Chief Justice BR Gavai to hear Waqf law, marital rape, right to religion cases

Justice BR Gavai took oath as the 52nd Chief Justice of India on Wednesday and became the first from the Buddhist community to hold the highest judicial office in the country. During the seven-month tenure that he is going to have as the Chief Justice, BR Gavai faces a huge backlog of social justice cases, including on the contentious Waqf (Amendment) Act, among others.advertisementBefore taking oath, Chief Justice Gavai spoke to the media and reaffirmed his commitment to reducing pendency in the courts. India Today takes a look at the issues that the new Chief Justice of India would have to take up.HUGE PENDENCY: According to the data available on the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) there are 81,768 cases pending before the Supreme Court. A total of 28,553 of these are less than one-year-old. However, there is a significant number of matters that have been pending for more than five or even 10 years.
CONSTITUTION BENCH MATTERS: There are 20 pending matters before five-judge benches, five matters before seven-judge benches, and three matters before nine-judge benches in the Supreme Court.These include the right to religion matters arising out of the Sabarimala temple dispute, a labour law matter before a nine-judge bench pending since 2001, an issue of data privacy on Whatsapp and the Delhi Government's dispute with the Centre over control of services, among others.WAQF AMENDMENT ACT: More than 120 petitions were filed before the Supreme Court after Parliament passed the Waqf Amendment Act on April 4. On April 17, a bench headed by the then CJI Sanjiv Khanna agreed to hear the issue of challenge to the Waf act. The bench asked the government to not touch certain provisions of the previous act and deferred the matter to be heard by a bench led by the new Chief Justice on May 15.advertisementKANCHA GACHIBOWLI FOREST LAND CASE: The Telangana government had announced it plans to auction some 400 acres of forested land adjacent to the University of Hyderabad (UoH) to build IT parks in February. This sparked widespread outrage and protests by Hyderabad University students, conservationists and others. The Supreme Court bench headed by Justice BR Gavai had intervened in the matter on April 17, issuing an immediate stay on the project, after being informed that bulldozers had been sent in to remove the trees in the "urban forest" area.This matter is now scheduled to be heard before the bench headed by Justice Gavai on May 15.POWER OF GOVERNORS TO HOLD BILLS: On April 8, a Supreme Court bench verdict restricted the power of the Governor of a State to "hold" bills passed by the legislature and imposed a timeline on the Governor and the President to take a decision on giving assent to the bills. A dispute over similar action by the Kerala Governor remains pending before the Supreme Court.MARITAL RAPE ISSUE: The issue of the criminalisation of 'marital rape' is an important legal question before the Top Court. Organisations and individuals fighting for the equal rights of women have challenged Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, which criminalise rape.advertisementThe case came to the Supreme Court in April 2022. The bench began hearing the case on October 17, 2024, but the bench headed by then Justice of India DY Chandrachud adjourned the matter as he was due to retire. The matter was not listed for hearing during the tenure of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna.DIGNITY OF JUDICIARY: Several issues have come up in the last few months which raised concerns about the dignity and role of the Judiciary. From the corruption allegations after the Justice Yashwant Varma case to statements being made by Government Ministers and even the Vice President questioning "overreach" by the Judiciary, Chief Justice Gavai will have to put the debate to rest.Tune InTrending Reel

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Wire

19 minutes ago

• The Wire

Why Indian Rivers Should Be Granted the Rights They Deserve

As North Eastern states experience disasters under flooding, rivers wreaking havoc, parts of the country also see an extreme season with the drying of its rivers having adversarial impact on soil, agriculture, and livelihoods of millions on depend upon it. Rivers and their critical vitality in shaping, managing and nurturing livelihoods have captured imagination of writers, artists, and scholars for centuries. In the ancient Hindu imagination, the Ganga is not a river. She is a mother. A bearer of life. A witness to history. For thousands of years, poets, priests, and pilgrims have also knelt at her banks, offering flowers and ashes alike. But in the courtroom, such reverence has not translated into responsibility. For Indian rivers today, personhood is poetry – but not yet law. And yet, the idea is not as far-fetched as it once seemed. If the river has a legal standing in a court of law In 2017, the Uttarakhand High Court declared the Ganga and Yamuna 'living entities' with the rights of a legal person. For a brief moment, the river had standing in a court of law. It could, in theory, sue a polluter, resist a dam, or demand its flow be restored. But the decision was swiftly stayed by the Supreme Court, citing practical difficulties: Who would represent the river? Who would be liable if the river 'committed' harm, like flooding? The Ganga returned to her pre-modern role: sacred but silent. Eight years later, in 2025, the waters are rising again – this time not just in volume, but in voice. Earlier this year, Rajya Sabha MP Satnam Singh Sandhu too introduced a bill proposing that Indian rivers be granted legal personhood through statute. In a nation where rivers are worshipped yet routinely strangled by concrete and sewage, the symbolism is powerful. But what matters more is the potential shift in power: from human dominion to ecological dignity. We have reached the limits of technocratic solutions to ecological collapse. India's flagship Namami Gange mission, launched with fanfare by the PM in 2014, has spent tens of thousands of crores and built miles of sewage infrastructure. Yet, the state of the Yamuna river – an important tributary of Ganga – in Delhi remains a chemical soup, where, fish die-offs are routine, and residents routinely gag at its banks. No amount of money can save a river if its right to flow, breathe, and exist is not recognized in law. In February, a Supreme Court-appointed committee reported that illegal embankments had been constructed through Kalesar National Park, obstructing the Yamuna's natural flow. On paper, it was a clear violation of forest and water laws. But the implications ran deeper. These embankments were not just environmental infractions – they were symbolic of a larger rupture: the quiet, everyday mutilation of riverine systems under the guise of 'development.' When a river's path is bent without its consent, it is not merely diverted; it is disenfranchised. Climate activist Ridhima Pandey, who first came into national consciousness for suing the government over climate inaction stood against the Kalasa-Banduri diversion project in Karnataka. Her protest was against a legal structure that treats rivers as passive infrastructure rather than living systems with embedded rights. Not isolated acts of environmental negligence but democratic failures in slow motion These are not isolated acts of environmental negligence. They are democratic failures in slow motion. Rivers may not cast votes, but they irrigate the very geographies our electoral maps are drawn on. To exclude them from legal personhood is to ignore that their depletion undermines the people who depend on them and the constitutional promises made to those people. Critics scoff. They warn of legal absurdities. Who defends the river in court? Can a river own property? The answer lies not in abandoning the project but in refining it. Guardianship models – where citizens, tribal councils, or environmental boards act as legal stewards – have worked elsewhere. In New Zealand, Maori iwi serve as co-guardians. India, too, can empower communities that have lived with and for rivers, rather than outsourcing custodianship to bureaucratic boards 500 kilometers away. It is a reckoning with the doctrine of human supremacy. Our legal system, forged in colonial logic, sees rivers as resources, not relationships. They are either dams to be built or drains to be dredged. But this worldview has failed us. Climate change is not just an engineering challenge; it is a civilisational crisis. The law must evolve. To grant rivers rights is not to anthropomorphise them, but to decolonise the way we see the world. This is critical for their being and sustenance through a realisation, recognition of rights that matter. The Ganga, after all, has outlived empires. She will likely outlast this one too. But what shape will she take – choked and canalised, or flowing freely as a subject of law and reverence? Personhood is not a silver bullet. But it is a beginning. A way of saying: the river has been speaking all along. It's time we learned how to listen. Deepanshu Mohan is a Professor of Economics, Dean, IDEAS, and Director, Centre for New Economics Studies. He is a Visiting Professor at London School of Economics and an Academic Visiting Fellow to AMES, University of Oxford.

Indian Express

an hour ago

• Indian Express

Kamal Nath's nephew and industrialist Ratul Puri discharged in Rs 354-crore bank fraud case

A Delhi Court discharged industrialist Ratul Puri, who is senior Congress leader Kamal Nath's nephew, on May 24 in a Rs 354-crore bank fraud case in which Puri and others had been accused by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) of defaulting on loans and resulting in financial losses to multiple banks. 'From above discussion, there is sufficient material on the record to come to a prima facie view that the allegations levelled against the accused persons have predominant contours of a dispute of civil nature and does not have the markings of a criminal offence. The dispute predominantly of a civil nature is being given colour or shades of criminal nature,' said Special Judge Sanjeev Aggarwal of Rouse Avenue Court in his order. What tilted the case in the favour of the accused people was the fact that the banks had denied the CBI sanction to investigate and prosecute 40 of their officials. 'As the competent authorities qua bankers have even shut out initiation of investigations against all of their bankers, totalling 40 in numbers u/S. 17A of PC (Prevention of Corruption Act) Act, it shows that present case was not having any criminal complexion or no criminal ingredients of cheating, deception or inducement,' noted Judge Aggarwal. '…senior bankers/Government officials, who are experts in the field of banking and know nitties and gritties of all the loan transactions, were fully conscious of this aspect when they denied approval u/S. 17 A of PC Act and they can also be said to be aware that the matter was of civil nature for which banks may have civil remedies available to them, as per law,' he added. The CBI had accused Ratul Puri, his wife Nita Puri, and private company Moser Baer India Limited (which made CDs and DVDs) of defrauding a consortium of banks. It had alleged that the goal of the accused was to defraud the banks by siphoning off money by misusing loans granted to them. The CBI had also alleged that the siphoning of funds could not have been possible without the 'active connivance of bank officials' since it was the job of the bank officials to monitor the loans. '…there was no diversion or siphoning or misuse of the loan(s) at any point of time and the loans were utilised for the purposes for which it was disbursed as per the RBI guidelines and the banking norms and in view of the fact that the senior functionaries of the different banks/consortium of banks running into 40 in numbers were even denied approval to investigate u/S. 17A of the PC Act by the different sets of competent authorities,' said Judge Aggarwal.

