Anil R Dave

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the possibility of Sahara chief Subrata Roy’s release from jail - having been incarcerated for more than two years now - would depend on the outcome of the first round of auction of Sahara’s assets by market regulator the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI).

In a revelation which may shock many, the Solicitor General, Ranjit Kumar told the Supreme Court’s three-Judge bench hearing the black money investigation case this afternoon at Court No 2, that nothing survived in this case, and the court could dispose it of.

The Supreme Court’s constitution bench hearing on the sharing of river water through the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal, took an interesting turn this afternoon with Punjab’s counsel, senior advocate, Ram Jethmalani, making a strong pitch for the return of the Presidential reference on the issue unanswered.

A Supreme Court bench comprising of justices Anil R Dave and Adarsh Kumar Goel asked Bennet Castelino, an advocate and the petitioner-in-person, to approach the high court of Allahabad to order a CBI probe into the mysterious disappearance of Rahul Sachan. Sachan is a key prosecution witness in the Asaram Bapu case.

It was pretty much about who would blink first: Swamy or the bench.

The Supreme Court issued notice today on a challenge to the Muslim custom of immediate divorce for husbands on uttering the word “Talaq” thrice.

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the government to consider the matter of passive euthanasia and made it clear that pendency in the apex court should not come in the way of authorities to take a decision on the matter.

The curative petition of Yusuf Mohsin Nulwala, a convict in the 1993 Mumbai blast case, will be heard by the Supreme Court tomorrow by the bench comprising the three senior-most Judges, namely, the CJI, TS Thakur, and justices Anil R Dave and JS Khehar beween 1:40 and 1:45 pm in their chambers tomorrow.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) TS Thakur, and justices Anil R Dave and Jagdish Singh Khehar, will hear the section 377 curative petition today at 3pm in the Supreme Court.

The social justice bench comprising justices Madan B Lokur and UU Lalit, set up by the previous chief justice of India, justice HL Dattu on 12 December 2014 has now officially ceased, and the cases which were part-heard before that bench, have been distributed to other benches.

The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed a Delhi high court order quashing the 60 percent admission quota for the wards of Group A officers of the All India Central Services in elite Sanskriti schools.

An apex court bench headed by Justice Anil R Dave, however, said the quota will also cover the children of central government employees of civil, defence and allied services whose jobs are transferable.

The order came after Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told the apex court that during a high court hearing, the government had filed an affidavit that the 60 percent quota in admissions would cover the wards of Group A, B and C employees of the central government with transferable jobs.

Staying the high court order and clearing the decks for admissions in Sanskriti schools, the apex court said: “No preferential treatment will be accorded to anyone in the admission process.”

History was made today, with three Constitution benches sitting at the same time in the Supreme Court at 2 pm.

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Justice Anil R Dave, and comprising justices Kurian Joseph and Amitava Roy, heard Massimiliano Latorre, one of the accused in the Italian marines case, who has been permitted by the Supreme Court to be in Italy in view of his health condition, and gave him further extension of time to return to India.

Two very important cases related to the power to appoint teachers and rules on when special leave petitions (SLPs) should be entertained, are scheduled to be heard by two Supreme Court’s constitution benches today under CJI TS Thakur’s new constitution bench schedules.

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 Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005 will not apply to women whose father died before the amendement came in force, ruled the Supreme Court, effectively withdrawing such women’s right to equal share in their fathers’ property, reported The Indian Express.

The Supreme Court bench of justices Anil R Dave and Adarsh K Goel ruled that the amendment to the act cannot apply retrospectively and a daughter will become a co-sharer in inherited land from her father only if the father was alive on 9 September 2005.

Females are already ineligible for a share if the property was alienated or partitioned before 20 December 2004, the date the bill was introduced, and this judgment goes a step further to disqualify another class of women.

The bench overruled the view taken by some high courts that the amendment should be applied retrospectively as it is a social legislation.

The judges observed in the order that “the text of the amendment itself clearly provides that the right conferred on a ‘daughter of a coparcener’ is ‘on and from the commencement’ of the amendment Act. In view of plain language of the statute, there is no scope for a different interpretation than the one suggested by the text,” it was reported.