Prashant Bhushan

The Supreme Court’s Social Justice bench comprising of Justices Madan B Lokur and Uday Umesh Lalit pursued their quest for social justice on Friday, Sepember 18 with a combination of compliment, reprimand, and expression of dismay. The bench heard eight cases in two hours from 2 pm in Court 9.

A Supreme Court bench comprising of justices Madan B Lokur, Kurian Joseph and AK Sikri finally gave the go-ahead today (14 September), to the inquiry team led by former CBI special director ML Sharma to probe the visitors’ diary of former CBI chief Ranjit Sinha.

A Supreme Court bench of justices Gopala Gowda and Amitava Roy declined a transfer petition from Ahmedabad city civil court to Delhi in the Rs 250 crore defamation case launched by Essar against Caravan magazine and others, as first reported by Legally India in August.

Mint reported:

Lawyer Prashant Bhushan, representing the magazine, argued on Tuesday that none of the actions leading to the alleged defamation had occurred in Ahmedabad, and the appropriate and convenient forum was Delhi. He called Essar’s petition a Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) suit aimed at harassing the magazine. He said that it was in the interest of justice to transfer the case to Delhi, so that Caravan could produce its witnesses and defend its case.

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.

The 2014 Delhi Judicial Service (DJS) exam’s controversial results were not stayed, but may be probed after the Supreme Court’s order in a writ today. The DJS will hold its interviews for selection of judges in Delhi on Thursday, as per schedule.

“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?”

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.

Prashant Bhushan today termed the government’s decision to appoint former Central Board of Direct Taxation chief KV Chowdary as the new chief vigilance commissioner (CVC) as “shameful and unfortunate”, as senior counsel and BJP politician Ram Jethmalani penned a public break up letter to the Prime Minister earlier today.

“It’s shameful and unfortunate that the BJP and the Congress have come together to destroy the CVC (by) appointing a dubious and pliable person as its chief,” Bhushan told IANS

Bhushan said he would take up the matter: “I will challenge it in the court.”

Earlier in the day, the central government announced appointment of former Central Board of Direct Taxation chief KV Chowdary as the new CVC

TM Bhasin, chairman and managing director of the public sector Indian Bank, was appointed vigilance commissioner and senior most Information Commissioner Vijai Sharma was named the new Chief Information Commissioner (CIC).

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, accused in a defamation case filed by senior congress leader Kapil Sibal’s son Amit, appeared before a court here on Saturday.

Kejriwal appeared before Metropolitan Magistrate Sunil Kumar Sharma after Amit Sibal’s counsel opposed his application seeking exemption from personal appearance as Kejriwal had to attend the convocation function of St. Stephen’s College.

Sibal’s counsel Mohit Mathur opposed Kejriwal’s plea and said whether a college convocation was more important than attending court proceedings.

Kejriwal’s counsel Rahul Mehra told the court that Kejriwal and Sisodia would appear before it at 12.30 p.m. and after that both marked their presence in the afternoon.

Mathur, however, did not oppose the exemption plea moved by Sisodia.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan and Shazia Ilmi, who has quit the Aam Aadmi Party, accused in the case also appeared before court.

Meanwhile, the court recorded the statement of Amit Sibal.

The case was filed by Amit Sibal after Kejriwal, during a press conference in 2013, alleged conflict of interest over his appearing in the Supreme Court for telecom major Vodafone while his father was the union communication minister.

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.

Saurav Datta discusses the authorities’ weak case for refusing Prashant Bhushan a full 10-year passport renewal.