Supreme Court: Multiple Cases Alone Cannot Justify an Externment Order  ||  Supreme Court: Certiorari Can Quash a Tribunal Decision That is Grossly Perverse  ||  Supreme Court: Informant’s Consent is Not Required to Quash a Case Settled With the Victim  ||  Madras High Court: False Posts Against a Minister are Not an Offence Without Intent to Cause Alarm  ||  Delhi High Court: Police Cannot Pick and Choose Among Accused Persons for Arrest  ||  J&K High Court: Bar Associations are Not ‘State’ under Article 12 and are Outside Writ Jurisdiction  ||  Calcutta High Court: Third Parties Can Challenge Inaction Against Unauthorised Construction  ||  Madras High Court: Being an Advocate Does Not Mean a Person Cannot Commit an Offence  ||  Delhi High Court: Husband Cannot Reopen Settled Marital Disputes to Avoid Maintenance Liability  ||  Calcutta High Court: State Cannot Deny CRMI Seats to Foreign Medical Graduates Citing Stipend Costs    

SC: CJs of HCs Acting on Administrative Side Don’t Have Any Rule Making Authority of Executive - (04 Jan 2024)

ADMINISTRATIVE

Supreme Court while observing that policymaking needs consideration of many factors, has held that Chief Justices(CJs) of High Courts, acting on the administrative side don’t have the power to frame rules about post-retiral benefits for former judges that must mandatorily be notified by the State.

Tags : SUPREME COURT   FORMER JUDGES   POLICYMAKING   POST-RETIRAL BENEFITS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved