Public Prosecutor and Govt Pleader

Public Prosecutor and Govt Pleader expertise in criminal, services law

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1895mFrGzi/
21/03/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1895mFrGzi/

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking removal of a remark against its verdicts from NCERT’s old Class 8 Social Science textbook, saying that people have a right to criticise them.

The Centre, meanwhile, informed a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi that it had constituted an expert committee comprising two former apex court judges and an ex-attorney general to review the NCERT book with a chapter on corruption in the judiciary.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench that the committee comprises senior advocate and former Attorney General KK Venugopal; former top court judge Justice Indu Malhotra; and former Supreme Court judge and current National Judicial Academy director Justice Aniruddha Bose, along with a vice chancellor.

“We have formed the committee to draft the chapter. Mr KK Venugopal will be a member of the committee. Justice Indu Malhotra will also be a part. We have also requested Justice Aniruddha Bose from the National Judicial Academy to be there,” Mehta said.

The top court was hearing a petition by former NCERT member Pankaj Pushkar against a passage in an older Class 8 textbook that read, “recent judgments tend to view the slum dweller as an encroacher in the city.”

The court refused to entertain the petition, observing that the judiciary should not be oversensitive about healthy criticism.

“It’s a viewpoint about a judgment. That’s a healthy criticism. Why should the judiciary be so oversensitive about that? This part of the book points out what the structure of the judiciary is, how they work, what they have done, and some good has also been highlighted.

“Then they say, however, there are also court judgments that people believe work against the best interests of common persons. This is a viewpoint about a judgment, people have a right to criticise our judgments,” the CJI observed orally.

https://www.facebook.com/share/18KLoQLn6u/
15/03/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/18KLoQLn6u/

The Supreme Court has observed that an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt does not confer upon a candidate an automatic right to appointment in public service.

Link in comment box

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1B2vUu8D7D/
23/02/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1B2vUu8D7D/

The Supreme Court on Monday orally observed that pre-2018 land acquisition cases cannot be reopened for the grant of compensation with interest to the farmers whose land had been acquired under the NHAI Act.

The observation was made by a special bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan while commencing the hearing in an open court of a plea of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), seeking a review of a 2019 verdict of the top court.

The apex court, in 2019, held that the decision to grant compensation with interest to farmers whose land was acquired under the NHAI Act would apply retrospectively.

The NHAI, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, said the 2019 judgement imposed a huge financial burden (approximately Rs 32,000 crore) and should only apply prospectively.

The bench had previously rejected this, noting that denying such benefits violated Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution.

“What perhaps weighed with your lordship was that it was Rs 100 crore," Mehta said, adding that in another judgement, the top court said that no disposed of cases will be reopened.

“The cut-off date appears to be 2008, provided claims were alive then. Pre-2018 matters cannot be reopened. Those matters which were pending in 2008 continue. If someone in the early 2020s filed an application saying they are entitled to parity on the basis of 2008, we can say yes as the solatium but not interest, like in land acquisition matters,” the CJI observed.

The bench heard the brief arguments and asked the parties to file written submissions, if any, and listed the review plea for hearing after two weeks.

https://www.facebook.com/share/1AmnwUiUwQ/
23/01/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/1AmnwUiUwQ/

Observing that release on probation does not wipe out the stigma of conviction, the Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court's decision that reduced a workman's punishment merely because he was granted the benefit of probation in criminal proceedings.

Link in comment box

https://www.facebook.com/share/17UMdHKANQ/
13/12/2025

https://www.facebook.com/share/17UMdHKANQ/

The Supreme Court on Friday (December 12) held that a person who has accepted a compassionate appointment cannot subsequently seek elevation by claiming that they ought to have been appointed to a higher post at the initial stage.

Link in comment box

Address

676 3rd Floor Sector 21C
Faridabad

Telephone

+919582200195

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Public Prosecutor and Govt Pleader posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Public Prosecutor and Govt Pleader:

Share