The Bench and the Bar

The facts unfold the plight of a poor landlord languishing in courts for over fourty years. The case gets sadder when we note that appellant had been successful both in the trial court and the first appellate court and the saddest part is that the high court in second appeal, went against him on a pure question of fact!”

Justices Anil R Dave, Kurian Joseph and Adarsh Kumar Goel will hear in their chambers at 1.45 pm today the review petitions filed by the CBI and the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (AVUT) against the judgment delivered by them on 23 September 2015 substituting the sentences of the convicts, Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal with a fine of Rs 30 crore to be paid by each.

While Sushil Ansal got relief on the ground of old age, Gopal Ansal’s sentence was substituted on the ground of parity.

When the CBI’s counsel, Harish Salve and AVUT’s counsel, KTS Tulsi expressed the grievance that they were not heard before the bench decided to substitute the sentences of the convicts, Justice Dave had advised Salve to file a review petition, raising the same grievance.

The 23 September judgment had led to considerable outrage.

The AVUT, in its review petition filed separately, has sought the hearing of the petition in open court. If the Judges agree to do so, it will be listed separately for hearing in open court, for hearing arguments from both the sides. If the judges do not see merit in the plea for open court hearing, the review petition may be dismissed in chambers without any reasons being given.

In view of the dissatisfaction with the 23 September 2015 ruling, observers expect the bench to agree to open court hearing of the review petitions.

Legally India will update after the chamber hearing.

The Supreme Court on Monday was unimpressed with the functioning of the national carrier Air India, which is running into losses while other private airlines are prospering, demanding to know the reason why, reported The Economic Times.

A bench of Chief Justice of India TS Thakur, Justice AK Sikri and Justice R Banumathi asked: “While private airlines are prospering, Air India is going into red. Who should be held responsible for Air India mess? There are so many stories going around.”

They were hearing a public interest litigation asking the carrier to commence flights connecting Delhi and Shimla. The Himachal Pradesh high court had on 7 December 2015 asked the carrier to commence that flight route on a trial basis, which was put on hold by the Supreme Court.

Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, representing Air India, told the court that the flight connecting the two cities was not economical as there were 12 to 15 one-way passengers only, and that Shimla airport did not have refuelling facilities to which the court reportedly reprimanded the government with: “You have already constructed an airport, probably spending Rs 100 crores, now you can’t say that there is no refuelling facilities.”

The court issued notice to the civil aviation ministry, the Airports Authority of India, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, and the Himachal Pradesh government as well as the petitioner Paras Daulta.

The matter will come up for hearing next on 16 February.

Former Chief Justice if India (CJI) SH Kapadia passed away last night in Mumbai aged 68.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) TS Thakur and Supreme Court Justice AK Sikri are carpooling, reported The Indian Express:

The two also finalised their travel itinerary for the next 15 days when the odd-even scheme would be in effect in the capital.

The two decided to lead by example and carpool, despite being exempt from the policy as they hold constitutional posts. Justice Thakur has an odd-numbered car, while Justice Sikri’s vehicle is even. The two live close to each other.On Monday - the first working day in the top court after winter break - Justice Sikri picked up the CJI on his way to court.

Justice RM Lodha Committee appointed by the Supreme Court of India to look into the functionality of Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) submitted it’s report today recommending legalisation of betting, among other reforms according to The Hindu.

The committee recommended multiple reforms in order to regularize the sport in India. Lodha was quoted as commenting in a press conference, “our year-long effort was to remove the ailing parts, revitalise the body so that it could run a marathon for the betterment of the game. Our job was to restore the pristine glory of the game of which 1.28 billion of the country is passionate for.”

Observing that betting is a multi million dollar industry all over the world, the committee recommended the government to enact laws to regularise it, including disallowing players, team and match officials and cricket administrators to participate in betting. It also asked the government to restrict the betting to licensed betting houses and take steps to ensure that players or officials do not participate in the same.

The committee also rooted for a nine-member apex council to replace the existing 14 member BCCI working committee and asked that five of the nine office-bearers should not be either government servant or minister and no office bearer to hold position for two consecutive years.

To ensure equitable voting pattern, the committee suggested ‘one state one vote scheme’ wherein cricket associations representing states would have one vote each.

The committee also recommended position of CEO to be introduced under which the person would take responsibility of day to day non-cricket working of the BCCI

The committee floated the idea of ‘cricket player’s association’ to be funded and managed by the BCCI under which all agents shall be registered.

Apart from these, the recommendations included introduction of ‘ethics officer’ who would be a retired high court judge, an ‘ombudsman’ who would be a retired Supreme Court judge as well as an ‘electoral officer’ to be nominated two weeks prior to elections.

In another report, the committee gave a clean chit to former IPL COO Sundar Raman on allegations of his involvement in the 2013 IPL betting and said that his omission to inform the officials of betting activities didn’t seem to be motivated with any personal interest, the news reported.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has sought expressions of interest [http://www.cci.gov.in/sites/default/files/tender/EOI%2030%2012%2015.pdf(EOI)] from parties for publication of compendium of their orders for the years 2014, 2015 and 2016.

The commission has laid down the condition that the tenders should be from publishers who are engaged in publication of law books and or law journals for at least three years with an average annual turnover of Rs 1 crore from law publications in the last three years.

The tender says that the need arose from the demand for “authentic compendium of the orders pronounced by the commission” as evolution of competition jurisprudence in Indian jurisdiction is in nascent stage. The commission would publish compendium of orders along with head notes of each order in partnership with a reputed law publisher.

The last date to submit EOI is 31 January 2016.

The government wants advocates debarred from practice, for committing “moral turpitude” offences, according to its prayer to the Supreme Court, reported DNA.

The Government of India asked the Supreme Court to rule that offence of the nature of moral turpitude by a lawyer will result in debarring of the errant lawyer in line with similar provisions in other professional services like charted accountants, engineers and doctors reported The Supreme Court had asked for the assistance of Attorney General’s office in a case of contempt against an advocate practicing at Uttar Pradesh.

The government filed a compilation in the consequences of contempt in professions other than law and observed that though there is a provision of debarring in other professions for the offence of contempt, the Advocates Act, 1961 has no such provision. The powers of bar council are limited to offences that stand proven and the law is silent on commission of serious offences including murder, rape etc by advocates.

The government then requested tp the Supreme Court to make rules in this regard under Section 24 of the act to fill the lacunae. It said, “Every high court in India under section 34 (1) of Advocates Act and the Supreme Court under Article 145 of the Constitution of India has the power to frame rules with respect to the contempt of court committed by the lawyers,” it was reported.

China ‘s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) has launched an online service platform for lawyers on judicial justice, rule of law and rights, the media reported on Saturday.

Through the platform, lawyers will be able to file cases, submit material, follow the progress of cases or contact judges, China Radio International reported.

It also provides access to digital recordings of past cases.

A database of lawyers and law firms has been established on the platform.

At present, over 21,000 law firms and 81,000 lawyers are recorded in the database.

The SPC proposed the platform in March 2015, during the annual meeting of the National People’s Congress, China’s top legislature.