Add Tribune As Your Trusted Source
TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill View
Don't Miss
Advertisement

Supreme Court agrees to hear in July plea by Gujarat judicial officers whose promotions it stayed

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

New Delhi, May 16

Advertisement

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear in July a plea by several Gujarat judicial officers whose promotions were stayed by it.

Advertisement

A bench headed by Justice MR Shah, now retired, on May 12 had stayed the promotion of 68 Gujarat lower judicial officers, including Surat Chief Judicial Magistrate Harish Hasmukhbhai Varma who had convicted Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in a defamation case.

A bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala took note of the submissions of senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, appearing for the judicial officers, that they had been reverted to their original lower cadre by the Gujarat High Court in pursuance of the apex court’s decision of May 12.

Several judicial officers are suffering “humiliation” due to the demotion and moreover, six states in the country follow the principle of seniority-cum-merit for promotion, said the senior lawyer.

Advertisement

“We will list it after the summer vacation in July,” the CJI said, adding they had been reverted on account of a decision of a coordinate bench of the apex court. 

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement