Hi, Amritesh Kumar Tripathi Logout

BOOKMARKS TOP STORIES NEWS UPDATES COLUMNS INTERVIEWS ENVIRONMENT

RTI KNOW THE LAW VIDEOS SPONSORED ROUND UPS PODCAST LAW EXAMS

JOB UPDATES BOOK REVIEWS EVENTS CORNER LAW FIRMS SC JUDGMENTS लाइव लॉ हिंदी LAW SCHOOLS IBC

 Search... 
Home / Top Stories / 100 Important Supreme...

TOP STORIES

100 Important Supreme Court

Judgments Of 2022 [Part 1]
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 19 Dec 2022 11:18 AM
As is the annual tradition, LiveLaw brings to you the list of 100 important

Supreme Court judgments of the current year - a much awaited article by our

dear readers.

The judgments are selected based on the following criteria - (i) importance to

the general public; (ii) settlement of a contested position of law; (iii) utility for

practising lawyers and.

A disclaimer is added here that the judgments included in the list are not

necessarily good or the best judgments; some of them are controversial and

regarding some others, there are strong counter-views. Yet, these judgments

are worthy of being noted and discussed upon, considering their general

importance and impact on litigation and general socio-political arena. Hence,

the inclusion in this list. The judgments are arranged in the chronological

order. The reports about the judgments are hyperlinked at the case

description.

Also Read - Questions & Answers By Justice V. Ramkumar- Investigation

By Police- PART XV

The list of 100 judgments will be published in three parts and this is the first

part. Here you go :

1. Tribunal Decision Can Be Scrutinized Only By A Jurisdictional High Court

In this case, a bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar

held that the an order passed by a Tribunal can only be challenged before the

High Court within whose territorial limits the CAT bench is located. There is
also a criticism among legal circles against this decision on the ground that

it ignores the principles under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India.

Also Read - A Judge & A Journalist Have To Be Independent; If They Falter,

Democracy Will Collapse : Justice BN Srikrishna

Case Title : Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 12

2. 'Merit's Definition Cannot Be Reduced To Performance In Competitive

Exams' : Supreme Court Upholds OBC Reservation In NEET-AIQ

A bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice AS Bopanna

allowed 27% OBC quota in NEET-AIQ. The judgment is relevant for its

discussion of the principles relating to reservation under Articles 15(4) and

15(5) of the Constitution. "Merit cannot be reduced to narrow definitions of

performance in an open competitive examination which only provides formal

equality of opportunity", Justice Chandrachud observed in the judgment

Also Read - Work Load Of Judges Heavy; Criticism Against Court

Vacations Unjustified : Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal

Case Title : Neil Aurelio Nunes and others versus Union of India and

others|2022 LiveLaw (SC) 73

3. Suo Motu orders regarding limitation extension

The Court passed several orders in relation to extension of limitation allowed

for the COVID pandemic and lockdown periods. On January 10, 2022, taking

note of the surge in COVID cases, the Supreme Court ordered the extension

of limitation period for filing of cases and applications in courts and tribunals
and excluded the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 from limitation(In Re

Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 31).

Also Read - 'Don't Want The Court To Be Saffron': Kapil Sibal Says

Collegium System Better Than Govt Controlling Judges' Appointments

In Centaur Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. v. Stanford Laboratories Pvt.

Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 26, a bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV

Nagarathna clarified that the period of limitation which could have been

condoned by a Court or a Tribunal is also excluded from the limitation period

up to 07.10.2021 in view of the orders passed suo motu by the Top Court to

extend limitation period in the wake of COVID-19.

In Prakash Corporates vs Dee Vee Projects Limited 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 162, a

bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath held that

suo motu extension of limitation is applicable to the time for filing written

statement in commercial suits.

In Babasaheb Raosaheb Kobarne vs Pyrotek India Private Limited | 2022

LiveLaw (SC) 520, a bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna

held that the suo motu extension of limitation period is applicable to

Commercial Courts Act.

4. PM Security Lapse : Supreme Court Appoints Former SC Judge Justice

Indu Malhotra As Enquiry Committee Head

A bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima

Kohli constituted a committee headed by former judge Justice Indu Malhotra

to enquire into the security lapse which took place during the visit of Prime
Minister Narendra Modi to Punjab in January 2022. Noting that there was a

"war of words" and "blame game" between the Union Government and the

Punjab Government, the Court said that an independent enquiry was needed.

The committee filed its report later finding lapses on the part of the Punjab

police. The Court forwarded the report to the Union and the State for further

action.

