•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student
other

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences
20 November 2012
Bar, Bench & Litigation

Delhi’s more than 24 tribunals, with 5 more in the pipeline, are demanding official bungalows for their heads “in keeping with their [retired judge] rank”. However, while 32 bungalows for Supreme Court judges and 45 for high court judges are reserved in Lutyens’ Delhi, no such quota exists for tribunal judges.

An official of the urban development ministry informed that tribunal chairpersons are allotted bungalows from the judges’ quota on request received from the secretary general of the Supreme Court or registrar of the high court, and that the ministry is under continuous pressure from the judiciary. [India Today]

Meanwhile, tribunals continue facing growing criticism about their effectiveness and efficiency, yet more keep getting created. [The Firm]

19 November 2012
Bar, Bench & Litigation

The Karnataka state government has sent a formal request to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to set up a permanent bench of the Supreme Court in Bangalore.

The Times of India and Business Standard reported that the minister for law and parliamentary affairs, Suresh Kumar, said on Saturday that the state government had asked the CJI to consider the request on priority.

He said: “The then Union Law Minister Veerappa Moily had advocated that this bench should come up in Bangalore. Now, once again, a new memorandum would be submitted to the Chief Justice of India repeating the request.”

12 November 2012
Bar, Bench & Litigation

The collegium system of judges’ appointments has come under judicial scrutiny again, through a petition for review of the Supreme Court’s nine-judge bench verdict in 1993 in Advocates on Record Association V Union of India.

The petition filed by a Rajasthan-based trust prays for an 11-judge bench to reverse the 1993 decision upholding the primacy of the collegium system.

Chief justice of India Altamas Kabir and justices SS Nijjar and Jasti Chelameswar are hearing the matter, after a bench of justices Deepak Verma and BS Chauhan referred it to the chief justice’s bench last year. Senior advocate AK Ganguli with advocate Bharat Sangal are the amicus curiae. Attorney General Vahanvati and the government have been issued notices.

Ganguli told the court that the procedure adopted in the collegium system "is contrary to constitutional foundations of democracy, separation of powers and checks and balances”. He added that the system “resulted in an anomaly in as much the executive no longer has to share any responsibility in filling up of vacancies in the courts; the entire responsibility being that of the collegium”.

Vahanvati argued that even though the 1993 decision should be reconsidered, the petition filed by a trust was not maintainable under Article 32 of the constitution. [Express]

The collegium system was most recently under the Supreme Court’s consideration in 1998 under a presidential reference. [via @jimanish]

07 November 2012
Bar, Bench & Litigation

Hold the frontpage Exclusive: The Indian Express and Pioneer newspapers will carry front-page apologies for misreporting court proceedings, after yesterday’s hearing in the Supreme Court’s (SC) suo motu contempt petition against the two papers.

06 November 2012
Bar, Bench & Litigation

Law minister Ashwini Kumar was presented with five complaints against sitting Supreme Court judges on the first day he assumed office last week. Refusing to name the judges, the former senior advocate said all complaints were “in bad taste”.

His predecessor in the law ministry, Salman Khursheed, had received 98 "representations or complaints", according to Khursheed’s statement in the parliament. [DNA India]

06 November 2012
Bar, Bench & Litigation

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) will get six new judges, reducing its shortfall of seven judges to one according to Greater Kashmir’s information from “highly placed sources”. The Supreme Court’s collegium has cleared the names of two senior district judges and four lawyers which were pending since a year for the posts.

The names approved include CBI Special Court judge Jammu BL Bhat, registrar general J&K High Court Janak Raj Kotwal, senior additional advocate general Srinagar Ali Muhammad Magray, senior advocate DS Thakur and advocates Azhar-ul-Amin and Tashi Robertson, according to confirmation from a state law department official.

Currently, more than 80,000 cases are pending in the high court. [Greater Kashmir]

05 November 2012
Bar, Bench & Litigation

DHCBA service tax on eat (via Facebook) The Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) published a notice on Saturday that appears to have incorrectly explained the service tax (ST) rules on restaurant bills, urging its members, families, friends and clients to refuse to pay the correct amounts.

02 November 2012
Bar, Bench & Litigation

empty-chairs Judicial vacancies have decreased since last year across 21 high courts in India but nevertheless 30 per cent of 895 judges’ posts sanctioned remain vacant, according to statistics released on Monday.

