Latest news with #K.VinodChandran
United News of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- United News of India
SC stays Calcutta HC order blocking Bengal's revised OBC list
New Delhi, Jul 28 (UNI) In a significant relief to the West Bengal government, the Supreme Court today stayed the operation of a Calcutta High Court order that had stalled the state's initiative to finalise a fresh list of Other Backward Classes (OBCs). A three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice N.V. Anjaria passed the interim stay while hearing the state government's plea challenging the June 17 High Court order. The apex court held that the High Court's intervention was 'prima facie erroneous' and appeared to transgress into the domain of the executive. 'Since the Indra Sawhney judgment of 1992, it is well settled that the executive has the authority to initiate and revise reservation policies,' the Bench noted. Expressing surprise at the reasoning adopted by the High Court, the Bench stated, 'We are unable to comprehend the logic behind the stay granted.' Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the West Bengal government, argued that the High Court's stay had adversely impacted recruitment processes and resulted in contempt petitions against officials. He emphasized that the revised list was being prepared in good faith, following proper procedures through the state OBC Commission. The Calcutta High Court had earlier halted the new list on the grounds that it sought to reintroduce communities previously excluded due to lack of data. In May 2024, the same court had struck down the inclusion of 77 communities, citing insufficient justification for their classification as OBCs. In response, the state had informed the court of its plan to initiate a fresh exercise via the OBC Commission. However, the High Court found the attempt inadequate and imposed an interim stay, suspecting that it aimed to reverse the previous judicial directive. Disagreeing with the High Court's assessment, the Supreme Court observed that the methodology adopted by the Commission deserved thorough judicial scrutiny but should not be stayed at the preliminary stage. 'Whether the methodology was appropriate or not is a matter for the High Court to examine. But an outright stay without a full hearing cannot be sustained,' the court noted. Ordering the matter to be heard expeditiously, the top court asked the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to constitute a special bench to decide the case within six to eight weeks. The Bench also specified that the judge who had previously presided over the case should not be part of the new bench. Meanwhile, the apex court directed that the status quo be maintained to prevent disruption in governance and public appointments, and issued notice in the matter. Underscoring the importance of judicial restraint in matters involving caste-based reservations, the court's decision allows the West Bengal government to continue with its policy efforts, pending final adjudication on the legality of the revised OBC list. The stay comes as a boost for the Mamata Banerjee-led administration, which had maintained that the update was necessary to ensure equitable representation and uphold the principles of social justice. UNI SNG RKM
The Hindu
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
Supreme Court stays Calcutta HC order on West Bengal OBC list
The Supreme Court on Monday (July 28, 2025) stayed the Calcutta High Court's decision that had stalled the implementation of a revised list of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) notified by the West Bengal government. 'Prima facie, the High Court order seems to be erroneous,' said a Bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria while hearing the appeal of the State government. On June 17, the Calcutta High Court ordered an interim stay on notifications issued by the State government with regard to reservations to 140 subsections under OBC-A and OBC-B categories made by it. At the outset, the Bench took note of the submissions of senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the State government, and said, 'This is surprising. How can the High Court pass such an order? Reservation is part of the executive function." The State had prepared the new list after the High Court, in May 2024, quashed the inclusion of as many as 77 communities in the OBC list.
The Hindu
14-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Supreme Court to hear on August 3 pleas seeking transparency in NEET-PG Exam evaluation process
The Supreme Court on Monday (July 14, 2025) fixed August 3 for hearing pleas raising concerns over the transparency of the NEET-PG examination process, particularly regarding the release of answer keys and evaluation protocols. A bench comprising justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria briefly heard pleas on the issues. One of the pleas, filed through lawyer Tanvi Dubey, challenges the opaque nature of the evaluation system and seeks multiple directions to the National Board of Examinations (NBE), the authority responsible for conducting NEET-PG. The plea sought the release of question papers and answer keys to candidates, and the disclosure of correct and incorrect questions as assessed. It also sought a direction for revaluation or rechecking in cases of score discrepancies. The plea also sought a direction to enable candidates to challenge disputed questions or answers and the institution of transparent evaluation mechanisms for current and future NEET-PG examinations. The plea alleged a lack of transparency and said it undermined the credibility of such a crucial examination and adversely impacted the rights of candidates.
