Mukul Rohatgi

The Cauvery climax, which was originally scheduled for 6 October, unraveled itself yesterday.

6 October is likely to be the climax in the ongoing Cauvery hearing in the Supreme Court, if one were to interpret today’s outcome in Court No 4 in the afternoon.

A Supreme Court bench of justices JS Khehar and Dipak Misra today disposed of three writ petitions challenging President’s rule in Arunachal Pradesh, which was imposed on 26 January, as infructuous.

So, how did today’s much expected hearing on the Cauvery case go in the Supreme Court?

So, finally, the Delhi high court ruled in favour of the Lt. Governor of Delhi, Najeeb Jung, and the Central Government, in their turf war with Delhi’s Chief Minister, Arvind Kejriwal.

What could have been a complicated case before the Supreme Court, turned out to be a much simpler affair, with the bench comprising of justices JS Khehar and Arun Mishra reading out the report submitted by the Medical Board of seven doctors who examined the rape survivor, who is in her 24th week of pregnancy.

The Supreme Court today expressed doubt over validity of the ordinance providing that states could hold their own entrance examination for admission to undergraduate medical courses for the current academic year bypassing the National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET) but refused to interfere with its operation.

The much awaited Delhi-Centre turf war case was finally heard today at court No 4 around noon as item 64, with the bench of justices Dipak Misra and UU Lalit giving the Delhi Government's counsel, Indira Jaising, enough opportunity to make her submissions, but without compromising its position that it would not direct the high court to first decide the jurisdiction issue.

Item 72, listed as the last case before justices JS Khehar and Arun Mishra at Court No.3, was the one which everyone was waiting for.

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to stay the NEET ordinance, saying that its validity on the ground it violated Article 14 of the constitution could be challenged when the court opened after the summer break.

The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce on Friday its verdict on a batch of petitions including by Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and BJP leader Subramanian Swamy challenging the constitutional validity of sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code providing for criminal defamation.

The Supreme Court today cleared the decks for ousted Uttarakhand Chief Minister Harish Rawat to prove his legislative majority in the state assembly on Tuesday, but nine disqualified rebel Congress legislators won't be allowed to vote.

The top court said it would monitor the voting that is to take place at 11 a.m. The entire proceedings of the house will be videographed, the court said.

The two-judge division bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Shiva Kirti Singh also ordered that President's Rule in the hill state will be kept in abeyance from 10.30 a.m. to 1 p.m. for the house proceedings.

The order came after the central government informed the court that it was ready to conduct a floor test in Uttarakhand only if it is done under the top court's supervision.

"There should be one agenda (for the short session in the assembly). It should only be a test of strength between the two political alliances in the assembly," Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told the court, appearing for the central government.

Rohatgi told reporters that the voting record and the videographed proceeding would be handed over to the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Uttarakhand has been under President's Rule since 27 March after the central government dismissed the Congress government led by Rawat, citing constitutional crisis in the hill state.

The central government invoked the controversial Article 356 to remove Rawat saying his government was in minority after nine Congress legislators rebelled.

President's Rule was lifted for a few hours in the state following an Uttarakhand High Court order on 21 April. It was reimposed by the Supreme Court a day later.

Uttarakhand was plunged into political crisis after nine Congress legislators, including former chief minister Vijay Bahuguna, whom Rawat replaced, rebelled and turned to the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

The crisis peaked on 18 March when the assembly passed a finance bill by voice vote even as the opposition, backed by the rebel Congress members, demanded recorded voting. The BJP cried foul after Speaker Govind Kunjwal declined.

Rawat was then asked by Governor KK Paul to prove his majority on 28 March. Two days ahead of the voting, Speaker Kunjwal disqualified the Congress rebels.

In the 70-member house, the Congress has 27 legislators, excluding the rebels who won't be allowed to take part in the trust vote on Tuesday. The BJP has 28 members. There are six from other parties who have earlier voiced their support for the Congress government.

Rawat would need at least 32 members to support him in the house whose strength has been reduced to 61 after the disqualification of nine members.

Disqualified "rightly or wrongly", the Supreme Court said, the nine Congress members cannot vote in Tuesday's floor test.

Shortly before lunch the matter of the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) appointment came up in Court 3 with Prashant Bhushan, counsel for petitioner, making the submissions of why the CVC's appointment was dubious.

The Supreme Court today said that the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) will conduct the National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET) on 1 May and 24 July for admission to under-graduate medical courses as it had earlier directed.

The Supreme Court is likely to hear later on Friday the centre's suggestion to hold NEET in one go - on 24 July - as it would be difficult for students not proficient in English to appear in the exam.

Asking the Supreme Court to quash a resolution of Parliament is not a simple thing. That too in the face of eminent voices in the legal fraternity disapproving of such a plea.

Tense moments were witnessed when Justice Ranjan Gogoi, sitting with Pinaki Chandra Ghose, was dictating order in the Supreme Court’s room 7 at 3:30pm earlier today, in the contempt petition against the Union of India, and the Delhi and Tamil Nadu Governments in the political advertisements case.

The writ petition of the former Judge of the Supreme Court and former chairman of the Press Council of India, Markandey Katju, challenging the unanimous resolutions passed by both the  Houses of Parliament disapproving of his remarks on Mahatma Gandhi and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose in March last year, was heard by the Supreme Court’s three Judge bench this forenoon, with the Amicus Curiae, Fali Nariman making a snide remark about the petitioner considering himself a super citizen, by adding ‘former Judge of the Supreme Court’ etc, to his name.