The Bench and the Bar

The Indian Express and others reported:

A bench of the Gujarat High Court, led by outgoing acting Chief Justice VM Sahai, today issued notices to 27 judges (both sitting and retired) of the court; the state Revenue Department; and the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation among other government agencies, seeking their replies on the 2008 allotment of residential plots to sitting and retired judges.

The judges, to whom notices have been sent, include eight sitting Gujarat High Court judges, Chief Justices of Bombay and Orissa High Courts and a sitting judge of Supreme Court.

More detail at The Indian Express.

Pitching for the introduction of an animal rights subject to law schools’ syllabuses, the Indian Express reported that:

Union Law Minister Sadananda Gowda has written to the Bar Council of India chairman to include books written by his cabinet colleague Maneka Gandhi on animal rights in the curriculum of law schools and colleges. Gandhi, the Union Women and Child Development Minister, is also an animal rights activist.

Gowda wrote to BCI chairman Manan Kumar Mishra, according to the Express:

leaving aside the meat consumption issue for the time being, we need to sensitize our citizens about cruelty caused by us to animals in many forms while using them for farming purpose, religious activities, sports activities, recreational activities like circus and while transporting animals etc. We need to make lawyers acquire comprehensive knowledge on various laws governing animal rights and prevention of cruelty to animals. The best way to start forward is to include these aspects in the curriculum of law colleges.

I am herewith attaching a list of Acts pertaining to animal rights and also the books written by Smt Maneka Gandhi for including the same in the curriculum on law schools and colleges.

According to the Express, a number of professors, including NLU Delhi vice chancellor Ranbir Singh and former Delhi University law faculty dean SN Singh, objected to the letter arguing that animal welfare laws were covered in environmental law courses, while the government had no business recommending any particular book to be taught, which was the exclusive preserve of each law school.

The Financial Express and others reported:

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Bombay high court’s judgment that upheld the levy of service tax on services provided by lawyers and law firms to business clients with turnover of Rs 10 lakh and more.

A bench headed by Chief Justice HL Dattu while issuing notice to the ministry of finance, the Director General of Service Tax, Central Board of Excise and Customs, and others stayed the HC judgment on the petition filed by the Bombay Bar Association challenging the levy of service tax on lawyers, which was imposed with effect from May 1, 2011, and was changed to reverse charge (obligation was shifted to business entities from July 1, 2012). The issue pertains to the 14-month period between May 1, 2011, and July 1, 2012.

Service tax has been a long-running dispute between lawyers and the tax man after the 2011 budget hit advocates with service tax.

Read the Bombay high court case summary and judgment here.

The fake encounter case involving the use of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) against innocent victims - being heard by the Supreme Court suo motu - came up before justices Madan B Lokur and UU Lalit.

In Indian National Congress vs UOI, which came up before the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Bench today, the counsel for the Association for Democratic Reforms, Prashant Bhushan, alleged that both the Congress and the UOI suffer from conflict of interests in the case, in the face of a clear finding by the Delhi high court that both the Congress and the BJP had received crores as funding from foreign sources, and that there is not even an iota of doubt that the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 was violated by both.

DK Aruna vs Union of India (WP (c) 512/2015) was dismissed by a three-Judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI), HL Dattu on Friday, 7 August, after spirited arguments in the court for 15 minutes.

The government today told the Supreme Court that it wanted to ban child pornography websites, but expressed its inability to go beyond that and don the role of moral police.

Addressing the apex court bench headed by Chief Justice HL Dattu, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told the court that the state cannot be present in every household to check what people were watching in private and interfere with their entertainment.

Telling the court that there has to be some self regulation to check the viewing of porn websites, the AG told the court that the state could not be totalitarian.

The AG said this to the court in the course of the hearing of a petition seeking a total clampdown on websites showing pornography.

For full account of today's hearing, check CCG Delhi's report

In Maru Ram vs Union of India in 1980, the Supreme Court’s five-Judge Constitution Bench heard the first challenge to section 433A Cr.P.C. and upheld its constitutionality.

Now, the issue has turned full circle.

The hearing of this case continued yesterday with Rakesh Dwivedi, counsel for both Tamil Nadu and West Bengal in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, arguing the whole day that state governments should have the power to suspend or remit sentences or exercise mercy by using their own discretion.

The Lok Sabha, on day 11 of the monsoon session, passed the Delhi High Court Amendment Bill, 2014 after years of wrangling and lobbying around the issue between the bar of the district court and the high courts in Delhi. The legislation increases the pecuniary jurisdiction of the High Court of Delhi from Rs 20 lakh (Rs 2m) to Rs 2 crores (Rs 20m).

Criticism of a district judge attracted criminal contempt charges by the Madras high court against two advocates who also prevented a court staff from performing his duties, reported the Express. The court further ordered the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to initiate disciplinary proceedings against them

Advocates Manikandan Vathan Chettiar and Mathankumar had allegedly made “reckless and unsubstantiated” allegations against a district judge in a criminal original petition on which they were acting for their client, before Madras HC justice PN Prakash.

Justice Prakash initiated contempt proceedings against the two advocates after observing that it is their “habit to file such petitions and ask for omnibus prayers”. Chettiar and Mathankumar were also criticised by the court last week for their “repeated and unsubstantiated” allegation against a public prosecutor, and their client was fined Rs 10,000.