CJI Bobde: The next Chief Justice of India Bobde is very strict!


CJI Bobde: The next Chief Justice of India Bobde is very strict!: The process for the appointment of the next Chief Justice of India has started. The current Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi has written a letter to the Central Government recommending the name of the next CJI. It is customary for the current Chief Justice to recommend the name of his successor. CJI Ranjan Gogoi has proposed to make Sharad Arvind Bobde the next Chief Justice of the country.

Supreme Court Judge Sharad Arvind Bobde will be the next Chief Justice of the country. The current Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi is retiring on 17 November and Justice Bobde will be sworn in on 18 November. Justice Bobde is not only a great advocate of mediation in justice, but is also very strict about the mood. His judgment reflects his mood when he imposed a fine of Rs 2 crore for lying in a medical college court. Know such tough decisions made by him that became a Nazir.

Fraud Medical College was fined Rs 2 crore

Bobde’s Bench imposed a fine of Rs 2 crore on Mahavir Institute of Medical Sciences Medical College and dismissed his petition. The college cheated at the time of investigation to show that it was following the minimum criteria and presented the healthy person as a patient in his hospital. Explain that Mahavir Institute of Medical Sciences challenged the decision of the Central Government in the Supreme Court.

The Central Government accepted the suggestion of the Medical Council of India in which it said that the college is not allowed to take admission in the MBBS course for 150 students seats from 2018-19 academic session. The court said that it got to read in the report that what was told about the number of patients present during the inspection on the spot of the college was not correct. The court said that the inspectors found that the number of patients present in the hospital was not correct.

These people said that people with minor merges were admitted to the hospital. Some people were presented as patients but their condition was not such that they needed to be hospitalized. The petitioner did this because he needed permission to take admission of students in the new academic session and wanted to show that he was following the minimum criteria. The petitioner is guilty of throwing dust in the eyes. He sentenced the college to face a fine of two crore.

26-week fetus have the right to survive

26-week fetus have the right to survive

He has been a former Chief Justice of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Justice Bobde, who is in the Special Bench of the Supreme Court in the Supreme Court’s Ram Janmabhoomi dispute. He is currently a judge in the Supreme Court and is also the Chancellor of Maharashtra National Law University. In one of his decisions, he rejected a petition filed by a woman to terminate her fetus suffering from Down syndrome. Which said that When a 26-week pregnant woman came to know that she had a Down syndrome baby in her womb, she sought permission from the Supreme Court for an abortion.

Because it is not valid to have an abortion after 20 weeks. A bench of Judge SA Bobde and Judge L Nageswara Rao said that ‘everyone knows that children with Down syndrome are undoubtedly less intelligent, but they are fine. The court said that ‘It is sad that there can be mental and physical challenges in the child and it is also very unfortunate for the mother, but we do not allow abortion … we have a life in our hands.

However, this bench later also stated verbally that ‘it is very sad for a mother to raise a mentally disabled child’. The matter was raised on the decision of Bodley that in such sensitive cases, the court should leave the decision on those parents whether they want to bring such children in this world or not. Because no one knows better than the parents whether they will be able to give a happy tomorrow to that child’s life.

Let Down syndrome is a genetic disorder that affects intellectual and physical abilities. Down syndrome causes slow mental development and physical development. Most children have heart disease, immunity is very low.

Citizens cannot be denied government benefits without an Aadhaar card

Citizens cannot be denied government benefits without an Aadhaar card

Justice Sharad was part of the bench which ordered that no Indian citizen not having Aadhaar card be denied government benefits. His bench had ordered that no Indian citizen could be deprived of basic services and government subsidies on the grounds of not having an Aadhaar card.

On August 11, 2015, the Supreme Court directed the government that as per Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, if a person has not got an Aadhaar number, he can give alternative documents for subsidy. The government was instructed that the Aadhaar card will not be used for any purpose other than ration, kerosene and LPG subsidy. However, MNREGA, National Social Assistance Program, Pension, Jan Dhan Yojana and EPFO ​​were also included later in this list.

After which the government had said on the basis of this order that Aadhar card is not needed for the benefit of government schemes. Government subsidies and services can also be availed by showing any other document as an identity card. After this order of the Supreme Court, the government had said that the Aadhaar card is completely voluntary until the final decision of the court is made and it cannot be made mandatory.