Case Title : Lawyers Voice Vs State of Punjab | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 43

5. Hindu daughter's succession

In an important ruling under the Hindu Succession Act, the Court held that a

daughter is capable of inheriting the self-acquired property or share received

in the partition of a coparcenary property of her Hindu father dying intestate.

The Court also held that inherited property of a female Hindu dying issueless

and intestate, goes back to the source. The decision given by a bench

comprising Justices Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari is notable for its

interpretation of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956.

Case Title : Arunachala Gounder (Dead) Vs Ponnusamy 2022 LiveLaw (SC)

71

6. Supreme Court expands scope of definition of 'vulnerable witnesses',

issues directions

A bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant expanded the

definition of "vulnerable witnesses" to include victims of sexual assault

(regardless of gender), mentally ill witnesses, persons with disabilities, etc.

Earlier, the definition only covered child witnesses. The Court also issued
directions to the High Courts to frame scheme for safe deposition by

vulnerable witnesses. The Court later passed a direction to extend the

directions to civil cases and family cases, apart from criminal cases.

Case Title : Smruti Tukaram Badade v. The State Of Maharashtra and Anr

2022 LiveLaw (SC) 80 and Smruti Tukaram Badade v. The State Of

Maharashtra and Anr 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 380

7. Quashes Maharashtra Assembly's Resolution To Suspend 12 BJP MLAs

A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT

Ravikumar quashed the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly's resolution of

July 5, 2021, which suspended 12 BJP MLAs for a period of one year for

alleged disorderly behaviour in the house. The Court held that the resolution

to suspend the MLAs beyond the session is "unconstitutional", "illegal" and

"beyond the powers of the assembly". It held that such suspension could be

limited only to the ongoing session, which was the Monsoon Session of

2021. Such a long suspension will result in the constituency going

unrepresented, the Court noted.

Case : Ashish Shelar And Ors. Versus The Maharashtra Legislative Assembly

& Anr| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 91

8. Reservation in Promotions : Supreme Court issues directions

A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna and B.R.Gavai

issued elaborate directions relating to implementing reservation for SC/ST in

promotions. The Court held that the State is obligated to collect quantifiable

data regarding representation. The collection cannot be with respect to the

entire class/class/group, but it should be relatable to Grade/Category of post

to which promotion is sought. Cadre should be the unit for collecting

quantifiable data. It would be meaningless if the collection of data is with

respect to the entire service. The Court also said that it cannot lay down any

yardstick to determine backwardness.

Case : Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta and Other Connected Matters |

2022 LiveLaw (SC) 94

9. On whether registering authority can ascertain if the power of attorney is

valid- conflicting judgments

In an interesting decision which can impact several sale transactions across

the country, the Supreme Court observed that the production of the original

power of attorney is not necessary, if the document is presented for

registration by the power of attorney holder who executed the document on

the strength of it.

The bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and PS Narasimha further

observed that the registration authorities are not required to enquire if the

Power of Attorney is valid.

Case : Amar Nath vs Gian Chand| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 98

Another bench has however distinguished this judgment in another case to

hold that Registering Authority under the Registration Act 1908, while

registering a sale deed executed by a Power of Attorney holder, is bound to

verify if the Power of Attorney empowers the agent to sell the property(Asset
Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd versus SP Velayutham and others 2022

LiveLaw (SC) 445)

10. Legislature Cannot Protect Actions Taken Under An Unconstitutional

Law By Enacting A Saving Clause: Supreme Court

The bench of Justices LN Rao, BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna observed that

legislature cannot infuse life into a legislation, which it itself recognised as

unconstitutional, by enacting a saving clause.

Case : The State of Manipur & Ors. v. Surjakumar Okram & Ors| 2022

LiveLaw (SC) 113

11. Examine Private Witnesses First; Try To Complete Their Chief & Cross-

Examination On Same Day

A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh issued

important directions regarding the examination of witnesses so as to ensure

time-bound completion of trial.

Case : Rajesh Yadav vs State of UP| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 137

12. Directs MP HC To Reinstate Woman District Judge Who Raised Sexual

Harassment Complaint Against HC Judge

In this significant decision, a bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao

and BR Gavai directed the Madhya Pradesh High Court to allow the

reinstation of a woman judge, resigned woman Additional District Judge,

who had raised sexual harassment allegations against a then sitting judge of

the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The Court held that her resignation, in the circumstances of the case, cannot

be "construed as voluntary" and therefore quashed the decision of the High

Court to accept her resignation.