The Hindu
14-07-2025
- Entertainment
- The Hindu
Supreme Court to hear plea of music composer Ilaiyaraaja on July 18
The Supreme Court on Monday (July 14, 2025) deferred to July 18 the hearing on a plea of legendary music composer Ilaiyaraaja seeking to transfer a copyright dispute involving over 500 of his musical compositions from the Bombay High Court to the Madras High Court. The plea was listed on Monday before a bench comprising Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria. The legal case started from a lawsuit initiated by Sony Music Entertainment India in 2022 before the Bombay High Court. Sony has sought an injunction to restrain Ilaiyaraaja Music N Management Pvt Ltd (IMMPL) from using 536 musical works. The company claims it acquired rights to these works through Oriental Records and Echo Recording, the entity with which Ilaiyaraaja has long been embroiled in litigation. The IMMPL, however, alleged that 310 of the 536 disputed works are already under judicial scrutiny in a parallel case before the Madras High Court. That case, originally filed by Ilaiyaraaja in 2014 against Echo Recording, challenges the latter's claim over his compositions and seeks recognition of the composer's moral and economic rights under the Copyright Act. The 2014 Madras suit led to a significant 2019 judgment, which upheld Ilaiyaraaja's moral and special rights as a composer. Ilaiyaraaja is one of India's most prolific composers with over 7,500 songs across 1,500 films.
News18
02-07-2025
- News18
Court To Perceive Things Not Visible To Naked Eyes In Child Custody Matters: SC
Last Updated: The Supreme Court dismissed a mother's plea against Karnataka High Court's order for inpatient evaluation of her child at NIMHANS due to offensive behavior towards the father. The Supreme Court has said that in child custody matters, courts, while exercising parens patriae jurisdiction, are oftener than ever faced with the problem of the parent having custody using the child as a tool to settle scores arising from marital disputes. So, the courts must perceive things that are not visible to the naked eye, read between the lines, and separate the grain of truth from the chaff of rancour, animosity, and bitterness resulting from an estranged relationship, it added. A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and K. Vinod Chandran dismissed a plea by a mother against the Karnataka High Court's order allowing inpatient evaluation of a minor girl child at NIMHANS, Bengaluru, since she displayed offensive behaviour towards the father. The court directed the District Child Protection Officer, along with the child's mother, to produce her before NIMHANS on July 4, 2025, at 11:30 AM. After the admission of the child for her independent evaluation, the doctors-in-attendance would take a decision regarding the stay of the mother with the child and/or her visitation during the course of the child's evaluation at NIMHANS. Likewise, the court further clarified, the doctors-in-attendance would also take a decision regarding visitation by the father on such dates, times, and frequency during the period of evaluation of the child at NIMHANS. A decision would also be taken regarding the visit of the District Child Protection Officer. 'On completion of the evaluation exercise, NIMHANS shall furnish a report to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Karnataka in a sealed cover. Post evaluation, NIMHANS shall permit continuation of the custody of the child with the mother as previously ordered by the Court, with visitation facility for the father depending upon their evaluation, till such time as the matter is listed before the High Court of Karnataka," the bench said. This is an unfortunate case where it appears to us that a minor child is caught in the web of matrimonial tussle between her parents. Prima facie, it appears to us that the mother has obstinately deprived the father of the company of their minor child, overreaching orders issued by the High Court of Karnataka and thus also interfering with the due exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction, the bench said. The matter concerned a Guardian and Wards case filed by the father seeking custody of his minor daughter, born in wedlock with the petitioner herein. Their marriage took place in 2011, and the daughter was born in 2014, after which the wife is said to have left the matrimonial home in 2021. An FIR was registered by the wife under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and in the G & W case filed by the father—the respondent herein—the child was placed under the custody of the mother, with visitation rights every fortnight between 9 AM and 11 AM under the strict supervision of the respondent mother. The father was also permitted to interact with the child via video conferencing once a week, again under the strict supervision of the mother. The interim order was to continue till the disposal of the case. The father sought modification of the interim order, seeking unsupervised overnight cohabitation for the weekends and for 50% of school holidays. The High Court had considered the age of the child, the requirement for the company of both parents, and the need for her overall development, which would be possible only with the fruitful association of both parents and their families. It allowed the father to have interim custody for half of the summer vacations of the child. The mother was directed to produce the child before the Registrar (Judicial) on April 6, 2025, which was not complied with. When the matter came up again on April 8, 2025, the mother was directed to ensure the presence of the child on April 9, 2025, at 2:35 PM, failing which coercive measures were threatened. The mother refused to comply with the order, and the counsel on record feigned ignorance of the whereabouts of the mother and the child. The court directed an inquiry to be conducted by the Commissioner of Police and restrained the duo from leaving the jurisdiction of the court. The mother approached the apex court and, on mutual agreement, the child was directed to be brought to the High Court on April 21, 22, and 23, 2025, at 11 AM, to