Anil R Dave

Angry exchanges between senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the social activist Teesta Setalvad and her husband, Javed Anand, and the Solicitor General, Ranjit Kumar, marked the hearing before Court No 3 at 2pm before justices Anil R Dave, Fakkir Mohammed Ibrahim Kalifulla and V Gopala Gowda.£££para£££

The uncertainty surrounding the Supreme Court’s extension of protection from arrest of social activist, Teesta Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand, will be cleared tomorrow, 14 October, as matter has been listed before justices Anil R Dave, Fakkir mohammed Ibrahim Kalifulla and V Gopala Gowda at 2 p.m. at Court 3. The bench will hear the matter till 2.55 p.m.

As item 8 came up in Court No.3 at 11:30 AM on Monday, 12 October, before justices Anil R Dave and Adarsh Kumar Goel, the principal judge, Dave, showed considerable reluctance to extend the protection given to social activists Teesta Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand from arrest by the Gujarat Police, as sought by their counsel, senior advocate, Kapil Sibal.

Association Of the Victims of Uphaar Tragedy president, Neelam Krishnamoorthy expressed dismay over the reasoned judgment delivered by Justices Anil R Dave, Kurian Joseph and Adarsh Kumar Goel yesterday (Wednesday, September 23) in the Uphaar criminal appeal.

The Supreme Court has said that the magnitude of the Uphaar fire tragedy may call for “higher sentence” but it could not go beyond the choices under the law while sentencing brothers and real estate barons Sushil and Gopal Ansal who own the Uphaar cinema hall, represented by senior counsel Ram Jethmalani.

On September 15, the Supreme Court bench of justices Anil Dave and Adarsh Kumar Goel expedited a pending hearing on admission of SLP, and granted leave thus converting it into a civil appeal, even while continuing the ad-interim relief granted earlier. In the normal course, it would not have raised eyebrows. But when it became known that the subject of the SLP is about the Government’s denial of tax exemption to a film on gay sex, Meghdhanushya, (meaning a spectrum or a rainbow) it made news and rightly so. The film centers around a young boy who finds himself attracted by persons of his own sex.

The Supreme Court yesterday (20 August) declined the CBI’s plea to put forward its arguments on the period of sentence for Ansal brothers - Sushil and Gopal - following their conviction for negligence in 1997 Uphaar fire tragedy which claimed 59 lives.

SCOI Report, Wednesday 29 July 2015: Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Home Department, and Others

SCOI Reports 28 July 2015: Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Home Department, and Others.

Mint reported that Justice Anil R Dave, who’s heading the five-judge constitution bench that will hear challenges to the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, today recused himself from the case:

The move came after senior lawyer Fali S Nariman, who represents lawyers body and petitioner Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association, raised an objection. He argued that after a 13 April notification by the government which brought into force the NJAC Act, Justice Dave became part of the commission whose validity has been challenged.

Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi called the objection raised by Nariman “unfounded” and “completely condemnable”.

The proposed National Judicial Appointments Commission’s (NJAC) validity will now be examined by a Constitution bench in the Supreme Court after a three judge bench referred petitions challenging it to a five judge bench, reported//Mint.

The Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association, the Bar Association of India and several individual lawyers had challenged the NJAC Act on the ground that not only did it threaten the independence of the judiciary but also that the parliament was not competent to pass it because the constitutional amendment giving it such power had not come into effect.

Senior advocate Fali Nariman had argued before the bench of justices Anil R Dave, J Chelameswar and Madan B Lokur that there was a substantial question of law involved in the case, which could be considered only by a constitution bench.

In the petition against the Kerala government shutting down 730 bars, Supreme Court Justice Anil Dave said: “There is no logic. What do you mean sub-standard [bars should be shut]? I am a teetotaller, but even I see no logic... how do you distinguish here?”

The policy that is set to come into force on 12 September, bans liquor sales at 730 supposedly “sub-standard” bars but not at toddy shops and five star hotels, complained a number of senior advocates who appeared for Kerala bar owners, reported The Hindu.

“What are they trying to attain? Prohibition? Five-star hotels, toddy shops will all function... only certain establishments will be cut off,” argued senior advocate Aryama Sundaram, while senior counsel Rajiv Dhavan argued that bars’ licences should not be cancelled prematurely and should continue in their normal duration, until 31 March 2015.

Senior counsel Kapil Sibal countered for the state that selling liquor was not a fundamental right, that the ban was a policy decision, and that bar licences could be cancelled any time by the state. The Supreme Court will hear further arguments tomorrow.