Wikipedia

Talk:Supreme Court of India/Archive 1

< Talk:Supreme Court of India
Latest comment: 1 year ago by SoloKnowHow83 in topic Cleanup
Archive 1

Information needed to be added

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

who is the supreme court judge in india for current year? The current article has very little information except its confrontation with the Parliament of India. We need more information on

  1. Jurisdiction
  2. Powers including consultation role for the President of India
  3. Role of the Attorney General (optional)
  4. Constitution Bench
  5. Full court rulings
  6. Contempt powers
  7. Definition of writ in the Indian legal context (we can note that even a post card can be treated as a writ)
  8. Selection procedure, powers and retirement ages of Supreme Court judges
  9. Equation with other constitutional agencies like the Election Commission of India and other tribunals

-- Sundar 08:33, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Can someone with the necessary background augment the material on important cases? I can find nothing on wikipedia about the Miranda Mills case for instance

Am adding a subsection on jurisdiction, largely from the website http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/jurisdiction.htm expert review will be needed.Pokedora (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

What is the motto?

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Does anyone know the motto of the Supreme Court? It will be useful in forming the vector version of the Supreme Court's logo! --JovianEye (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed a few weasel words and some cleanup

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Removed weasel words like "nebulous concept" as well as the reference to Sorabji's speech on the matter. He was the Attorney general and it's his job to disagree with the judgment. Any important judgment will have detractors and one need to list every source which disagreed with it --Bhagwad (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

A case of amnesia

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It would have been quite appropriate to put in a few words about the Sir Elijah Impey and of the various High Courts set up by the East India Company and their later developments. The feeling that one gets from the main article is that the Supreme Court of India suddenly sprung up from nothing, spontaneously.

A case of deliberate amnesia! --Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Collegium

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article does not seem to mention the Supreme Court collegium, which seems to have some role in appointment of judges elsewhere (eg: see Bilal Nazki). Should something be said or am I misunderstanding/misreading? - Sitush (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Notable judgements

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

A list can be found at [1] but I leave it to other who know more about Indian law to assess that list and to add some of the cases to this Wikipedia-page.----Bancki (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I would add Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India (see Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India)----Bancki (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I would also add People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (see Midday Meal Scheme)----Bancki (talk) 07:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The PIN Code of Supreme Court of India mentioned as 110201 is incorrect & needs to be corrected to 110001. This PIN Code can be verified by the Indian Postal Department website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.203.163 (talk)

  Not done The Hindu says 110201 is correct: [2] Stickee (talk) 06:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Supreme Court of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Supreme Court of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Supreme Court of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Supreme Court of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Supreme Court of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Supreme Court of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with 2018 Supreme Court of India crisis

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion
Consensus is in opposition to a merge. Fish+Karate 14:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Orphaned article not being seen by anyone. Information best placed with other criticisms on SCI page Gbawden (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Supreme Court of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

2018 Crisis

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The paragraph about this is pretty bad, in its present form. The last line is very NNPOV and almost unintelligible #syntaxisfail — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.138.202.60 (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

New proposal for merger of "2018 Supreme Court of India crisis"

Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

I propose merging 2018 Supreme Court of India crisis into the Dipak Misra article. This so-called "crisis" is a tempest in a teapot, and doesn't need its own article. It is really about Chief Justice Misra's administrative style, and his less than full deference to traditional judicial senority. It deserves a couple of paragraphs in his article, and mention and links in the articles on the four complaining judges. --Bejnar (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bejnar: Can I suggest you start a new section for this, rather than appending a subheading to the previous, closed discussion, and also ping each of the previous participants in the closed discussion, if you have not already. Fish+Karate 07:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Accomplished per Fish+Karate's suggestion. --Bejnar (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Concur Gbawden (talk) 06:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Bejnar Happy to discuss but I am a bit confused. So you recommend on merging this with Dipak Misra or Supreme Court of India. It seems you are in favor of Dipak Misra while I had tagged it as Supreme Court of India. Can you please explain your rationale on merging this with the former and not the latter? I think we both are in agreement that the article does not have enough to be on it's own but why pick one over the other?
I think I agree with you that it should be Dipak Misra since the content seems more on him then the Supreme Court of India. But my concern is that it is a WP:BLP article which will end up becoming more about the crisis then the person. Any thoughts? Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@Adamgerber80: As you noted, I think merger should be with the Dipak Misra article. Since there just isn't that much about the judges' complaints and the failed impeachment, I don't think that there is much danger in WP:UNDUE. I do think that a discussion of his management style as Chief Justice is appropriate in his article, and would be whether there were complaints about it or not. The lead judge in the complaints seems to be particularly burned by the CJI's less than due deference to traditional judicial senority. But again, that is only a sentence or two. I notice that none of the folk who indicated that they were hot to expand the "crisis" article back in January did in fact do so. I think the lack of hard facts, as opposed to political wrangling/maneuvering, had something to do with that. I do think that "Controversy" in an inapproprite title for the subsection, I would call it something like "As Chief Justice" or even better "Judicial administration". --Bejnar (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@Bejnar: I concur with your analysis. Most of what is in the article is indirectly covered there. We can merge these 2 sections makes it more concise. IMO, a rough structure could be, the introduction to the issue with the roster judgement, the complaint from the other judges and finally followed by the current resolution with the impeachment being ruled out. How does this sound? Also, happy to work on the specifics if you would like. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
@Adamgerber80: That sounds great. As there appear to be no objections (its been a week), please feel free to begin. I'm on travel status, but I'll peek in when/if I can. --Bejnar (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Don't merge: As stated in earlier discussion, the crisis is still ongoing and one of its kind and that too happening for the first time in India. It is not just some dissent, but a motion for Impeachment has been proposed by Upper House of Parliament against Supreme Court. Vice President of India rejected it. Now, a petition has been filed against Vice-President's rejection in Supreme Court as on May 7. Thus, instead of merging the article, the article should be expanded more. Also, the consequence of such motion is not confirmed, thus the article should be kept intact. JainismWikipedian (talk) 11:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support merger if BLP not violated. There's no need for a separate article. Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 11:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would be WP:UNDUE and clearly unbalance the WP:BLP article in to crisis article and further not all of it belongs here.It will be like saying that the entire crisis is due to him alone which is wrong. For example They make accusations over the death Brijgopal Harkishan Loya which are not proven he died an unnatural death actually the Supreme court has rejected the demand for a probe that he died an unnatural death .It is a very large crisis and feel it should have separate article which can clearly well versed with WP:RS and may even be a WP:BLP violation except for the Press conference and the impeachment move which was rejected a large part of it are only accusations.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
@Pharaoh of the Wizards: I agree with you that there is a possibility that it might unbalance a BLP article but as the article currently stands it has little information. The recent additions by JainismWikipedian about Judge Loya are not directly related and is based on WP:SYNTH. I suggest we first discuss what comes under this crisis and then discuss what content can be included on Wikipedia. Once we have this, then we can make a decision if it has a potential of unbalancing Dipak Misra article and maybe Supreme Court of India might be a better article. On the argument that this is still an ongoing crisis that is little reason not to merge this since it can always be split into a different article if it does develop further. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Unreasonable content deletion

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

... This against the constitutional role given to the supreme court whose responsibility is to strive and animate in rendering social, economic and political justice as stated in the Preamble to the Constitution of India and Article 38(1) of Directive Principles.[1][2]

The above content is deleted by User:Gazoth on 7 May 2018. Per the message sent by User:Ponyo to User talk:117.98.128.175, I modified the content and posted with edit note asking to make it more neutral by editing my content in case not acceptable by WP but totally deleted again by User:Adamgerber80. They send another message to my talk page stating I am vandalizing the page. Initially it was also branded incorrectly as Wikipedia:OR though it is supported by relevant refs. They also advise general editors to familiarize with topics NOPV, Wikipedia:OP, etc. I am doubtful about these editors having understanding on these topics. Instead of issuing baseless warning messages to the general editors, the editors would have proposed an acceptable and neutral equivalent content to satisfy the general editor. This modus operandi gives impression that WP is not welcoming content contribution from general readers and if WP is really facing problem from the edits of general readers, these edit facility can be stopped to save time of readers as well.

The solution to above dispute is not deleting the content totally by WP authorized editors branding so and so which may be inferred by readers as biased and incompetency but a suitable edit proposal from WP authorized editors would be in a constructive way to make the article/page more knowledgeable. 117.98.128.175 (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@117.98.128.175: Have you read WP:OR? Can you explain exactly how do those refs support that statement? Can you quote specific sentences in the two sources that explicitly say that Dipak Misra's actions were, and I quote, against the constitutional role given to the supreme court? If you cannot, then it is original research that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. —Gazoth (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
117.98.128.175 Yes please specify which sentences in the reference you have provided state what you have stated? I think you are linking the constitution and alleging that Dipak Misra violated some part of it which is considered WP:OR. I highly recommend you to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines. Also, do not add the content back unless you gain consensus here. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


@Gazoth: and @Adamgerber80: My explanation to your queries are

From Ref (2): ... In the matter of the determination of the roster, there are well-settled and time-honoured conventions guiding the Chief Justice, be the conventions dealing with the strength of the Bench which is required to deal with the particular case or the composition thereof.

