NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

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