Supreme Court: Second Bail Order Must Record Changed Circumstances or Fresh Grounds  ||  SC: Severity of Injury Alone Cannot Prove Attempt to Murder Without Intent to Cause Death  ||  SC: Promissory Estoppel Cannot Be Used to Claim Unintended Benefits, Lays Down Principles  ||  Kerala High Court: No Unrestricted RTI; DPDP Act Strengthens Privacy Framework  ||  Allahabad High Court: Juvenile Offence Case Does Not Bar Govt Job In Adulthood  ||  Gauhati HC: Burden Of Proving Citizenship Stays With Proceedee and Does Not Shift At Any Stage  ||  Delhi HC: Property Disputes Between In-Laws and Daughter-In-Law are Not Exclusively For Family Court  ||  Delhi High Court: After Probate is Granted, A Will Does Not Require Fresh Proof under Section 68  ||  Ker HC: Periodic Replacement and Maintenance of Prosthetic Limb Must Be Included in Compensation  ||  Madras High Court: DNA Test Not Required For Mother to Donate Kidney to Her Son    

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