Hindustan Times

an hour ago

• Hindustan Times

SC stays 2019 deportation order of Lankan Tamil refugee, asks govt for its stand

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the deportation of a Sri Lankan Tamil refugee, Bhaskaran Kumarasamy, a former member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), who fled to India in 2004 during the final years of the country's civil war, citing a serious threat to his life if sent back. Bhaskaran Kumarasamy also asked the Supreme Court to let him appear before the Swiss embassy in New Delhi to pursue a pending asylum application (ANI) A bench of justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh passed the interim order while hearing Kumarasamy's plea challenging the Madras high court's decisions from 2021 and 2024 that upheld the Tamil Nadu government's decision to deport him. The bench has also sought a response from the Centre and the Tamil Nadu government on the current status of his deportation. 'Considering that the deportation order is five years and six months old, we would like to be apprised of the status of the deportation. Meanwhile, the deportation is stayed,' said the bench, posting the matter for further hearing on August 4. Kumarasamy's counsel urged the court to intervene, pointing out that his client could be killed upon his return to Sri Lanka and that he should be permitted to appear before the Swiss embassy in New Delhi to pursue a pending asylum application. The court acknowledged the concern and also observed that Kumarasamy may explore the possibility of applying for Indian citizenship under the newly enacted Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), if eligible. Kumarasamy, a former cadre of the LTTE, fled from Jaffna's Nalloor area in 2004 with his wife, Sakuntala and daughters, Sobana and Sobiha -- then aged eight and six. The family entered India through Rameswaram and was lodged at the Mandapam refugee camp in Tamil Nadu. Kumarasamy claims to have given up arms before leaving Sri Lanka. In 2019, the Tamil Nadu government issued a deportation order against him, and since then, he has been entangled in a prolonged legal battle to stay in India. The Madras high court initially stayed the deportation in August 2020, noting the credible threat to his life in Sri Lanka. 'For the past 13 years, he is in India. Moreover, his family members, father, brother, brother's wife and daughter, were reportedly murdered by the Sri Lankan Army,' the high court had noted at the time, adding that deporting him would not serve the interest of justice. However, the high court reversed course in June 2021. Dismissing his plea to visit the Swiss embassy in Delhi to process his asylum request, the court held that Kumarasamy could no longer be considered a refugee under Indian law. It relied on the Tamil Nadu police's Q Branch's assertion that Sri Lanka was now safe for returnees and pointed out that Kumarasamy briefly travelled to Sri Lanka in 2014 for eye surgery -- a fact that, according to the court, weakened his claim of credible threat. Kumarasamy was also among 19 Sri Lankan Tamil refugees booked in 2016 by Tamil Nadu's Q Branch under multiple laws, including the Foreigners Act and other penal charges related to conspiracy, trafficking and cheating. He was arrested and moved from Bagayam refugee camp to Tiruchirappalli Special Camp, and later to Puzhal Central Jail. Though he and the others were acquitted of all charges in 2019, Kumarasamy remained confined to the special camp in Trichy. In 2020, he began the process of seeking asylum in Switzerland, where a sizeable diaspora of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees resides. According to Kumarasamy, the Swiss embassy in Delhi had asked him to appear for an interview as part of his application process. However, he was unable to obtain the necessary travel permission from the Tamil Nadu authorities. He claims that despite submitting official communication from the embassy, both the district collector of Tiruchirappalli and the local revenue inspector denied him permission to travel to Delhi. In February 2021, Kumarasamy petitioned the Madras high court to be allowed to travel to Delhi. But in June that year, the court not only dismissed his plea but also agreed with the authorities' contention that he no longer qualified for refugee protections.