From a recusal plea over a ‘liked’ post to Kapil Sibal’s ₹43 Cr fund for lawyers and a TV9 bouquet dispute — here’s what happened in Indian courts.
DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS (11 APRIL 2025)
GAUHATI HC BAR PRESIDENT SEEKS RECUSAL OF JUDGE OVER LIKED SOCIAL MEDIA POST
Case Name: Kamal Nayan Choudhury vs. State of Assam & Ors
Gauhati HC Bar Association President Kamal Nayan Choudhury sought Justice N Unni Krishnan Nair’s recusal in a contempt case, citing bias after the judge liked a post on criminal action against lawyers. The contempt plea was initiated by Advocate General Devajit Saikia over remarks made about Justice Suman Shyam.
Legal Provision
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Governs punishment for acts scandalizing or lowering the authority of the judiciary.
- Recusal Principle – A judge may withdraw from hearing a case to avoid perceived bias or conflict of interest.
- Judicial Ethics – Social media activity raising concerns about impartiality can form a basis for recusal.
- High Court Powers – Article 215 of the Constitution empowers High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves.
- Media Statements by Lawyers – Statements undermining judicial integrity may invite contempt proceedings.
- Institutional Integrity Doctrine – Ensures respect and trust in judicial institutions, not just individuals.
Source: GAUHATI HIGH COURT
KAPIL SIBAL RAISES ₹43 CRORE FOR LAWYERS’ WELFARE THROUGH CSR CONTRIBUTIONS
Case Name: Kapil Sibal & SCBA CSR Fundraising Initiative
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal raised over ₹43 crore via CSR funds for the welfare of advocates as part of his SCBA election pledge. The fund aims to support insurance and welfare schemes. Sibal revealed contributions came from corporates including Mukesh Ambani and Torrent, with no one refusing his request.
Legal Provision
- Companies Act, 2013 – Section 135: Mandates eligible companies to spend 2% of net profits on CSR activities.
- CSR Rules, 2014: Recognizes legal aid and advocacy welfare under permissible CSR activities.
- SCBA’s Welfare Mandate: Supreme Court Bar Association is constitutionally recognized to uphold legal aid and welfare.
- Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015: Enables group insurance for professional bodies.
- Article 39A of the Constitution: Promotes equal justice and legal aid for all.
- Judicial Endorsement: CJI’s support in encouraging government matching of contributions for welfare corpus.
Source: Supreme Court Bar Association of India
DELHI HIGH COURT UPHOLDS TDSAT ORDER ALLOWING MSOS TO SHIFT TV9 CHANNELS TO A-LA-CARTE
CASE NAME: Associated Broadcasting Company Pvt. Ltd. (TV9 Network) vs Distribution Platform Operators & Others
The Delhi High Court dismissed TV9’s plea against TDSAT’s interim orders allowing MSOs to move its channels from bouquets to a-la-carte. The Court noted the petitions lacked merit and upheld regulatory provisions permitting bouquet alterations, ruling the agreements did not guarantee bouquet inclusion.
LEGAL PROVISION
- Regulation 3(4), Interconnection Regulations, 2017: Prohibits broadcasters from demanding inclusion in specific bouquets.
- Regulation 11, QoS Regulations, 2017: MSOs can alter bouquets with 15 days’ subscriber notice.
- Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution: Limited High Court interference with tribunal decisions.
- Channel Placement Agreement: Covered LCN, not bouquet rights.
SOURCE: Delhi High Court
Also Read: DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS (10 APRIL 2025)
WRITTEN BY– ISHA SHARMA
EDITED BY – VISHAKHA KHATRI