We are sorry to say that of late, the twin rules mentioned above have not been strictly adhered to. There have been instances where cases having far-reaching consequences for the nation and the institution had been assigned by the Chief Justice of this Court selectively to the Benches “of their preferences” without any rational basis for such assignment. This must be guarded against at all costs.

Any departure from the above two rules would not only lead to unpleasant and undesirable consequences of creating doubt in the body politic about the integrity of the institution. Not to talk about the chaos that would result from such departure.

From Ref (1): ... The word 'strive' which occurs in the Draft Constitution, in judgement, is very important. We have used it because our intention is even when there are circumstances which prevent the Government, or which stand in the way of the Government giving effect to these Directive Principles, they shall, even under hard and unpropitious circumstances, always strive in the fulfillment of these Directives. That is why we have used the word 'strive'. Otherwise, it would be open for any Government to say that the circumstances are so bad, that the finances are so inadequate that we cannot even make an effort in the direction in which the Constitution asks us to go.

The above text from ref (2) is talking about the misuse of roaster system by the present CJI and considered as wrong practice (a settled misuse by CJI) by other four senior judges of SC who are afraid that it is against the integrity of the SC and lead to chaos in SC & create doubt in the body politic. Is not it relevant content from a credible source related to the subject?

The Ref (1) quoted above talks about an autonomous constitutional institution like SC which shall perform its constitutional duties to meet Article 38(1) of Directive Principles and Preamble to the Constitution of India to not only deliver social / legal justice and and lead always projecting/animating (in reality) the institution/SC in an exemplary manner notwithstanding the difficulties encountered whatever may be. The above quote Ref (1) is made by Dr. Ambedkar to highlight the importance of the article 38 (1) of the constitution in Constituent Assembly debates. I used this ref. to compare the expected performance from SC/CJI by the Indian constitution against the actual performance/misuse (in this case by CJI) given in Ref (2). Real performance can not be judged without comparing with stipulated performance and there is wide gap as stated by other senior judges. So both ref. are relevant to the content and not my OR. More over the deleted content is part of a section named 'Criticism' for listing the unwanted nature of the SC and it need not be in softer words compared to the criticism in harsh words as given in the ref (2).

I am not accusing present CJI for any of his constitutional violations and the content talks about bad state of affairs in SC as brought out by the senior judges in their opinion.

I read WP:OR and its content is equivocal. Would you quote from the WP:OR to say the deleted content is not permitted / OR.117.98.128.175 (talk) 03:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@117.98.128.175: The second ref is from the letter that the four justices wrote, which is basically their opinion. It cannot be used as a fact and any mention of an opinion should always have in-text attribution. Secondly, you have made a connection from their opinion to a particular constitutional article, which is not explicitly stated. This is original research, as it is analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. If you want to add that line, you need to find a reliable source that explicitly backs up everything that you want to say. It should not say one thing that you interpret to be something else and then you connect it with another source to form your conclusion. —Gazoth (talk) 06:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
@Gazoth: In this way every sentence / paragraph of any article can be branded. The opinion expressed by the four judges is fact (a good source of ref.) it need not be true or upheld by court of law. Ref (1) is to indicate how should be the performance of SC as mandated by the constitution which is attributable without further ref. As a general reader/content contributor, I tried best to explain logic in asking you not to delete the content which had been there for nearly four months and read by many people without any objection. There is no synthesis of published material. Ref (2) itself is adequate for the content and a available ref (1) is also given as back up. You are raising various invalid objections on a simple issue as if you are kin and kith of a CJI. No need of further reply and I was aware at the outset that the deletion would not be reverted by you. The discussion is aimed at readers to understand how some editors are biased and unproductively busy by editing/deleting others content. From your edit log, You were editing topics related about defense and places, but suddenly showing interest on topics about law. 117.98.128.175 (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
@117.98.128.175: No, unsupported opinions are not fact. The standard of verifiability on Wikipedia is not what a court of law in a particular jurisdiction holds to be true, but rather it is based on reliable secondary sources. Your content was removed solely because you chose to base your content on a personal interpretation of an opinion instead of reliable secondary sources. The areas that I choose to spend my editing time on, is frankly, none of your business. If you had a half-decent justification for your content, you would not have had to resort ad hominems and meaningless metrics such as how long something stayed up without being removed. —Gazoth (talk) 08:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Constituent Assembly of India - Volume VII". 19 November 1948. Retrieved 31 August 2017.
  2. ^ Kaur, Jatinder. "Know the Letter Written by Four Supreme Court Judges to CJI". ABC Live. Retrieved 15 January 2018.

