R Banumathi

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.

The Supreme Court’s two constitution benches in adjacent court rooms of 1 and 3 heard two governors simultaneously at 2pm today: one a former governor, and an alleged victim of political vendetta, and the other a sitting governor, who allegedly conspired with the Centre to topple a duly-elected government by recommending President’s rule.

History was made today, with three Constitution benches sitting at the same time in the Supreme Court at 2 pm.

The Supreme Court on Monday was unimpressed with the functioning of the national carrier Air India, which is running into losses while other private airlines are prospering, demanding to know the reason why, reported The Economic Times.

A bench of Chief Justice of India TS Thakur, Justice AK Sikri and Justice R Banumathi asked: “While private airlines are prospering, Air India is going into red. Who should be held responsible for Air India mess? There are so many stories going around.”

They were hearing a public interest litigation asking the carrier to commence flights connecting Delhi and Shimla. The Himachal Pradesh high court had on 7 December 2015 asked the carrier to commence that flight route on a trial basis, which was put on hold by the Supreme Court.

Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar, representing Air India, told the court that the flight connecting the two cities was not economical as there were 12 to 15 one-way passengers only, and that Shimla airport did not have refuelling facilities to which the court reportedly reprimanded the government with: “You have already constructed an airport, probably spending Rs 100 crores, now you can’t say that there is no refuelling facilities.”

The court issued notice to the civil aviation ministry, the Airports Authority of India, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation, and the Himachal Pradesh government as well as the petitioner Paras Daulta.

The matter will come up for hearing next on 16 February.

Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India TS Thakur declined to entertain a public interest litigation demanding bringing of a uniform civil code in the country on Monday telling the petitioner that the power to do so remains with parliament and not the judiciary, reported The Times of India.

The petitioner Ashwini Upadhayay was represented by four senior advocates including Gopal Subramanium and Mohan Parasaran who relied on Directive Principles in the Constitution as well as case laws where the Supreme Court has insisted on introduction of the Uniform Civil Code.

The bench of TS Thakur and Justices AK Sikri and R Banumathi were unmoved by petitioner and said that heavy costs would be imposed on him if he continued with the petition. The bench said: “Sarla Mudgal case is the best that you can refer to in support of the PIL Article 44 is a constitutional goal. Are courts equipped and empowered to enforce constitutional goals? It reflects the hopes of Constitution makers. But hopes will remain in the realm of hope unless Parliament decides to convert them into enforceable rights.”

“The Supreme Court has consistently declined to go into it. The moot question is can Supreme Court convert a Directive Principle into fundamental right? It is for Parliament to take a call on it. What cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly through the courts.”

The bench however provided hope to Muslim women and observed that if and when a Muslim woman comes to the court and challenges triple talaq, it would be examined by the court and also said that no woman from a Muslim community has questioned the practice of triple talaq till now.

The petition was withdrawn by the petitioner’s advocate.

When the petition filed by Delhi Grameen Samaj and others against the Central Government’s Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance came up in court No.4 on Thursday, 24 September, it was a foregone conclusion that Justice JS Khehar, and Justice R Banumathi who heard it, would consider it infructuous, as the ordinance had already lapsed.

Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre, R Banumathi and Prafulla Chandra Pant, together with former senior counsel UU Lalit today took up their post as Supreme Court judges to take the bench strength of the apex court up to 30 out of 31 sanctioned judges. PTI

The Madras high court, the Jharkhand high court, the Delhi high court and the Meghalaya high court will soon have new chief justices respectively with Madras HC acting chief justice RK Agrawal, Madras HC seniormost judge R Banumathi, Andhra Pradesh HC acting chief justice NV Ramana and seniormost Uttarakhand HC judge PC Pant’s names cleared  by the collegium, reported the Hindu.

It is the first time an Andhra Pradesh or Uttarakhand high court judge has become chief in any high court

“Justice Agrawal (60) became a permanent judge of the Allahabad High Court and he became acting Chief Justice of the Madras High Court on February 7 this year. A direct recruit, Justice Banumathi (58) entered the Tamil Nadu Higher Judicial Service in 1988 as district judge. She has worked as district and sessions judge in Coimbatore and Vellore. Justice Ramana (56), who hails from an agricultural family at Ponnavaram in Krishna district, has functioned as additional standing counsel for the Central government.”