Prafulla C Pant
The Supreme Court bench comprising of justices Ranjan Gogoi, Arun Mishra, and Prafulla C Pant today told Raj Kumar Mehta, the counsel for Lalit Kumar Mishra, the former Additional Judge of the Orissa high court, who challenged his non-appointment as the permanent judge of the high court that there are no records of the proceedings of the Supreme Court collegium.
The curative petition of Yusuf Mohsin Nulwala, a convict in the 1993 Mumbai blast case, will be heard by the Supreme Court tomorrow by the bench comprising the three senior-most Judges, namely, the CJI, TS Thakur, and justices Anil R Dave and JS Khehar beween 1:40 and 1:45 pm in their chambers tomorrow.
Today’s judgment in Sachchidanand Gupta “Sachchey” vs State of UP through Chief Secretary and Others showed that the chief justice of the Allahabad high court had also opposed Justice Sanjay Misra’s name, which was proposed by the chief minister.
Court No 7 of Supreme Court was witness to a suspenseful hearing on 20 January as counsel after counsel told the Bench comprising justices Ranjan Gogoi and Prafulla C Pant that it had been misled by the Uttar Pradesh Government that Justice Virendra Singh, a former judge of the Allahabad high court, whom it appointed as the Lokayukta of Uttar Pradesh under Article 142 of the Constitution, which gives the Court extraordinary powers to do complete justice in a case, was in the list of names being considered by the selection panel.
Retired Supreme Court judge and former Law Commission chairman PV Reddy will re-evaluate the controversial 2014 Delhi Judicial Services exam, ruled a Supreme Court bench of justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C Pant today (14 December).
The Supreme Court today sought a response from Nestle and the Maharashtra government on an FSSAI plea seeking a stay of the Bombay high court order prohibiting food testing by government labs not accredited under new food safety law.
An apex court bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Prafulla C Pant also issued notice on a FSSAI plea for putting the sale of Maggi on hold as it was a proprietary product and it’s sale was contrary to the Section 22 of the FSSAI Act.
However, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told the court that FSSAI for now was not pressing for this prayer.
The court directed the hearing of the matter on 16 January as Nestle, represented by the senior counsel Harish Salve, said that it would file its response by 5 January.
The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the operation of Maharashtra Police Act that prohibited dance performances at eating places, beer bars and restaurants.
Noting that the said provision was brought back in the Maharashtra Police Act in 2014 after being held ultra vires in 2013 by the top court, the bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Prafulla C Pant said that it is “appropriate to stay the provision” that prohibits the dance performances.
However, the court made it clear that the dance performances should not be remotely explicit of any kind of obscenity.
The Supreme Court on Friday sought a response from the central and Kerala governments on a public interest suit seeking immediate halt to the killing of street dog by Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation.
Notice has also been issued to Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation.
A bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Prafulla C Pant sought the response of the governments and the civic body as as public interest petitioner Anupam Tripathi described as illegal and cruel the killing of the street and stray dogs.
Having issued notice returnable in two weeks, the court asked senior counsel Dushyant Dave to assist the court in the matter as it directed next hearing of the matter on 26 October.
Tripathi told the court that the decision to cull the stray dogs was against the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, the Animal Birth Control Rules and the other penal provisions.
The culling of the stray dogs is being carried out following an all-party meeting 9 July, with Chief Minister Oommen Chandy in the chair, where it was decided eliminate more than 2.5 lakh street dogs.
A Supreme Court bench comprising justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C Pant today invoked Sir Winston Churchill through late Justice VR Krishna Iyer, to direct the High Court of Manipur at Imphal to decide expeditiously the election petition against Mairembam Prithviraj, elected from the Moirang assembly constituency of Bishnupur district, Manipur, in the election held on 28 January 2012.
Yusuf Mohsin Nulwala, a convict in the 1993 Mumbai blast case, on Friday moved the Supreme Court with his writ petition (WP (CRL) 150/2015) seeking a reduction in his jail term of five to three years. His plea was that he was wrongly sentenced to five years imprisonment for possessing a prohibited automatic AK-56 assault rifle while he was shown in possession of a non-prohibited semi-automatic AK-56.
Today (27 August) on the second day of the hearing in the Supreme Court, the bench comprising justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C Pant asked counsel representing the Gujarat Government and the respondent, Islamic Relief Committee Gujarat (IRCG), to come up with answers for two questions, during the next hearing on September 23.
Court No 4 witnessed interesting arguments concerning the scope of India’s secularism before justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C Pant, in the case of The State of Gujarat and others vs Islamic Relief Committee, Gujarat (IRCG) and another.
PTI reported that Supreme Court justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C Pant rejected a PIL filed by Prashant Bhushan with his father, senior counsel Shanti Bhushan, appearing:
seeking registration of an FIR against former apex court judge and Press Council of India Chairman Justice C K Prasad for allegedly passing some inappropriate orders in a civil appeal during his tenure as a judge, saying if such pleas are taken up it will “open dangerous doors”.
The bench found that the Lalita Kumari guidelines - requiring police to compulsorily register an FIR in certain cases - should not apply on the present facts to judges. The Bhushans alleged that:
Justice Prasad, during his tenure as Supreme Court judge, passed an order directing listing of a civil appeal before him which was previously pending before another bench.