25 October 2012
Bar, Bench & Litigation

Can a high court review its own decision after the Supreme Court has dismissed a special leave petition from such decision? The absence of a definite answer to this question is causing the double-filing of special leave petitions before the SC.

A bench of SC justices Dipak Misra and KS Radhakrishnan has referred the question to a larger bench, in view of the many conflicting positions on it [The Hindu]

23 October 2012
Bar, Bench & Litigation

Allahabad high court justice Yatindra Singh yesterday took oath as chief justice of Chhatisgarh high court after 13 years at the bench in Allahabad. Singh enrolled at the bar in 1973. [BS/Chhatisgarh high court]

22 October 2012
Bar, Bench & Litigation

India Today dockets the lives and times of India’s top eight senior advocates. All of them keep expensive hobbies and none of them bill below Rs 5 lakh – per appearance.

The oldest active lawyer in India, Ram Jethmalani: Aged 90, and enrolled at the bar as the youngest member at age 18, he maintains an envy-invoking Badminton court in his Lutyen’s Delhi bungalow and bills above Rs 40 lakh per matter.

The former law minister recently defended the Gujarat government in the 2002 riots, Baba Ramdev in the case of police lathicharge at Delhi’s Ramlila grounds, the 2G accused, and the Ansals in Delhi’s Uphaar cinema tragedy.

The Philanthropist, KTS Tulsi: The former solicitor general is a vintage-car collector, and can be roped in for Rs 5 lakh per appearance or for free, depending on the cause.

The cause has driven him to oppose the Ansals in Uphaar, refuse to defend the Gujarat state government at the SC after chief minister Narendra Modi justified the Sohrabuddin encounter, and be a special prosecutor in the Punjab terror attacks, during the peak of his career as defense counsel.

The most expensive, Harish Salve: Pianist, Bentley-enthusiast, jazz music lover, and Apple (the company) loyalist, Salve minted Rs 4.5 lakh per appearance until his stakes touched the pinnacle after his recent Rs11,000 crore Vodafone win in the SC.

Once Soli Sorabjee’s junior, anybody who matters in corporate India was (at least) once the former solicitor general’s client – including the Ambani borthers, Keshav Mahindra, Ratan Tata.

But he has fought free too, namely, amicus curiae in the Gujarat riots case and in the environment matters heard by the green bench of the SC. He also appeared against the accused in Uphaar.

The king of miscellaneous times, Mukul Rohatgi: Known for lung power, which he uses during arguments as well as for bustling between courtrooms on miscellaneous days with his extra-heavy load of matters, Rohatgi is a supercar collector, Atlas Shrugged reader, traveller and art-connoisseur.

The former additional solicitor general has been a favourite with politicians including Varun Gandhi and Jayalalitha, and the commonwealth scam accused.

The corporate lawyer, Aryama Sundaram: Plays golf, represents cricket, offers cigars.

The BCCI is a regular client while FICCI was a client in the 2G presidential reference.

The constitutional law expert, PP Rao: “Even judges cannot ignore Rao's interpretations”, writes India Today about the former SCBA president whom the SC looks to despite its own law officers – for instance in the 2G presidential reference, or in the 1992 president’s rule imposition post Babri Masjid.

Controversy’s king, Gopal Subramanium: The former solicitor general of India held the government’s hand through the Kasab trial, the 1993 Bombay blasts, and the recent petition against the grand prix formula 1 race.

The Sherwani-clad, Sushil Kumar: The only Sherwani-clad lawyer in the Supreme Court corridors, he’s seen as the “only one” who can always manage making “holes in the prosecution”.

His clientele – Parliament attacker Mohammed Afzal guru, 2G accused A Raja and Kanimozhi, CWG scam accused Suresh Kalmadi, terrorist Abdul Naseer Maurany and murder-convicted restaurateur P Rajagopal.

“When it comes to final arguments on merits, one needs Kumar to get an acquittal”, claim juniors. [India Today]

22 October 2012
Bar, Bench & Litigation

Punjab and Haryana high court creates the post of “Court manager” on a three-year trial basis, to be held by engineers with an MBA degree. Court managers will manage the court’s budget and stock, human resource, case flow, electronic data, infrastructure, security and records.

Currently, meritorious persons in the court’s clerical staff are awarded some of those duties.