Ban on sale and stocking of firecrackers

Ban on sale and stocking of firecrackers

Justice Bobde, former Chief Justice T.S. Thakur and Justice AK Sikri had passed an order banning the sale and stocking of all types of firecrackers, as well as prohibiting the issuance of new licenses for the same. Justice Bobde had said that unlike other countries where firecrackers are banned, they have a special place in India. Other options for pollution related to firecrackers should be explored. He said that “We do not want to create unemployment. Is there a comparative study like this which shows the proportion of firecrackers causing pollution. However, how much does automobiles contribute to this.” But the government became strict about the ban and the positive effect was that there was a significant reduction in the pollution caused by firecrackers.

Emphasis on the need for arbitration before trial

Justice Bobde is known for insisting on the need for arbitration before trial. He believes that mediation should be used as a legal support system to ensure that justice is done to the people at the earliest. Addressing an opening ceremony of the 17th All India Meet of State Legal Services Authorities, Justice Bobde said that between 2017 and March 2018, 1,07,587 cases were settled through arbitration. In Gujarat alone, 24 thousand lawsuits have been settled in a single day. Apart from this, Justice Bobde has emphasized the inclusion of courses like degree in diploma, diploma in the study of law in the country.

Family ties is due to advocacy

Significantly, the next Chief Justice of the country, Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde, is the son of famous lawyer Arvind Bobde of Nagpur in Maharashtra. His father Arvind Bobade was a Maharashtra Advocate-General in 1980 and 1985. Justice Bobde was born on 24 April 1956 in Nagpur, Maharashtra. His family is associated with the profession of advocacy. His grandfather was also a lawyer. At the same time, his elder brother the late Vinod Arvind Bobde was also a lawyer in the Supreme Court.

Please tell that after CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Bobde is the most senior lawyer in the Supreme Court. Sharad Arvind Bobade did his graduation from SFS College Nagupar, while he studied law at Nagpur University in 1978. Has been playing tennis in the university team. Justice Bobde started his career in 1978. He practiced in Bombay High Court and Supreme Court for 21 years. He was honored as Senior Advocate in 1998.

On 13 September 1978 he was made a member of the Maharashtra Bar Council and started his advocacy from the Bombay Bench of the Bombay High Court. In 1998, Sharad Arvind Bobde became Senior Advocate. Subsequently, on 29 March 2000, he was made a member of the bench of the Bombay High Court. Later on 16 October 2012, Sharad Arvind Bobde was appointed as Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court. The following year, on 12 April 2013, Justice Bobde was appointed as a judge in the Supreme Court.

Justice Bobde is also the second judge in the constitution bench to hear the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi case. Justice Bobde’s term as Supreme Court Judge will end on 23 April 2021. Apart from this, Justice Bobde has also held the post of Chancellor in several universities, including Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai and Maharashtra Law University Nagpur.

How is the Chief Justice of India elected?

It is interesting to know that there is no set procedure for the appointment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Article 124 (1) of the constitution simply states that there will be a Supreme Court of India, with the Chief Justice. But no specific procedure has been mentioned about how his appointment will be done. A little information about this comes from Article 126 of the Constitution. Article 126 gives some guidelines regarding appointment of Acting Chief Justice.

In most cases, due to lack of any fixed procedure, tradition is discharged, which is already in place. The appointment of the Chief Justice has been done by this tradition. According to the Supreme Court tradition, when a Chief Justice retires, he is replaced by the most senior judge at that time as the Chief Justice.

The retirement age of judges in the Supreme Court is 65 years. However, seniority is not decided on the basis of age. Seniority is determined by how many years of experience a judge has as a Supreme Court judge. In the election of the Chief Justice of India, the government has such a big role that the Law Ministry demands the name of the new Chief Justice from the Chief Justice and passes that name forward to the Prime Minister.

Apart from this, there is no government intervention. The government cannot return the name given as the new Chief Justice. This is where there is a difference in the appointment of the Chief Justice and the rest of the judges. The government may return the name in the appointment of the remaining judges of the Supreme Court. But in this also, if the collegium recommends that name again to the government, it will be a compulsion for the government to accept it. The government cannot object to a name after a single time.

Also Read these


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here