Raju Ramachandran

The hearing of the petition seeking right to worship to women at Sabarimala, Kerala, in the Supreme Court has often led to inquisitive questions from the bench about Hinduism, spirituality, and tradition.

Justice AM Khanwilkar of the Supreme Court Vacation Bench on Monday (20 June) was pleasantly surprised when senior counsel, Raju Ramachandran, gave certain options to the bench, if it were to reject his prayer for bail for an accused who had been denied bail by the Orissa high court.

In the ongoing hearing of petitions challenging the denial of right to worship to women devotees at the Sabarimala temple, Kerala, Justice Kurian Joseph, one of the three judges on the bench, on 18 April, asked amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran, a pointed question: Can you force deity who does not want to see women (of menstruating age), to 'see' women?

The Supreme Court today transferred to the Delhi high court JNU Students' Union president Kanhaiya Kumar's petition seeking bail and security.

An apex court bench of Justice J Chelameswar and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, while transferring Kanhaiya's petition, asked the high court to hear it expeditiously.

The court also recorded the statement of Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar that the lawyers representing Kanhaiya Kumar before the high court and media personnel be provided with full security.

The court directed its secretary general to forthwith transfer Kanhaiya's writ petition and related papers to the high court.

Kanhaiya Kumar's lawyers are likely to mention it for an early hearing before the high court on Friday afternoon.

Not impossible that Delhi HC cannot hear the matter; SC not an appropriate forum and case is not at a right stage to hear the bail: SC

tweeted @CNN-IBN.

Senior counsel Soli Sorabjee, Raju Ramachandran, and advocate Vrinda Grover are all acting for Kumar. Read the petition here.

JNU student leader Kanhaiya Kumar, arrested for sedition, on Thursday moved the Supreme Court for bail as students rallied in support across the country and the opposition took the row to President Pranab Mukherjee.

In a panel discussion on the recent NJAC judgment on 5 November, organized by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, New Delhi at the India International Centre Annexe, eminent senior advocate, Raju Ramachandran, had outlined grave implications for the application of the Basic Structure Doctrine.

At a discussion on the Supreme Court’s recent judgment quashing the 99th Amendment Act and the NJAC Act, eminent academic, Professor Upendra Baxi, defended the judgment, but expected nothing much to come out of the ongoing hearing on reforming the collegium.

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.

SCOI Report, Monday 27 July 2015: Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Home Department, and Others

NLU Delhi’s nine-month-old death penalty clinic helped death penalty convicts Shabnam and Saleem win relief in the Supreme Court, which quashed their death warrants on Wednesday after having stayed their execution earlier in the week.

The clinic, according to its press release, coordinated the legal representation for Shabnam and Saleem who in 2008 had, together as lovers, murdered Shabnam’s family and were sentenced to death in 2010 by a sessions judge in Amrohi. Their death penalty was later confirmed by the Supreme Court and six days after the confirmation their death warrants were handed down. They had filed criminal appeals before the Supreme Court which dismissed these appeals on 15 May 2015.

Senior advocates Raju Ramachandran and Anand Grover, representing the petitioners in Shabnam v. Union of India & Anr and National Law University, Delhi through Death Penalty Litigation Clinic v. Union of India & Anr, challenged the hasty award of death warrants and, according to the release, “emphasised the importance of adhering to constitutionally compatible procedures when decisions with an irreversible impact on an individual’s life are taken by the State”.

The death warrants were issued before Shabnam and Saleem could file review petitions or curative petitions, for which the law gives them 30 days, reported the Indian Express.

Justices AK Sikri and UU Lalit held that the death warrants were awarded in “undue haste and were unwarranted” and “ignored the legal and constitutional options (open court review petitions and mercy petitions before the Governor of Uttar Pradesh and the President of India) available to [Shabnam and Saleem]”.

The Supreme Court, through this judgment, has laid down a clear procedure for issuing death warrants which can only be issued after all legal and constitutional remedies have been exhausted. The court also noted that even when death warrants are sought principles of natural justice and due process of law cannot be ignored.

NLU Delhi’s death penalty clinic is currently working on the legal representation of around 30 prisoners sentences to death.

Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran and advocate-on-record Gaurav Agrawal who were friends of the court in terrorist Ajmal Kasab’s Supreme Court appeal against the death penalty, donated their fee in the case, totalling Rs 15 lakh, to the Legal Services Authority.

A bench of justices Aftab Alam and CK Prasad asked the Maharashtra government to proportionately distribute the amount among the families of the 18 policemen who were killed in the anti-terror operations following Kasab’s 26/11 terror attack [PTI]