W.P.(C) No. 1232/2017
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI VS SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
The Supreme Court allowed the petition and held that live streaming of court proceedings should be introduced as a pilot project for cases of constitutional and national importance being heard by the Chief Justice of India. The Court found that live streaming would be an extension of the principle of open courts and access to justice, which will serve diverse stakeholders and the public at large. Justice Khanwilkar authored the majority opinion on behalf of himself and Chief Justice Misra, while Justice Chandrachud authored a separate concurring opinion.The Supreme Court issued model guidelines for live streaming of court proceedings, initially to be implemented at the Supreme Court. The guidelines aimed to balance the principle of open courts with the dignity of court proceedings and the privacy interests of litigants and witnesses.Justice Chandrachud recommended the adoption of live streaming in High Courts and district courts in a phased manner based on the available resources and technical support. The Chief Justices of the High Courts were advised to frame appropriate rules for this purpose, taking into account the model guidelines suggested by the Supreme Court.
View Full JudgmentW.P.(C) No. 1232/2017
SWAPNIL TRIPATHI VS SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
The Supreme Court allowed the petition and held that live streaming of court proceedings should be introduced as a pilot project for cases of constitutional and national importance being heard by the Chief Justice of India. The Court found that live streaming would be an extension of the principle of open courts and access to justice, which will serve diverse stakeholders and the public at large. Justice Khanwilkar authored the majority opinion on behalf of himself and Chief Justice Misra, while Justice Chandrachud authored a separate concurring opinion.The Supreme Court issued model guidelines for live streaming of court proceedings, initially to be implemented at the Supreme Court. The guidelines aimed to balance the principle of open courts with the dignity of court proceedings and the privacy interests of litigants and witnesses.Justice Chandrachud recommended the adoption of live streaming in High Courts and district courts in a phased manner based on the available resources and technical support. The Chief Justices of the High Courts were advised to frame appropriate rules for this purpose, taking into account the model guidelines suggested by the Supreme Court.
View Full Judgment
May 7 1996
Civil Appeal/3964/1992
Hon'ble Justice K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN , G.B. PAITANAIK
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. RA VINDRA AND ORS.
May 7 1996
Civil Appeal/3964/1992
Honourable Judge K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN , G.B. PAITANAIK
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. RA VINDRA AND ORS.
June 16 2023
WP/25868/2022
Hon'ble Justice U.DURGA PRASAD RAO,
B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
PUTTI SANDHYA RANI Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
June 16 2023
WP/25868/2022
Honourable Judge U . DURGA PRASAD RAO,
B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI
PUTTI SANDHYA RANI Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
The First judge from Andhra Pradesh elevated to Supreme Court of India from the Bar
Born on 08.06.1957 at Chirala, Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh. Did his B.Com., B.L., from Nagarjuna University, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. Enrolled as an Advocate on 29.07.1982 at Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh. From July, 1982 to January, 1984 practiced at the District Court, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. From January, 1985 to December, 1994 practiced at the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad. From January 1995 to May, 2016 practiced at the Supreme Court of India. Designated as a Senior Advocate by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in December, 2000. Served as Additional Solicitor General of India from August 2003 to May, 2004 and again from 26.08.2013 to 18.12.2014. Appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 13.05.2016.