Ranjit Kumar

The Supreme Court today lifted a ban on registering diesel cars, SUVs and other vehicles with an engine capacity of 2,000 cc and more in the National Capital Region after depositing one per cent of the ex-showroom price as environment compensation charge (ECC) with the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).

Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar today told a Supreme Court bench of justices JS Khehar and Arun Mishra that the government would constitute a medical board to examine a rape survivor tomorrow, who has challenged section 3(2)(b) of Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971 that prohibits abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, even if there is a risk of death to the mother or foetus.

In a revelation which may shock many, the Solicitor General, Ranjit Kumar told the Supreme Court’s three-Judge bench hearing the black money investigation case this afternoon at Court No 2, that nothing survived in this case, and the court could dispose it of.

The Supreme Court’s constitution bench hearing on the sharing of river water through the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal, took an interesting turn this afternoon with Punjab’s counsel, senior advocate, Ram Jethmalani, making a strong pitch for the return of the Presidential reference on the issue unanswered.

It was pretty much about who would blink first: Swamy or the bench.

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.

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.

As the Supreme Court’s five-Judge Constitution Bench presided over by Justice JS Khehar began its hearing on reforming the collegium (the in-house mechanism to recruit Judges to the higher judiciary after its recent revival by the same bench) the bench sought advice from counsel on both sides on how to navigate the plethora of diverse proposals which it received.

Angry exchanges between senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the social activist Teesta Setalvad and her husband, Javed Anand, and the Solicitor General, Ranjit Kumar, marked the hearing before Court No 3 at 2pm before justices Anil R Dave, Fakkir Mohammed Ibrahim Kalifulla and V Gopala Gowda.£££para£££

The Supreme Court wants to know what happens to seized contraband across India, following allegations by former justice Ajit Kumar Sinha that only five to 10 per cent of it was destroyed, reported The Telegraph.

A Supreme Court bench of justices TS Thakur and NV Ramana were hearing the government’s appeal against the Punjab and Haryana high court’s acquittal of a drug peddler.

Sinha, who was appointed as the friend of the court, said that although authorities seized drugs such as Ganja, Hashish, Heroine, Ecstacy and other substances, worth hundreds of crores of rupees every day, only five to 10 per cent of it was destroyed. He also gave the instance of Calcutta where there was no record of how seized contraband was dealt with.

The judges asked solicitor general Ranjit Kumar to place before the court the steps being taken in Delhi to dispose of such contraband, within a week. They asked Kumar if any “drug disposal committee” had been set up in Delhi which was under the control of the central government, for law and order.

As the oral submissions in the Union of India vs V Sriharan @ Murugan matter concluded on Wednesday (August 12) in the Supreme Court, it became obvious that the Rajasthan government chose to adopt the submissions of other State Governments who have, by and large, opposed the Union of India’s plea for restricting the state governments’ power under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC ) to remit life sentences.

On yesterday’s penultimate day of hearing of Union of India vs V Sriharan @ Murugan, the battle lines were clearly drawn between the Central Government and the State Governments, most of whom are listed as respondents in this case.

The central government on Monday told the Supreme Court that any invalidation of the NJAC for the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary would not result in the automatic resurrection of the collegium system of appointment.