The court has also created additional law researcher posts to be held for two years either by fresh law graduates or by final year students of law. The law researchers will be forbidden to appear in the court in which they assisted, for a year immediately after their appointment as researcher ends. [Day and Night News]

22 October 2012
Bar, Bench & Litigation

Maharashtra government submits draft circular on guidelines to invoke charges of sedition under the IPC, to Bombay high court's chief justice's bench through advocate general Darius Khambata.

The circular specifying "limitations and parameters" for applying IPC's section 124 includes creating "disaffection towards the government" as a reason to press charges under the section. The circular follows the September 8 arrest of India Against Corruption cartoonist Aseem Trivedi on charges of sedition, that generated public outcry.

Part of the circular reads:

Comments expressing disapproval or criticism of the government with a view to obtaining change of government by lawful means are not seditious under section 124 (a) of IPC. Obscenity or vulgarity should also not be taken into account under this charge.

[DNA India]

19 October 2012
Bar, Bench & Litigation

Law minister Salman Khursheed's wife Louise Khursheed, represented by Abhimanyu Bhandari, co-founding partner of Axon Partners, and senior advocate Parag Tripathy, has filed a Rs 1 crore defamation claim in the Delhi high court against the India Today group and 13 other defendants including prominent TV anchors, who are represented by senior advocate CA Sundaram.

12 October 2012
Bar, Bench & Litigation

In an injunction suit brought against NDTV news television network by ESPN, which was the broadcasting rights owner for the ICC T20 world cup cricket matches held recently, the Delhi high court prescribed guidelines for reporting of sporting events on news channels.

The following observations were made:

Footage of the matches is entertainment to the masses, therefore being “result-oriented reporting”. Injunction can be granted even if there is fair-use of the footage if the reporting is not result-oriented.

Footages can be used while reporting sports events in both hard news and sports news programs, but only if the programs were pre-existing news format programs rather than designed for a particular sports event. Also special premium can not be accepted or solicited from third parties for airing advertisements during these programs.

Quick broadcasting of footages by news channels would harm the economic interests of the original investors of the event, but stale news is no news and therefore news has to be reported while it remains current. A lifespan of 24 hours is agreed upon.

For special sports news programs, news channels have two options: Either air an ad specifically targeted during the programs and don’t use the footage, or use the footage but don’t air any advertisements [Spicy IP]

11 October 2012
Bar, Bench & Litigation

A group of lawyers under the name ‘Lawyers for High Court Bench in Western Uttar Pradesh’ met in the Supreme Court arbitration room today and resolved to demand a permanent high court bench at any location in western UP, from the UP state government, the central government and the Allahbad high court.

They also sought support of the Supreme Court Bar Association, Supreme Court Advocates-on-record Association, the Bar Association of India and state bar associations in the matter.

Supreme Court advocate and Nalsar Hyderabad 2006 graduate Ajit Sharma was among the lawyers leading the initiative. Sharma said that “Allahabad High Court is dominated by judges from Allahabad” , and with the “creation of a bench in Western UP “lawyers in Allahabad stand to lose some work”.

The group cited several reasons for establishment of the permanent bench. These included mounting case pendency, decentralising Allahbad high court due to growing judge vacancies, statistics such as judges to population ratio in other states, and huge litigation costs faced by western UP litigants.

Here are a few extracts from the white paper on Western UP’s high court bench:

The struggle of the people of Western Uttar Pradesh for a permanent bench of Allahabad High Court has been going on continuously since early 1950's when Late Chief Minister Dr. Sampurnanda in 1955 recommended creation of a permanent bench in Western UP to the Central Government.

Total number of cases pending in Allahabad High Court as on 30.9.2011 is 9,93,685, over twice as much as in High Court of Tamil Nadu with 4,69,348 cases. 3,56,707 cases are pending in Bombay High Court. Given that Madras High Court has a permanent bench at Madurai and Bombay High Court has permanent benches at Aurangabad and Nagpur, what can possibly justify only one permanent bench in Uttar Pradesh (at Lucknow)?

(source: Court News, published by the Supreme Court, Volume 4, 2011)

Western Uttar Pradesh, which contributes to over 50% of the work load in Allahabad High Court ought to have a bench of its own since it requires around 10 judges worth of work to constitute a bench.

Litigants in Western Uttar Pradesh have to travel over 600 kms to Allahabad and engage new lawyers in order to file appeals. They often take over night trains, stay in hotels in Allahabad and engage new lawyers with whom they may have no relations or may have never worked with. An adjournment becomes prohibitive. These are additional costs imposed on the litigants from Western Uttar Pradesh

[Resolution]