Thursday May 24, 2018
Home India Solicitor Gen...

Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar Steps Down

0
//
72
Solicitor General
Solicitor General Logo. IANS
Republish
Reprint

New Delhi, October 20: Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, the government’s second-most senior legal officer, on Friday said he has stepped down because he was not able to attend to his family and personal matters due to work.

“I have resigned due to personal, family issues which I need to attend to and was not able to due to my work,” Ranjit Kumar is learned to have written to his colleagues.

He denied any rift with the government and told NDTV news channel that “the government is good to me”.

Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar is considered an expert on constitutional laws, service matters, and taxation. He earlier served as counsel for the Gujarat government and was an amicus curia in several cases in the Supreme Court before he took over as Solicitor General in June 2014, weeks after the BJP came to power at the Centre.

Among the cases in which Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar represented the Gujarat government was the 2005 killing of Sohrabuddin Sheikh in an alleged staged shootout.

The resignation comes over three months after he got an ad-hoc extension of his tenure in June.

Earlier, Mukul Rohatgi — the government’s top legal advisor — resigned as Attorney General of India in June this year citing personal reasons.

K.K. Venugopal took over as Attorney General after Rohatgi stepped down.(IANS)

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 NewsGram

Next Story

Take appropriate steps in Vyapam: SC to STF

0
//
60

New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Monday permitted the STF to take “appropriate steps” under the Code of Criminal Procedure against Vyapam accused so that they may not take advantage of delayed action and seek bail. Vyapam scam

An apex court bench headed by Chief Justice H.L. Dattu said: “In the meanwhile STF will take appropriate proceedings against persons mentioned in memo in accordance with the code of criminal procedure.”

The court order came on an application by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking modification of its July 13 order by which it had handed over the Vyapam investigation to the agency, seeking that the Special Investigation Team/Special Task Force which had been investigating the matter may be permitted to file charge sheets in the cases as it would take some time before the transfer of Vyapam case records to it.

Appearing for CBI, Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar told the court that the intervening period should not be allowed to be taken advantage by the accused whose remand is coming to an end, seeking default bail in the absence of charge sheet being filed within 90 days of their arrest or their bail application going uncontested.

The Supreme Court on July 13 had handed over the Vyapam investigation to the CBI.

(IANS)

Next Story

SC seeks Centre’s response on NJAC Act provisions

0
//
32

Judge 

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday asked for the central government’s response to contentions that certain provisions of NJAC Act of 2014 dealing with selection of high court judges violated the federal structure and were substantive than procedural in nature.

Asking Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar to address this issue, an apex court constitution bench comprising justices Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. Chelameswar, Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph and Adarsh Kumar Goel observed: “This will destroy the federal structure.”

The provisions related to the appointment of a high court chief justice and that the National Judicial appointment Commission could forward to high court chief justice for his views the names for appointment of judges to that high court.

The court asked the Solicitor General to address the issues after senior counsel Arvind Dattar appearing for the Madras High Court-based Service Bar Association assailed Section 6(1) and Section 6(3) of the NJAC Act coupled with their requirement of “ability, merit and any other criteria of suitability”.

Dattar said that the NJAC Act was enacted for putting in place a procedure for the appointment of judges to the apex court and high courts, including their chief justices.

But there were provisions under Section 6 and Section 12 which were substantive for laying down the qualifications of those who could be considered for appointment as judges.

He said that the worst part was that all these rules and regulations were subject to review or amendment by parliament which, he said, offended the independence of judiciary, one of the basic structures of the Indian Constitution.

The constitution bench is hearing a batch of petitions, including one by the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) along with the Bar Association of India, NGO Centre for Public In