Case : Ms. X vs Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh | 2022

LiveLaw (SC) 150

13. Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act Not Retrospective; Not

Applicable To FIRs Before 2018 Amendment: Supreme Court

A bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari provided

this important clarification regarding the retrospective application of the

2018 amendment to the PC Act, which can impact several pending cases.

Case : State of Rajasthan v. Tejmal Choudhary| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 158

14. Condition To Pre-Deposit 50% Amount To Challenge NCDRC Order Not

Applicable To Complaints Filed Before Consumer Protection Act 2019

A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian

provided this clarification regarding the applicability of the pre-deposit

provision in the 2019 Act to pending appeals.

Case : ECGC Limited Vs Mokul Shriram EPC JV | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 168

15. RERA Prevails Over SARFAESI ; Homebuyers Can Move RERA Authority

Against Bank's Recovery Actions

The judgment delivered by a bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna

gives an interesting analysis of the interplay between RERA and SARFAESI.

Case : Union Bank Of India vs Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority|

2022 LiveLaw (SC) 171

16. 'Limits Women's Choice Of Avocation Under The Guise Of Protection'

:Supreme Court Quashes Gender Cap In Orchestra Bars

The Supreme Court quashed a restriction, which was imposed purportedly to

protect women, whereby the number of women who can perform in orchestra

bars in Maharashtra was limited.

"Practices or rules or norms are rooted in historical prejudice, gender

stereotypes and paternalism have no place in our society", observed the

bench of Justices KM Joseph and S Ravindra Bhat.

Case : Hotel Priya A Proprietorship Vs State Of Maharashtra | 2022 LiveLaw

(SC) 186

17. Gifting Freebies To Doctors Prohibited By Law ; Pharma Companies

Cannot Claim It As Deduction U/Sec 37(1) Income Tax Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that 'pharmaceutical companies' gifting freebies to

doctors is prohibited by law and they cannot claim it as a deduction under

Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act.

These freebies are technically not 'free' – the cost of supplying such freebies

is usually factored into the drug, driving prices up, thus creating a perpetual

publicly injurious cycle, the bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and

S.Ravindra Bhat remarked.

Case : Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

Large Tax Payer Unit - II | Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 195

18. Mere Hurting Of Sensibilities Not Defamation; CBFC Certificate Prima

Facie Shows Film Not Defamatory

While refusing to stall the release of the movie "Gangubai Kathiawadi", the

Supreme Court observed that one can't allege defamation merely on the

ground of hurt sensibilities. The Court further observed that CBFC

certification raises a presumption that the film is not defamatory.

Case : Shri Babuji Rawji Shah vs S.Hussain Zaidi and others | 2022 LiveLaw

(SC) 213

19. Section 207 CrPC - Accused Can Be Given Copy Of Protected Witness's

Statement With Identity Redacted

A bench comprising Justices SK Kaul and MM sundresh held that even for

protected witnesses declared so under Section 173(6) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C.) read with Section 44 of the Unlawful

Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ("UAPA"), the accused can exercise their

right under Sections 207 and 161 of the Cr.P.C to obtain copies of their

redacted statements which would ensure that the identity of the witness not

disclosed.

Case : Waheed-Ur-Rehman Parra v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir|

2022 LiveLaw (SC) 216

20. Appointment Of Vice Chancellor Of A University Even Under A State

Legislation Cannot Be Contrary To UGC Regulations

A bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna held that appointment of a

Vice Chancellor of a University, even under a State legislation, cannot be

contrary to the provisions of the UGC Regulations. The Apex Court noted that

in cases where the State legislature is repugnant to the Central legislation,

Central legislation is to prevail as per Article 254 as 'education' is an item in

the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule.

Case : Gambhirdhan K Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat And Ors.| 2022 LiveLaw

(SC) 242

This view was followed in Professor (Dr.) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr. Rajasree M.S. &

Ors 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 871 and Prof. Narendra Singh Bhandari vs Ravindra

Jugran | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 940. In State of West Bengal v. Anindya Sundar

Das | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 83, the re-appointment of the VC of Calcutta

University was set aside on the ground that the State 'usurped' the powers of

the Governor by making the re-appointment without following the procedure

under the law.

21. State's Transfer Policy Must Give Consideration To Importance Of

Protecting Employees' Family Life

In this case, the Supreme Court discussed the concept of right to family life

and observed that the State's transfer policy must give due consideration to

the importance of protecting family life.

"The State's interference in the rights of privacy, dignity, and family life of

persons must be proportional", the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and

Vikram Nath observed while asking the Union Government to revisit its

transfer policy for tax department.

Case : SK Naushad Rahman and others vs Union of India| 2022 LiveLaw (SC)

266

22. District Judge Selection - 35 Years Minimum Age Limit Prescribed By

High Courts Not Against Article 233 Of Constitution

Upholding the minimum age requirement of 35 years for applying for the

Delhi Higher Judicial Services Examination, the Supreme Court on Monday

held that the prescription of a minimum age limit for the selection of District

Judges is not contrary to the Constitution.

A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli held that

Article 233(2) of Constitution only prescribes a minimum eligibility that an

advocate should have at least 7 years practice for selection as a District

Judge and that this does not preclude the stipulation of a minimum age

requirement.

Case : High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma | 2022 LiveLaw(SC) 286

23. No Legal Mandate That Same Rank Pensioners Must Be Given Same

Pension": Supreme Court Upholds Centre's OROP Policy In Defence Forces

The Supreme Court upheld the manner in which the Central Government

introduced the "One Rank One Pension"/ ("OROP") scheme in defence forces

as per its notification dated November 7, 2015.

The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath refused

to accept the challenge made by the association "Indian Ex-Service

Movement" against the 2015 notification issued by the Centre.

Case : Indian Ex Servicemen Movement Vs. Union Of India | 2022 LiveLaw

(SC) 289

24. Insurance Policy Condition Barring Filing Of Claim After Specified Time

Period Void Contrary To Section 28 Contract Act

In a judgment having wide ramifications in the insurance law sector, a bench

comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian held that that a

condition in the insurance policy which bars the filing of the claim after the

specified time period is contrary to Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act,

1872 and thus void.

Case : The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v Sanjesh and Anr| 2022

LiveLaw (SC) 303

25. 2021 TN Act Giving Vanniyars Internal Reservation In OBC Quota

Unconstitutional

A bench comprising Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai held the 2021 Tamil Nadu

Act that provided 10.5% reservation in educational institutions and

government jobs for the Vanniyar community out of the 20% reservation

available to the Most Backward Classes to be unconstitutional.

The Court upheld the Madras High Court order quashing Tamil Nadu law

("2021 Act"), the Court held that the State had the legislative competence to

make sub-classifications among the backward classes.

'Population Percentage Can't Be Sole Basis For Internal Reservation' :

Detailed Analysis Of Supreme Court Judgment In Vanniyar Quota Case

Case : Pattali Makkal Katchi v. A. Mayilerumperumal |Citation : 2022 LiveLaw

(SC) 333

26. Upholds Foreign Contribution Regulation (Amendment) Act 2020

A bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT

Ravikumar upheld the 2020 amendments made to the Foreign Contribution

(Regulation) Act 2010, which introduced restrictions in the handling of

foreign contributions by organizations in India.

While the petitioners challenged the amendments as arbitrary and stringent

and making the functioning of NGOs extremely difficult, the Central

Government said that the changes in the law were necessary to prevent

malpractices and diversion of funds by NGOs.

Case : Noel Harper vs Union of India | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 355

27. Anganwadi Workers & Helpers Are Entitled To Payment Of Gratuity;

Anganwadi Centres Are "Establishments" Under 1972 Act

A significant verdict given by a bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and

AS Oka extended the protection of Payment of Gratuity Act to anganwadi

worker. The Court held that Anganwadi workers are doing a full-time job and

are performing statutory functions under the National Food Security Act and

the Right to Education Act. The judgment also discussed the sufferings of

anganwadi workers as they are paid a paltry honorarium in return of their

valuable services for ensuring education and nutrition of young kids.

Case : Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya versus District Development Officer

Dahod and others | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 408

28. BCI May Allow Persons With Other Jobs To Provisionally Enrol As

Advocates On Undertaking To Resign From Job Within 6 Months After

Clearing AIBE

The Supreme Court opened the doors for persons doing other jobs to

practise as advocates by accepting a suggestion made by Amicus Curiae

that persons engaged in other employments can be permitted to

provisionally enrol with the concerned Bar Council and to appear in the All

India Bar Examination (AIBE), and that upon clearing the AIBE, they can be

given a period of 6 months to decide whether to join legal profession or

continue with the other job. The order passed by a bench comprising

Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh is also significant for its

discussion on reforms needed for legal education and the AIBE.

