HL Dattu
In Indian National Congress vs UOI, which came up before the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Bench today, the counsel for the Association for Democratic Reforms, Prashant Bhushan, alleged that both the Congress and the UOI suffer from conflict of interests in the case, in the face of a clear finding by the Delhi high court that both the Congress and the BJP had received crores as funding from foreign sources, and that there is not even an iota of doubt that the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 was violated by both.
DK Aruna vs Union of India (WP (c) 512/2015) was dismissed by a three-Judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI), HL Dattu on Friday, 7 August, after spirited arguments in the court for 15 minutes.
The government today told the Supreme Court that it wanted to ban child pornography websites, but expressed its inability to go beyond that and don the role of moral police.
Addressing the apex court bench headed by Chief Justice HL Dattu, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told the court that the state cannot be present in every household to check what people were watching in private and interfere with their entertainment.
Telling the court that there has to be some self regulation to check the viewing of porn websites, the AG told the court that the state could not be totalitarian.
The AG said this to the court in the course of the hearing of a petition seeking a total clampdown on websites showing pornography.
For full account of today's hearing, check CCG Delhi's report
“Hope died, man died, justice lived,” commented Rishabh Sancheti, one of Yakub Memon's advocates, about the early-morning, eleventh hour Supreme Court hearing that ultimately failed to save his client from the noose. “Have you (heard) it happen in any other country?”
SCOI Reports 28 July 2015: Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Home Department, and Others.
The Supreme Court will hear on Monday the plea by 1993 Mumbai serial bomb blasts convict Yakub Memon’s plea challenging the death warrant issued against him and for the stay of his execution set for July 30.
“I have already assigned the bench. It will come by Monday,” said Chief Justice HL Dattu as senior counsel TR Andhyarujina mentioned the matter before the bench on Friday.
Update: The NLU Delhi death penalty litigation clinic has issued a statement:
The writ petition filed by Yakub Memon along with an Intervention Application filed by National Law University, Delhi through its Death Penalty Litigation Clinic will challenge the validity of the death warrant on the grounds that the protections available to death row prisoners during death warrant proceedings (as laid down by the Supreme Court in Shabnam v. Union of India in May 2015) were violated by the Government of Maharashtra.
Politics are in full swing at the SCBA again after yesterday’s meeting.
LiveLaw reported that Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) president Dushyant Dave said at the general body meeting today, in which he had threatened to vote on a boycott of official functions at the Supreme Court attended by judges, that the bench had apparently listened to his demands, including for better infrastructure.
LiveLaw reported Dave saying:
We will celebrate Independence Day and Law Day functions without inviting any of the dignitaries. Today Mr. Venugopal and Mr. Kapil Sibal met me and asked whether they could mediate. I said we are not going to go to the Judges but if they could intervene it is more than welcome.
They met CJI at 10.20 am and the CJI [HL Dattu] has now constituted a Committee. This GBM is now Postponed for 6 weeks for the Committee to address our grievances. If they are not intervening, we’ll again meet and pass the Resolution. This acknowledgement is the beginning of the restoration of our dignity.
Justices Anil R Dave, JS Kehar, Dipak Misra, RF Nariman and UU Lalit will be heading the committee.
Dave had come under fire from other senior advocates such as Ram Jethmalani and PP Rao for his proposed action.
The Supreme Court dismissed a Right to Information (RTI) appeal that had asked for judges’ medical expenses, citing judges’ right to privacy, reported the Indian Express.
The court was hearing advocate Prashant Bhushan for RTI activist Subhash C Aggarwal.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) HL Dattu said: “There should be some respect for privacy and if such information is disclosed, there will be no stopping. Today, someone is asking for information on medical expenses. Tomorrow, he will ask what are the medicines purchased by the judges. When there will be a list of medicines, he can make out what type of ailment the judge is suffering from. It starts like this. Where does this stop?”
Bhushan argued that this decision will set a bad precedent for other public servants who will use it to stonewall similar requests.
Madhya Pradesh district and sessions judge Jagdish Baheti has filed a petition before the Supreme Court over the Madhya Pradesh high court collegium’s decision to elevate his juniors but not him, due to a chargesheet against him alleging that he had granted defendants anticipatory bail on the basis of incorrect facts, reported the Indian Express’s Utkarsh Anand.
He has asked for the elevation process to be stayed until the close of the internal inquiry against him in the case that will be heard by Chief Justice of India (CJI) HL Dattu in July, Baheti had made the news in 2013 for concluding a rape trial in nine days, and had previously appealed before the Supreme Court the inquiry against him, which had told the high court to hear his plea where it was dismissed.