IAST

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

@SshibumXZ: As you undoubtedly are aware, Hindi sometimes drops the final schwa which makes Hindi's use of Devanagari not entirely phonetic. भारत (technically Bhārata) is actually pronounced as भारत् (Bhārat). I know that the final schwa in न्यायलय is also dropped, but I'm not sure if that happens for सर्वोच्च too. So, while you are right that the correct IAST transliteration of भारत का सर्वोच्च न्यायलय is Bhārata Kā Sarvocca Nyāyālaya, but since it is actually pronounced as भारत् का सर्वोच्च न्यायलय् (again, unsure if the final schwa is dropped in सर्वोच्च), we should transliterate it as Bhārat Kā Sarvocca Nyāyālay. —Gazoth (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gazoth: yeah, as far as I know final schwa is dropped in 'सर्वोच्च''. I am just unsure if going by phonetic transliteration is the right thing to do, Roman transliterations to Devanagari are literal and not phonetic. At the end, it's your call, I am fine either way.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 18:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC); edited 18:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC).
@SshibumXZ: I think phonetic transliteration is the better choice. There is no need to import quirks of Devanagari usage into the transliteration too. Although the section on handling dropped schwas in Devanagari transliteration supports me on this, the entire section is unsourced. Perhaps we should try to get a wider opinion by posting on WT:INB. —Gazoth (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
@Gazoth: yep, that seems to be the best course of action to me.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 19:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gazoth and SshibumXZ: Basic question: Why are we including the transliteration of the Hindi name for the Supreme Court at all? Abecedare (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Abecedare: I hadn't given it much thought till now. I assumed that Hindi might be one of the official languages of the Supreme Court of India, but it appears that isn't true. Since SshibumXZ added the transliteration to this page, he might be able to explain further. —Gazoth (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@Gazoth and Abecedare: I am afraid my argument is going to boil down to WP:ILIKEIT, truth be told, I didn't remember that the supreme court only hears cases in English and not in Hindi or any other regional language. So, yeah, I am more than open to the IAST transliteration being removed from the article. However, the question of schwa deletion and IAST transliteration still stands, in articles like, say, India, should the IAST transliteration take into the deletion of final schwa be taken into account or not?
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 05:28, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Controversies

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

in its judgment on 5 August 2005, the Supreme Court admitted that the evidence against Afzal was only circumstantial and that there was no evidence that he belonged to any terrorist group or organisation. “The collective conscience of the society will only be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender.” MEHDI WISDOM (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[1]

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have added a Heading "Jurisdiction of Supreme Court" --A.R.V. Ravi (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

CM government of India

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Not happy sad you. Not happy interested poor now 117.194.249.184 (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Sabarimala issue

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I believe the Sabarimala issue should be listed in the section Landmark judgments. Please fill it out. Kvwiki1234 (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Monisha

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Monisha 2409:4071:4E8A:50B6:10CE:E6A8:2CDF:D543 (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Mining of handicap

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear sir, i know to u r supreme court so answer plz one time by my question right of handicap person by new genresion and low of human and security of people. Thank u sir, name : manish kr, Mobil: 8235993664 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.207.2.15 (talk) 08:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Secular policy

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Akbar created secular policy and jhanhir continued it 103.253.173.21 (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The reader will note a general verbosity in the language of this article. I am attempting to clean it up. Please help me. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Although I will agree that there is some verbosity in the article, one shouldn't delete relevant parts that make the article what it is. Always try to repsect the style of the article and gain concensus if you want to change it, which you attempted here. Your exercise of cleaning up made the inroduction full of incorrect information, some of which I have mentioned in the explantions of my edits. I have reverted parts of them while keeping relevant portions of your edits. Please don't concise just for the sake of it and provide explanations to your edits. Also while giving opinions you must provide sources to justify them. SoloKnowHow83 (talk) 11:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Wrong information in the Article

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article says that the Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction over 'Personal laws' but in recent years Supreme Court has passed judgments declaring certain parts of personal laws unconstitutional. The recent example is the Triple Talaq verdict. DrSuPa1 (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Personal laws are not an exception to the general jurisdiction of the Court, as can be seen by the above-mentioned Triple Talaq verdict. I am removing it. SoloKnowHow83 (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://www.thequint.com/news/india/jammu-and-kashmir-cop-davinder-singh-afzal-guru-link-arrested-hizbul-mujahideen-militants
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Supreme_Court_of_India/Archive_1&oldid=1170798872"