Case : Bar Council of India v. Twinkle Rahul Mangonkar And Ors| 2022

LiveLaw (SC) 414

29. 'Backdoor Entries Anathema To Public Service' : Supreme Court Refuses

To Direct LIC To Absorb 11,000 Part Time Workers

Observing that a public employer cannot be asked to carry out a mass

absorption of over 11,000 workers without a recruitment process, the

Supreme Court decided a four-decade old dispute related to the

regularization of part-time workers in the Life Insurance Corporation(LIC).

"LIC as a statutory corporation is bound by the mandate of Articles 14 and 16

of the Constitution. As a public employer, the recruitment process of the

corporation must meet the constitutional standard of a fair and open

process. Allowing for back-door entries into service is an anathema to public

service", a bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and

Vikram Nath observed.

Case : Ranbir Singh versus SK Roy, Chairman Life Insurance Corporation and

Another | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 417

30. Directs NMC To Frame Scheme For Foreign Medical Students Affected

By Pandemic To Undergo Clinical Training In India

Taking into account the plight of Indian medical students who could not

complete the clinical training of their foreign MBBS course due to Covid-19

pandemic, the Supreme Court has issued certain directions to the National

Medical Commission.

A bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian

directed the NMC to frame a scheme as a one time measure within two

months to allow students who have not actually completed clinical training to

undergo clinical training in India in the medical colleges which may be

identified by the NMC for a limited duration as may be specified by it, on such

charges which it determines.

Case : National Medical Commission vs Pooja Thandu Naresh | 2022

LiveLaw (SC) 426

Related to this is the decision in another case Aravinth R.A. vs Secretary To

Government Of India Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare where the Court

upheld the NMC regulations prescribing additional test qualifications for

foreign medical graduates.

31. Nobody Can Be Forced To Get Vaccinated; Vaccine Mandates Not

Proportionate

The Court held that no individual can be forced to get vaccinated and the

right to bodily integrity of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution

include the right to refuse vaccinate.

A bench comprising Justices LN Rao and BR Gavai also held that the vaccine

mandates imposed by various state governments and other authorities in the

context of COVID-19 pandemic are "not proportionate". The Court held so as

no substantial data has been produced on record to show that the risk of

transmission of COVID-19 virus from the unvaccinated persons are higher

than from vaccinated persons.

The Court also upheld the emergency authorization given by the Union

Government for Covid vaccines 'Covishield' and 'Covaxi' and also the

approval for vaccines for children. The Court further issued directions for

publication of clinical trial data and adverse events following immunisation.

Case : Jacob Puliyel vs Union Of India | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 439

32. Supreme Court Saves Over 90,000 Income Tax Reassessment Notices

Issued After 2021 Amendment By Deeming Them As Notices Under Section

148A
In a significant judgment having wide ranging impact on several pending tax

cases across the country, the Court saved several reassessment notices

issued by the Income Tax Department by not following the new procedure

introduced after the Finance Act 2021 by deeming them as notices under

Section 148A. A bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna

issued this directions having pan-India effect to strike a balance between the

interests of the revenue and the assessees.

Case : Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal| 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 444

33. Senior Advocate Designation Process : One Mark Each Should Be

Awarded For Each Year Of Practice From 10-20 Years

In relation to the criteria for senior advocate designation, the Supreme Court

clarified that the High Courts should allocate one mark each for each year of

practice from 10 to 20 years, instead of allocating 10 marks flat for the

counsel who has put in 10-20 years practice.

A bench comprising Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha

issued this clarification allowing a prayer in an application made by Senior

Advocate Indira Jaising.

Case : Indira Jaising versus Supreme Court of India | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 451

TAGS SUPREME COURT

 loading....

SIMILAR + VIEW MORE

POSTS

Questions & Answers

A Judge & A Journalist Work Load Of Judges
By Justice V.
Have To Be Independent; If Heavy; Criticism Against
Ramkumar-
They Falter, Democracy Court Vacations
Investigation By
Will Collapse : Justice BN Unjustified : Senior
Police- PART XV
Srikrishna Advocate Kapil Sibal

19 Dec 2022 1:08 PM 18 Dec 2022 7:03 PM 18 Dec 2022 5:36 PM

'Don't Want The Court

Principle Of 'Changing 'In Judiciary, We Have A
To Be Saffron': Kapil
Rules Of Game' Won't Sense Of Subordination;
Sibal Says Collegium
Apply When Change Is It Prevents Us From
System Better Than
Regarding Selection Getting The Best Input':
Govt Controlling
Process And Not Basic CJI Chandrachud On
Judges' Appointments
Qualification : Supreme Hierarchy Of Courts

Court
18 Dec 2022 2:27 PM 18 Dec 2022 12:35 PM 18 Dec 2022 11:02 AM