SCOI Reports

The final results of the election to the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) show that it was a very closely contested election, and for some posts, the sizable votes secured by some non-serious candidates tilted the result in favour of the successful candidate.

In the Additional District and Sessions Judge, ‘X’ v. Supreme Court of India Through Secretary General And Anr., which came up before the bench comprising justices JS Khehar and Rohinton Nariman on 16 December, the petitioner’s counsel, Indira Jaising raised the relevance of the in-house committee report in establishing the misconduct of a judge.

The Supreme Court’s five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice JS Khehar is set to pronounce its consequential judgment in the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) case in the morning today (16 December) at Court No 3 at 10:30 AM

Although many expected Dushyant Dave to be reelected as the President, the scale of his victory has been surprising.  Many believed that it would be  a close contest between him and Shivaji Munjajirao Jadhav.  According to sources, Jadhav had spent a lot in bringing many outstation voters to Delhi to vote for him today, in order to neutralize the popularity of Dave among the voters.  

Toilet election law not arbitrary, holds SCIn a judgment that is sure to surprise many, Justice J Chelameswar of the Supreme Court has held that arbitrariness cannot be a ground to strike down a law.

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has released its final list of candidates, after the phase of withdrawal of names is over. 

As Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justice HL Dattu appeared to be a man in a hurry. However, despite having held the office for a near eternity compared to many other recent CJIs, what he has managed to achieve as a judge and administrator in that time is questionable.

The escape of about 40 tonnes of methyl isocyanate (MIC) – a highly toxic chemical – from a storage tank on the premises of the pesticide plant of Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) in Bhopal – the capital of the State of Madhya Pradesh – on the night of 02/03 December 1984 resulted in a horrendous disaster. Due to criminal negligence and utter callousness on the part of the plant management in taking adequate safety precautions, water and other impurities – that cause MIC to react violently – entered one of the MIC storage tanks resulting in exothermic reactions and forcing MIC and its reaction products to escape in the form of froth and lethal gases.

As the Chief Justice of India (CJI) HL Dattu retires on 2 December, the Government is apparently preparing red carpet for him at the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) according to several reports, as the post of the chairperson of the NHRC has been vacant since May this year, and only former CJIs are eligible for this high office.

The final day of the hearing on neo-Collegium at Court No.4 in Supreme Court began at 10.40 am yesterday (19 November), with the presiding Judge, Justice JS Khehar claiming that the 10-minute delay in assembling was due to some discussions which the five judges had among themselves about the hearing.

Professor Upendra Baxi, in a comment to Legally India, had expressed his surprise how his name appears in the list of those who made proposals for reforming the Collegium, compiled by Supreme Court appointed committee comprising senior advocate, Arvind Datar and ASG, Pinky Anand, as he had not submitted any such proposal. Prof Baxi was also surprised that his so-called proposal was also shown not contributing to any of the five categories, identified by the Court and the Committee, namely, Collegium Secretariat, Eligibility Criteria, Transparency, Mechanism to deal with complaints and Miscellaneous.

Mumbai maverick lawyer Mathews J Nedumpara has filed an application in the Supreme Court for review or recall of order dated 5 November 2015 in which the court has invited suggestions from the public for reforming the Collegium system, by 13 November and for holding two-day hearing of select counsel on 18 and 19 November.

The report submitted to the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench by Senior Advocate Arvind Datar and ASG, Pinky Anand on the neo-collegium received over 60 representations and suggestions from various associations and individuals.

In a panel discussion on the recent NJAC judgment on 5 November, organized by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, New Delhi at the India International Centre Annexe, eminent senior advocate, Raju Ramachandran, had outlined grave implications for the application of the Basic Structure Doctrine.

At a discussion on the Supreme Court’s recent judgment quashing the 99th Amendment Act and the NJAC Act, eminent academic, Professor Upendra Baxi, defended the judgment, but expected nothing much to come out of the ongoing hearing on reforming the collegium.

As the Supreme Court’s five-Judge Constitution Bench presided over by Justice JS Khehar began its hearing on reforming the collegium (the in-house mechanism to recruit Judges to the higher judiciary after its recent revival by the same bench) the bench sought advice from counsel on both sides on how to navigate the plethora of diverse proposals which it received.

As Justice Khehar-led Constitution Bench reassembles today (3 November) to hear proposals for reforming the revived collegium to select judges of the higher judiciary, it cannot help listening to the echoes of its momentous decision to strike down the 99th Amendment Act and the NJAC Act in their entirety, even two weeks after it was delivered on 16 October.

Justice Kurian Joseph’s historical counterfactual: If only the bench that heard the First Judges case in 1981 had not ignored Samsher Singh, there would not have been Second Judges, Third Judges, and Fourth Judges cases later.

Justice J Chelameswar, who joined the Supreme Court on 10 October 2011, has so far given four dissenting judgments, including the NJAC verdict delivered on 16 October.

Chief Justice HL Dattu, who led the five-Judge Constitution Bench, had a surprise in store after hearing rival contentions for and against relaxing the 11 August interim order in order to exempt more schemes from its purview.