Supreme Court
Karnataka government advocate general Ravivarma Kumar has submitted his resignation to the chief minister over appointment of two additional advocates general without his opinion reported The Newsminute. This is Ravivarma’s second resignation in two years.
Ravivarma was reportedly miffed at appointment of two senior counsels to argue the cauvery and krishna water disputes at the Supreme Court by the state without consulting him last year.
Ravivarma had, three months ago opposed the appointment of Raghavendra Nadagouda and Devdutt Kamath as additional attorney generals despite of which they were appointed.
21 additional judges of three high courts were granted extension through notifications by the Ministry of Law and Justice after receiving the first set of recommendations from the collegium reported Business Standard.
Additional judges from Calcutta high court granted extension for three months from 30 October were Samapati Chatterjee, Sahidullah Munshi, Subrata Talukdar, Tapabrata Chakraborty, Arindam Sinha, Arijit Banerjee and Debangsu Basak.
Additional judges from the Karnataka high court granted three months extension with effect from 24 October are Arakalagudu Venkataramaiah Chandrashekara, Rathnakala, Budihal Rudrappa Bhimappa, Pradeep Dattatraya Waingankar and Koratagere Narasimha Murthy Phaneendra.
The additional judges from Telangana high court granted three month extension with effect from 23 October are Bulusu Siva Sankara Rao, Mandhata Seetharama Murti, Saripella Ravi Kumar, Upmaka Durga Prasad Rao, Talluri Sunil Chowdary, Mallavolu Satyanarayana Murthy, Misrilal Sunil Kishore Jaiswal, Ambati Shankar Narayana and Anis.
From 13 April to 16 October this year, there was no system in place to appoint judges in India leading to increase in vacancies in the courts as the collegium system was replaced by NJAC Act, which was under scrutiny by Supreme Court.
Realizing the shortage of number of judges at various high courts, on 18 October the Law Ministry sent files of the additional judges to the collegium for its immediate consideration, it was reported. On the recommendation of the collegium, the extension or ‘reappointment’ was cleared by the government and sent to the President for his assent and later notified.
Justice Kurian Joseph’s historical counterfactual: If only the bench that heard the First Judges case in 1981 had not ignored Samsher Singh, there would not have been Second Judges, Third Judges, and Fourth Judges cases later.
Long live the collegium and it'll have to… If it continues at the same rates as for the last decade, it'll take 33 years to fill high court vacancies.
1.5 lakh Below Poverty Line (BPL) family households in Haryana do not have toilets, while 7 lakh do have them, attorney general Mukul Rohatgi told the Supreme Court during arguments on the validity of the amendments to the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994, reported the Indian Express.
Rohatgi submitted this figure in respone to justice J Chelameswar’s query while hearing the constitutional validity of the amendment mandating functional toilets in the home of panchayat poll candidates in Haryana.
The Haryana Panchayati Raj Act 1994 as amended to include the criteria on toilets, along with minimum compulsory educational qualification for a candidate, has been suspended in the state till the matter is adjudicated by the Supreme Court. The Haryana government contends that these changes would help the elected representatives to lead by example.
Justice J Chelameswar, who joined the Supreme Court on 10 October 2011, has so far given four dissenting judgments, including the NJAC verdict delivered on 16 October.
The future independence or otherwise of the judiciary will be decided today in the fourth judges case, ruling on the validity or otherwise of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).
Retired Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju has castigated the Supreme Court for its judgment against fired Gujarat police service officer Sanjiv Bhatt on his blog.
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 uncertainty surrounding the Supreme Court’s extension of protection from arrest of social activist, Teesta Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand, will be cleared tomorrow, 14 October, as matter has been listed before justices Anil R Dave, Fakkir mohammed Ibrahim Kalifulla and V Gopala Gowda at 2 p.m. at Court 3. The bench will hear the matter till 2.55 p.m.
The Supreme Court today dismissed the plea by sacked Gujarat cadre IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt seeking an SIT probe into allegations that he had hacked into the email account of the then additional advocate general of Gujarat, Tushar Mehta, and tampered with it.
Mehta is at present the additional solicitor general mainly representing the central government in the Supreme Court.
An apex court bench of Chief Justice HL Dattu and Justice Arun Mishra while rejecting Bhatt’s plea asked the trial court to complete the hearing as expeditiously as possible.
The verdict was pronounced by Justice Mishra.
It also rejected Bhatt’s plea for an SIT probe into the allegation that he had forced his official driver to file an affidavit that he drove him to then chief minister Narendra Modi’s official residence on Feb 27, 2002 where Modi allegedly asked his officers to let people vent their anger in the wake of Godhra train carnage.
As item 8 came up in Court No.3 at 11:30 AM on Monday, 12 October, before justices Anil R Dave and Adarsh Kumar Goel, the principal judge, Dave, showed considerable reluctance to extend the protection given to social activists Teesta Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand from arrest by the Gujarat Police, as sought by their counsel, senior advocate, Kapil Sibal.
Tomorrow, on Tuesday 13 October, the SC delivers will deliver judgment in Narendra Modi-baiter Sanjiv Bhatt’s plea to constitute a SIT to probe his allegations against Gujarat Government’s collusion with the riot-accused, and shield him from harassment.
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.
The Maharashtra government will have to figure out its stance on the legality of casinos in the state, within six months, after the Bombay high court today ordered it to take a decision on the yet-not-notified Maharashtra Casinos (Control & Tax) Act 1976.
Hariani & Co solicitor Anirudh Hariani briefed senior counsel Mihir Desai and instructed advocate Gaurav Mehta on the petition of Jay Sayta seeking directions to take a conclusive step about the 38-year-old law.
A bench of justices VM Kanade and Shalini Phansalkar today disposed of Sayta’s petition which was filed in February, as reported by Legally India.
Sayta today told Legally India in an email that the bench directed the state government to take a reasoned decision on what it intends to do with the Act. He said that this decision is consistent with the Supreme Court’s year 1988 decision in Aeltemesh Rein V Union of India.
The court has also allowed Sayta to file a fresh petition if he is not satisfied with the Maharashtra government’s course of action on this order.
Arguments in Rajbala vs State of Haryana] began in Court No.6 before justices J Chelameswar and AM Sapre on Wednesday, 7 October with petitioners’ counsel, Kirti Singh making her submissions first. She was followed by senior advocates, Sanjay Parikh and Indira Jaising on 8 October. Indira Jaising, who began her arguments at 2 p.m. was on her legs, when the Court rose for the day at 4 p.m.