Amitava Roy

A Supreme Court of justices Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy, who had passed a controversial order purporting to make playing of the national anthem in cinemas obligatory, today said that cinema goers who were physically disabled would not have to stand but should show “conduct commensurate to respect”, according to Janta Ka Reporter.

The Supreme Court today refused to entertain the petition of BJP leader and lawyer Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay, who seeking to get an order to make playing of the national anthem compulsory before court proceedings from the same bench that had on Wednesday passed a controversial order making the playing of the anthem in cinemas mandatory, reported PTI.

A bench of justices Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy ordered that in line with states such as Maharashtra, all cinema halls in India must play the national anthem before movie screenings in order to “instill a sense of committed patriotism and nationalism” in citizens.

The Cauvery dispute is the most intractable of all the river water disputes, did you say? Think again.

On 17 August, before it broke for a long weekend of four days, a three-judge Supreme Court (SC) bench of justices Ranjan Gogoi, Prafulla Chandra Pant and AM Khanwilkar referred a challenge to its immunity from the Right to Information (RTI) Act to a five-judge constitution bench. The decision, made after a brief hearing, was a surprise as well as a disappointment.

The Supreme Court granted another extension of three months to all state bar councils last week, which have been struggling to complete verification of lawyers under the Bar Council of India (BCI) (Certificate of Practice) Rules.

The Supreme Court's vacation bench, comprising justices PC Ghose and Amitava Roy, on 10 June, was surprised to learn that an assistant teacher in the Malda district of West Bengal, had been teaching theology in a Madrasa without receiving salary for nearly a decade.

Justice Amitava Roy of the Supreme Court's vacation bench asked counsel for the respondent in a motor accident insurance claim case, whether he knew the time of the day. The question left his colleague on the bench, Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose, as well as the counsel, surprised and trying to figure out where he was going.

The Supreme Court today said that the provisions of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act could not be invoked by the alleged sex workers to resist their eviction from the places being used as brothel that have been directed to be closed by the courts.

Supreme Court Advocates on Record (AoR) need not verify their right to practice under the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) Certificate of Practice Rules 2015.

Justice AM Khanwilkar, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan and the former additional solicitor general L Nageswara Rao were sworn-in as judges of the Supreme Court on Friday.

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.

Adding to his list of failed litigations, Supreme Court of India has dismissed a public interest litigation filed by advocate Manohar Lal Sharma, in which Sharma had urged the Court to take judicial note of a statement made by actor Salman Khan’s father Salim Khan that the Khan family had spent Rs 25 crore on the litigation involving 2002-hit and run case.

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.

The Supreme Court today refused to entertain a petition seeking cancellation of bail of Bollywood star Salman Khan who was convicted and sentenced in a hit and run case.

A bench of Justice FMI Kalifulla and Justice Amitava Roy refused to entertain the plea saying the order of Bombay high court doesn’t require interference.

Khan was granted bail by the high court on the very day he was convicted and sentenced by the sessions court. The plea filed by Sushila Bai Himmat Rao Patil challenged the bail order.

The actor was on 6 May found guilty in the 28 September, 2002 hit and run case and sentenced to five years’ jail for various charges, including culpable homicide not amounting to murder. One person was killed and four injured when the actor’s car ran over them while they were sleeping on a pavement.

In August the Supreme Court had also dismissed a petition seeking cancellation of Khan’s bail.

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a PIL seeking a CBI probe into the citizenship row of Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi.

Chief Justice HL Dattu and Justice Amitava Roy dismissed the PIL filed by lawyer ML Sharma, saying PILs cannot be individual-centric.

The court also questioned the petitioner about the authenticity of the documents he had placed before the court.

The Supreme Court today asked the chief justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court to form a three-judge bench to examine the validity of penal provisions that bans slaughtering of cattle and sale of beef in the state.

Chief Justice HL Dattu and Justice Amitava Roy put on hold the order of the Jammu bench of the high court directing the police chief in the state to enforce the Ranbir penal code provisions banning beef in the state.

The court passed the order after noting the conflicting orders passed by the Jammu and Srinagar bench of the high court.

The Jammu bench had asked the police chief to enforce the ban while the Srinagar bench had issued notice challenging the validity of the provision banning beef.

The Srinagar bench had said that if the state legislature wanted to scrap or amend these provisions, then the pendency of the matter before it will not come in the way of the assembly.

The Supreme Court dismissed the public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to curtail attorneys general’s ability to act for private parties.

Headline: No issue for AG to act for private parties, says SC

“As long as there is no conflict of interest, there is no issue. We may address him as learned Attorney General even when he is appearing for private parties but that does not mean he is considered as the law officer of the government. No, we cannot intervene in the matter and issue any orders,” said a bench of Chief Justice HL Dattu and Justice Amitava Roy.

reported The Indian Express.