enable the father to have custody till 6 PM on the first two days. On April 23, it was further directed by this court that the child, on production, would be handed over to the father for two days, and the father was also directed to hand over the child back through the Registrar (Judicial) on April 25, 2025. On April 22, 2025, when the child was produced, she is said to have refused to even look at the father. The child displayed reluctance and, in an offensive display, asserted that she is not an object and cannot be compelled to meet the father. Based on the report of the Registrar (Judicial), the court opined that the behaviour of the child was a result of parental alienation and tutoring by the custodial parent. The court, in the interest of the child, directed the child to be again produced on April 26, 2025, at 11 AM before the Registrar (Judicial) to enable joint counselling of the father and daughter, with permission granted to the mother to participate in the counselling session if she desired. Undaunted, the mother refused and produced a certificate from a doctor in a private hospital certifying that the child had disturbed sleep, anger outbursts, irritability, low mood, loss of pleasure and interest, and so on. It was opined that this was due to her participation in the court proceedings and the fear of being taken away from the mother. Based also on the certificate produced by the mother, the child was directed to be examined at the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS) on three consecutive days in the presence of the mother, with the District Child Protection Officer directed to accompany them. The mother failed to comply with the said order too, and it was reported that she, along with her child, had left for Delhi. The Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, was directed to produce the mother and the daughter on May 2, 2025, on which date it was informed that a team of officers was in Delhi, since the mother and the child were found to be in the vicinity of the Supreme Court of India. A review petition filed against the earlier order of this court was dismissed, and the bailable warrants issued by the High Court were directed to not be executed, based on the undertaking of the mother to appear before the High Court. It was then that the evaluation was done by NIMHANS. Mental status evaluation was done on May 5, 6, and 7, 2025, and the report filed sought an inpatient evaluation of the child for four to six weeks. The High Court then directed NIMHANS to furnish a detailed reasoning for such inpatient evaluation. The report dated May 22, 2025, filed by NIMHANS was produced before the court, and after hearing both parties and interactions with both counsel as to how best the issue could be resolved, the court directed the District Child Protection Officer to take the child, along with the mother, on June 15, 2025, at 11:30 AM to NIMHANS for admission, and directed the hospital to ensure that the minor child is kept in an environment where she is comfortable and away from the other patients. It was this order which has been challenged before the apex court. 'We have detailed the facts regarding the various orders passed and their non-compliance only to highlight the adamant attitude displayed by the mother in somehow depriving the father of the company of the minor child," the bench said. The court noted the High Court found that the offensive manner in which the child responded before the Registrar (Judicial) could possibly be the result of tutoring, effectively poisoning the mind of the child against the father. 'In the exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction, courts are often attempted to be misled by vicious accusations made by the spouses against each other. The judicial mind must rise above such accusations, which are motivated by resentment resulting from a troubled marriage, and keep in mind the paramount consideration — which is the welfare of the child — always ideally served by the company of both parents and their families," the bench said. However, when disputes arise between the parents and the hatred emanating from the troubled relationship clouds their minds, and the custodial parent uses the child as a tool to avenge the perceived injustices meted out by the other, then the court steps in, in the interest of the child, the bench added. The court noted that the High Court, despite being faced with consistent disobedience of the orders passed, behaved with utmost restraint and always tried to ensure the welfare of the child, while also allaying the anxieties of the mother by enabling participation in the reconciliation process attempted between the child and the father. 'The conduct of the mother, however, reveals that she is against any such reconciliation, and the challenge against the order for an independent evaluation by NIMHANS is also motivated by the animosity against her husband," the bench said. The bench emphasised that the inpatient admission in NIMHANS, a premier institute of mental health, is neither for the treatment of the child nor is there any finding by the court of any mental illness. top videos View all 'In fact, the medical certificate produced by the mother itself indicates that the child is under stress and has anxiety problems, more due to the estranged relationship of her parents. The fear of being removed from the company of the mother, though probable, is to be allayed — and also to find out the cause of her anger against her father — that the inpatient evaluation is suggested," the bench said, referring to the report by NIMHANS relied on by the High Court. Rejecting the opposition by the mother, the bench said there was a larger purpose involved in attempting reconciliation with her father and in finding out the mind of the child through such independent evaluation, which would be in the best interest of her overall development. About the Author Sanya Talwar Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked More Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: July 02, 2025, 21:24 IST News india Court To Perceive Things Not Visible To Naked Eyes In Child Custody Matters: SC
