A bench of Justices Arvind Kumar and NV Anjaria examined an affidavit filed by the Jodhpur jail superintendent. The affidavit stated that Sonam Wangchuk’s elder brother and his lawyer had met him.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Geetanjali Angmo, requested the court that he wanted to amend his petition. He also requested that Sonam Wangchuk be allowed to communicate with his wife in writing. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta did not object to this.

The post Supreme Court to hear Sonam Wangchuk’s wife’s plea on October 29 appeared first on Mission Ki Awaaz.

According to eyewitnesses, the accused lawyer also shouted slogans in court and alleged that Sanatan Dharma was being insulted. Some reports also stated that the man threw a roll of paper instead of a shoe. Following this, the CJI took the matter seriously and ordered an investigation, although he himself stated that such incidents do not concern him.

According to Bar & Bench sources, the accused lawyer committed the act while a case was being heard under the chairmanship of CJI BR Gavai. Following the incident, Advocate Rohit Pandey, former Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association, strongly condemned the incident and called it tragic. He stated that such incidents cannot be tolerated if the lawyer is a member of the Bar.

At the same time, the court has ordered a detailed investigation into the matter, and after this incident, investigation against the lawyer is also going on.

The post Controversy in Supreme Court: Lawyer tries to throw shoe at Chief Justice, disrupts proceedings appeared first on Mission Ki Awaaz.

Rebecca Slaughter was appointed during former President Joe Biden’s tenure. Trump removed her based on policy differences rather than any specific disciplinary reason. The move sparked legal controversy when it was argued that under federal law, FTC commissioners can only be removed for “good cause.”

Three Justices Dissent

Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the decision, arguing that it contradicted landmark Supreme Court precedent, Humphreys Executor v. United States (1935). In that case, the Court clarified that officials of independent bodies like the FTC can only be removed for substantial cause.

Justice Kagan wrote in her dissent,

“The President, as he has held here, cannot remove an FTC Commissioner without cause. No other conclusion can be reached without overturning the Humphreys precedent. The majority is in a hurry to overturn this precedent.”

Kagan also alleged that the Supreme Court’s current conservative majority is effectively undermining a long-established and established decision without detailed hearings and debate.

Final hearing to be held in December

The Supreme Court has stated that it will hold a comprehensive hearing in December to determine whether granting members of independent bodies like the FTC protections for removal violates the principle of separation of powers under the Constitution.

If the Court overturns the Humphreys precedent, it could impact the autonomy of not only the FTC but also over 50 other federal independent agencies and further empower the President’s role in executive power.

Other Appeals Rejected

The Supreme Court declined to consider two other similar cases—the appeals of Merit Systems Protection Board member Kathy Harris and National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox. Both officials were also dismissed by Trump during his tenure and were challenging their removals based on Humphreys.

Important View

This case is no longer limited to Rebecca Slaughter. The Supreme Court clearly views it as a pivotal issue regarding the President’s power over independent bodies of the executive branch. The December hearing will not only add a new twist to this controversy but also determine how independent agencies in America will remain independent in the future.

The post Supreme Court issues interim ruling in Trump’s favor on FTC commissioner dismissal appeared first on Mission Ki Awaaz.

Supreme Court: The Supreme Court said that long pending bail cases undermine the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure and violate the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty. The Supreme Court on Friday directed the High Courts and District Courts across the country to ensure that the decision on bail and anticipatory bail applications is taken within 2 months of filing.

The Supreme Court on Friday directed the High Courts and District Courts across the country to ensure that the decision on bail and anticipatory bail applications is taken within 2 months of filing. The court emphasized that cases related to personal liberty cannot be kept pending indefinitely in the name of judicial workload.

The post Supreme Court’s strictness: Decision on bail petitions is necessary within two months, instructions to courts appeared first on Mission Ki Awaaz.