[ad_1]
New Delhi6 hours ago
- copy link
CJI said that you do not know on which cases the Constitution Bench hears. These matters are so complex that they often require interpretation of the Constitution. (CJI DY Chandrachud file photo)
A Supreme Court lawyer had mailed to CJI DY Chandrachud saying that the court should hear general cases instead of constitutional cases (cases on which the Constitution Bench hears). On which the CJI expressed disagreement on Friday i.e. 15 September.
Advocate Mathews J. who mailed the Chief Justice. Nedumpara appeared before the bench of CJI, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Mishra for hearing in a case on Friday. After completion of the hearing, CJI said- My Secretary General showed that complaint email of yours. In which you had said that the cases heard by the Constitution Bench were considered useless.
In response, Mathews said- Of course, the Supreme Court should give priority to the cases of the common man. On this the CJI said that I just wanted to tell you that you do not know on which cases the Constitution Bench hears. These matters are so complex that they often require interpretation of the Constitution.
He mentioned the petitions filed against the abolition of Article 370 from Jammu and Kashmir. CJI said- Is it not necessary to hear this matter, I do not think that the government or the petitioner would feel the same as you feel. Constitution Bench cases sometimes go beyond the interpretation of the Constitution.
CJI made this comment during the hearing on the case related to Article 370.
Court raised the issue of employment of drivers
The CJI mentioned an issue related to the employment of drivers across the country. He said that such cases not only impact the society but also affect the employment of thousands of people. If you had been in the court during the hearing of the case, you would have understood the entire matter. The question in the case was that if a person has a license for a light vehicle, can he drive a commercial vehicle?
Advocate Mathews said that I am not against hearing the cases related to the fundamental rights of the people. I am against hearing those petitions filed in the court which people do for their own selfish reasons under the guise of public interest. Before hearing such cases, the court must know the public opinion. CJI said that here also you are wrong. People of the valley also filed petitions in the case related to Article 370. That’s why we are listening to the voice of the nation only.
Also read other news related to this…
Hearing on Article 370 completed, SC reserved the decision; The Centre’s decision was challenged by filing 23 petitions in the court.
The hearing on 23 petitions filed against the removal of Article 370 from Jammu and Kashmir has been completed. The Supreme Court reserved its decision on September 5 after hearing the arguments of both sides in the case for 16 days. A five-judge constitutional bench heard the case, comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice BR Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sanjiv Khanna. Read the full news…
[ad_2]