HC dismisses pleas against Maharashtra govt's decision to rename Aurangabad and Osmanabad
Mumbai (PTI): The Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed a bunch of petitions challenging the Maharashtra government's decision to rename Aurangabad district as Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and Osmanabad as Dharashiv.
A division bench of Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor said the notification issued by the state government does not warrant any interference.
"We have no hesitation to hold that the notification issued by the state government renaming Aurangabad and Osmanabad does not suffer from any illegality or any legal vice," the bench said.
The petitions are devoid of merits and hence stand dismissed, the high court said.
In 2022, the Maharashtra cabinet headed by Chief Minister Eknath Shinde approved the name of Aurangabad as Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and Osmanabad as Dharashiv.
On July 16, 2022, a Government Resolution was passed by the two-member cabinet for changing names and then forwarded to the central government.
In February 2023, the Union Home Ministry gave a no objection letter for changing the names of the cities and districts and thereafter, a gazette notification was issued by the state government changing the names of Aurangabad and Osmanabad.
Several petitions were then filed by Aurangabad residents challenging the government's decision to rename the place as Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
Another PIL was filed by 17 residents of Osmanabad against the government's decision to rename it as Dharashiv.
Both the petitions termed the government's decision as "politically motivated".
The Maharashtra government had opposed the pleas, claiming the two places were renamed due to their history and not for any political reasons.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Ordinance issued to increase number of Supreme Court judges from 34 to 38
New Delhi (PTI): The government has promulgated an ordinance to increase the strength of the Supreme Court from the present 34 judges to 38, including the Chief Justice of India.
The law ministry notified the ordinance on Saturday, which amended the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, to increase the sanctioned strength of the top court.
So far, the sanctioned strength of the top court was 34, including the Chief Justice of India (CJI). Now, the number of judges has been increased by four, taking the sanctioned strength to 38.
The top court will now have 37 judges, other than the CJI.
With the apex court having two vacancies at present, and the ordinance coming into force immediately, the Supreme Court Collegium will now have to recommend six names for appointment as judges in the top court.
A bill will be brought in the Monsoon Session of Parliament to convert the ordinance – an executive order – into a law passed by Parliament.
The Union Cabinet had cleared a draft bill on May 5 to increase the number of apex court judges.
The strength of the Supreme Court was last increased from 30 to 33 (excluding the CJI) in 2019.
The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, as originally enacted in 1956, put the maximum number of judges (excluding the CJI) at 10.
This number was increased to 13 by the Supreme Court (Number of Judges), Amendment Act, 1960, and to 17 by another amendment to the law.
The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 1986, augmented the strength of judges from 17 to 25, excluding the CJI.
A fresh amendment in 2009 further increased the strength from 25 to 30.
Article 124(3) of the Constitution lists the qualifications required to become a Supreme Court judge.
An Indian citizen who has either served as a high court judge for at least five years, or as an advocate for 10 years, or is a distinguished jurist, can be appointed to the top court.
The strength of the Supreme Court is increased based on the recommendations of the CJI, who writes to the Union law minister. After consulting the finance ministry, the Department of Justice under the law ministry moves the Cabinet with a draft bill.
