Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile
Articles by Vidhi Thaker
Statistical Analysis Of Reportable Supreme Court Judgments In January 2023
Overview of Judge-wise Statistics – The overview of Reportable Judgments delivered by each Hon’ble Judge over the month of January 2023, is as under : Name of the Hon’ble Judge No. of Reportable Judgments (per Hon’ble Judge) Justice M.R. Shah 41 Justice B.V. Nagarathna 7 Justice B.R. Gavai 5 Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Justice S.
Judge-Wise Statistics Of Reportable Judgments Of Supreme Court In June 2022
The maximum number of judgments (i.e. 7) were authored in the field of criminal law. This was followed by 3 Judgments in Civil Law.
Judge-Wise Statistics Of Reportable Judgments Of Supreme Court In May 2022
(1) Justice Vineet Saran, who retired on 10.05.2022, delivered 3 Judgments in this month. In one Judgment (arising out of an appeal against conviction u/S. 302 I.P.C.), a Bench comprising of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Vineet Saran, upon considering the contradictions of the prosecution witnesses, acquitted the Accused person. (2) Justice L. Nageswara Rao, who retired on 07.06.2022, authored two important Judgments in May 2022, i.e. Jacob Puliyel v.
Judge-Wise Statistics Of Reportable Judgments Of Supreme Court In April 2022
In April 2022, the Supreme Court delivered 88 Reportable Judgements. This month brought various concurring decisions rendered by Judges on different issues, for instance, on the issue of availability of the benefit of reservation after re-organization of States, Justice Uday Umesh Lalit authored the majority view (for himself and for Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha), whereas Justice S.Ravindra Bhat authored a separate concurring judgment.
Judge-Wise Statistics Of Reportable Judgments Of Supreme Court In March 2022
In March 2022, the Supreme Court delivered 69 Reportable Judgments. Interestingly, in this month, the Supreme Court also reported 2 Judgments, where a split verdict was delivered by the Bench, requiring the matter to be referred to the Chief Justice to be placed before an appropriate bench. One split verdict was delivered by a Bench comprising of Justice Indira Banerjee and... In March 2022, the Supreme Court delivered 69 Reportable Judgments.
Judge-Wise Statistics Of Reportable Judgments Of Supreme Court In February 2022
In February 2022, the Supreme Court authored 83 Reportable Judgments in diverse areas of law. The highest number of Judgments (i.e. 21 Reportable Judgments) were authored by Justice M.R. Shah, followed by Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud authoring 10 Reportable Judgments.
Judge-Wise Statistics Of Reportable Supreme Court Judgments In January 2022
Despite January having only 18 Court working days, the Supreme Court delivered 88 Reportable Judgments across various fields of law. On an average, therefore, on every working day in January, the Supreme Court delivered approximately 5 Reportable Judgments. These numbers are despite various reports indicating that about 13 Judges of the Supreme Court, and 400 registry officers had tested positive for COVID-19 in January.
Pride Not Prejudice - LGBTQ+ Representation In The Judiciary
We celebrate June as Pride Month to acknowledge the pop of colour that the LGBTQ+ community adds to our society. This month, we renew our commitment to fight for their equal rights and fair treatment. The celebration of Pride Month can be traced to the Stonewall Uprising of 1969 in New York. The Stonewall Inn was a popular gay bar in Greenwich Village (New York City), which was raided by the police in the early hours of 28th June, 1969 to investigate the illegal sale of alcohol at the bar.
What's New With Novation? A Comment On Sanjiv Prakash v. Seema Kukreja & Ors
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in SanjivPrakash v. Seema Kukreja & Ors.,[1] recently held that the issue whether an agreement which contains an arbitration clause has or has not been novated, cannot be decided by the Courts at the Section 11 stage. The judgment is a step forward, since it clarifies the narrow scope of judicial intervention at the pre-reference stage.
Our Very Own Indu Ma'am
As their Lordships enter the Courtroom, they are preceded by the softened bustle of Court staff and lawyers abruptly halting conversation, and rising in their seats – all as a mark of their reverence for the institution and Judges. The grandeur which surrounds the lives of Judges and what appears to be a life of privileges often overshadows the immense hard work put in by those sitting on the Bench.
Historical Series: THE MALABAR HILL MURDER TRIAL OF 1925
To mark the 158th anniversary of the Bombay High Court, we introduce a month-long ‘Historical Series’ over the weekends. The series will delve into some of the interesting historic cases that the Hon’ble High Court has heard over the years. The first part had elucidated upon the famous Maharaj libel case from 1862. PRASTUT DALVI and VIDHI THAKER in Part III narrate the sensational Bawla murder case.
E-Litigation - A Re-Look At The Supreme Courts Rules, 2013
Introduction of a concrete mechanism to ensure safe yet active functioning of the Supreme Court during unprecedented situations, such as the present pandemic, is the need of the hour. An alternative to the Supreme Court (COVID-19 Pandemic) Emergency Procedure Rules, 2020 as suggested by Mr. Shyam Divan, Senior Advocate, is the amendment of the existing Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
Pressure on media is mounting in Modi’s India; violence against journalists is increasing
May 3, 2020, marks the celebration of the 27th World Press Freedom Day. It was proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in December 1993, following the recommendation of UNESCO’s General Conference. Every year, this day acts as a reminder to nations to ensure freedom of the press, and fulfil their commitment towards a free and fair media.
Order To Ordinance : Background And Features Of The Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020
The recent Epidemic Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance 2020 may be viewed as a by-product of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a doctor from Nagpur, Maharashtra (Dr. Jerryl Banait v. Union of India)[1]. The PIL originally sought availability of Personal Protective Equipment (PPEs) for medical professionals, and subsequently highlighted the plight of doctors and nurses due to incidents of violence.
Show More
loading
Actions
Is this you?
As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.Get in touch with Vidhi
Contact Vidhi, search articles and posts on X, monitor coverage, and track replies from one place.
Learn more about Muck Rack