Taking a dig at Maharashtra government over its persistence to curb dance bars, the Supreme Court on Monday said that it was better to dance then go to streets for begging or going to “places which are not acceptable” to earn a livelihood.

It was an exchange of barbs, rarely witnessed, in the Supreme Court’s courtrooms. But then it was not an ordinary case, with huge stakes in the outcome, even if there are several rounds of battle ahead.

After not doing so yesterday despite everyone’s expectations to the contrary, the Supreme Court today asked the central government to approach its secretary general for listing its petition challenging the Uttarakhand High Court order setting aside president’s rule in the state.

An apex court bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice SK Singh asked Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi to approach the court’s secretary general after he mentioned the central government’s plea challenging high court judgement.

The court said thereafter, Chief Justice TS Thakur will decide which bench will hear the matter.

It is likely that the central government’s plea may come up for hearing later in the day or on Monday.

In a major blow to the BJP-led central government, the Uttarakhand High Court on Thursday set aside president’s rule in the state, restoring Congress leader Harish Rawat as the chief minister, nearly a month after he was ousted.

As news of the Uttarakhand high court quashing President’s rule in the state reached the Supreme Court, suspense was building up whether the Centre would seek an immediate stay by mentioning the matter before Court No.1, where the Chief Justice of India (CJI) TS Thakur and Justice R Banumathi were hearing the pollution matter.

In the ongoing hearing of petitions challenging the denial of right to worship to women devotees at the Sabarimala temple, Kerala, Justice Kurian Joseph, one of the three judges on the bench, on 18 April, asked amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran, a pointed question: Can you force deity who does not want to see women (of menstruating age), to 'see' women?

Maverick lawyer from Mumbai, Mathews J Nedumpara, had two of his writ petitions listed before two different benches at courts 3 and 4 on Wednesday, 13 April.

Item 9 before the bench of Supreme Court Justices JS Khehar and C Nagappan turned out to be an interesting hearing yesterday (13 April) when counsel for Tata Motors, Sidharth Luthra, persisted that there was a case of defamation against the Sunday Indian magazine, edited by the appellant IIPM-Supremo Arindam Chaudhuri, who has been no stranger to strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP) against publishers.

On 12 April, during the hearing of case 20 before justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C Pant in Court 4 yesterday morning, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan was angrily objecting to the appearance of the intervener-in-person, SN Shukla, a former IAS officer.