggested to introduce specific criteria "for appointment of members of bar and distinguished jurists to the Supreme Court and special emphasis placed on appointing judges from these categories given their historic under-representation".

Source: Bar & Bench

=======================

To help you out in your exam preparation, we suggest you take a free trial of CLAT 2022: A Comprehensive Preparation Course. Crack CLAT 2022 & Reach Your Dream NLU! So, why wait? CLAT 2022: A Comprehensive Preparation Course

Start Free Trial Now! 

Thanks
 
Sahi Prep Hai To Life Set Hai