Justice N Kirubakaran of the Madras high court passed radical directions on a petition asking the court to curb entry of persons with criminal antecedents into the legal profession and to maintain purity of law courses.

pripqjnoOn certain days, the Indian litigant knows better than to hold the courts to their official calendar of working days: at least 100 days have already been lost this year across various Indian courts to strikes by advocates.

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the central and Delhi governments as to why pollution compensatory charge be not levied on the trucks and commercial vehicles entering national capital and further contributing to already alarming air pollution in the city.

A court today extended, till 19 October, the judicial custody of Delhi’s former law minister Somnath Bharti in a domestic violence case filed by his wife Lipika Mitra.

A magistrate’s court remanded Bharti in 14 days judicial custody after he was presented before it after expiry of his one-day judicial custody.

Meanwhile Bharti moved his bail application before a sessions court. It will be heard on Tuesday.

Bharti surrendered to police on last Monday evening and was arrested. He was named in an FIR filed on 10 September following a 10 June complaint by his wife who said he had been abusing her since their marriage in 2010.

The Supreme Court today asked the chief justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court to form a three-judge bench to examine the validity of penal provisions that bans slaughtering of cattle and sale of beef in the state.

Chief Justice HL Dattu and Justice Amitava Roy put on hold the order of the Jammu bench of the high court directing the police chief in the state to enforce the Ranbir penal code provisions banning beef in the state.

The court passed the order after noting the conflicting orders passed by the Jammu and Srinagar bench of the high court.

The Jammu bench had asked the police chief to enforce the ban while the Srinagar bench had issued notice challenging the validity of the provision banning beef.

The Srinagar bench had said that if the state legislature wanted to scrap or amend these provisions, then the pendency of the matter before it will not come in the way of the assembly.

Maharashtra’s second National Law University (NLU) would get its permanent campus in the coastal town of Uttan in Mumbai’s Thane district.

The Supreme Court has imposed a penalty of Rs 5 lakh on the Kerala State Electricity Board and NTPC for urging it to allow withdrawal of their appeal, saying they cannot treat the court according to their own convenience.

A bench of Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice NV Ramana on Thursday took exception to the petitioners KSEB and NTPC seeking to withdraw their plea and said the withdrawal will be subject to payment of Rs 5 lakh to the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority.

Confirming that KSEB and NTPC were imposed Rs 5 lakh cost, counsel Vikas Upadhyay representing respondents Essar Power MP Ltd on Friday said the court did not appreciate the way the withdrawal of the case was sought after the judges had gone through four volumes of the petition running into 890 pages.

Imposing the cost, the bench said: “If you wanted to withdraw, why did you in first instance file it and persuaded us to issue notice.”

This is not a drawing room where you can walk in and walk out at your own ease, it added.

The Supreme Court dismissed the public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to curtail attorneys general’s ability to act for private parties.

Headline: No issue for AG to act for private parties, says SC

“As long as there is no conflict of interest, there is no issue. We may address him as learned Attorney General even when he is appearing for private parties but that does not mean he is considered as the law officer of the government. No, we cannot intervene in the matter and issue any orders,” said a bench of Chief Justice HL Dattu and Justice Amitava Roy.

reported The Indian Express.

The Modi government’s law ministry wants the Supreme Court to disclose greater details about itself, including court-wise pendency of civil as well as criminal cases, number of adjournments in each particular case and sanctioned and working strength of judges to increase transparency in the legal system reported The Times of India.

The suggestions, given with an intent to increase transparency in the appraisal of Judges, were given to the e-court committee of the Supreme Court that operates the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG).

The government is considering conducting an independent study using the data available through the NJDG to find out the cause of huge pendency in courts; at last count, the pendency in subordinate courts was estimated to be more than 2.65 crore while the total pendency was around 3.10 crore, including those in the SC and HCs.

The government’s demand comes before the Supreme Court is set to announce its verdict on the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) on which arguments were heard in detail in July this year. Transparency in appointment of judges has been one of the arguments used in favour of the NJAC

The notice has reportedly being sent by the Bar Council of India (BCI) to the seven sitting Tamil Nadu and Puducherry state bar council members for opposing the BCI’s earlier purported disqualification of 15 local advocates for alleged violence.

BCI sources in New Delhi told TOI on Wednesday that the BCI chairman, Manan Kumar Mishra, had written to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry directing the latter to give a list of its members who had participated in the Trichy meeting. Relying on the statement of the additional solicitor-general, the BCI chairman wanted the state council to issue a show-cause notice to the members and seek explanation.

reported The Times of India.

Disqualified advocates are not allowed to contest bar council elections for six years.

Office report

Should it be directed to the Government of India not to give permission to the Attorney General for India to appear for private parties against the state and its instrumentalities? This is the question which a Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice HL Dattu and Justice Amitava Roy would be faced with, when a PIL seeking such a direction would be called for hearing before them.

Latest comments