Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Thursday sought response from the central and Delhi governments on a plea filed by three lawyers seeking ban on the sale and bursting of firecrackers during the festival of Dussehra and Diwali because it further aggravates the already dangerous level of air pollution.
Heated exchanges were witnessed in Court No 6 of the Supreme Court between 2 and 4 pm in the hearing of the case of Nagrik chetna manch vs UOI The attorney general, Mukul Rohatgi, who argued in favour of modification of the Court’s 11 August order clashed with SA Shyam Divan, who represented the petitioners in the main case, and opposed the modification plea.
Justice N Kirubakaran of the Madras high court passed radical directions on a petition asking the court to curb entry of persons with criminal antecedents into the legal profession and to maintain purity of law courses.
In the Extra-Judicial Execution of Victim Families Association vs Union of India, which came up before the bench of justices Madan B Lokur and UU Lalit at Court 9 on Monday at 2.30 p.m., the amicus curiae, Menaka Guruswamy, proposed the setting up of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the six fake encounters involving seven victims in Manipur, as a result of action by the security forces.
The Supreme Court on Monday asked the central and Delhi governments as to why pollution compensatory charge be not levied on the trucks and commercial vehicles entering national capital and further contributing to already alarming air pollution in the city.
The Supreme Court today asked the chief justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court to form a three-judge bench to examine the validity of penal provisions that bans slaughtering of cattle and sale of beef in the state.
Chief Justice HL Dattu and Justice Amitava Roy put on hold the order of the Jammu bench of the high court directing the police chief in the state to enforce the Ranbir penal code provisions banning beef in the state.
The court passed the order after noting the conflicting orders passed by the Jammu and Srinagar bench of the high court.
The Jammu bench had asked the police chief to enforce the ban while the Srinagar bench had issued notice challenging the validity of the provision banning beef.
The Srinagar bench had said that if the state legislature wanted to scrap or amend these provisions, then the pendency of the matter before it will not come in the way of the assembly.
The Supreme Court has imposed a penalty of Rs 5 lakh on the Kerala State Electricity Board and NTPC for urging it to allow withdrawal of their appeal, saying they cannot treat the court according to their own convenience.
A bench of Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice NV Ramana on Thursday took exception to the petitioners KSEB and NTPC seeking to withdraw their plea and said the withdrawal will be subject to payment of Rs 5 lakh to the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority.
Confirming that KSEB and NTPC were imposed Rs 5 lakh cost, counsel Vikas Upadhyay representing respondents Essar Power MP Ltd on Friday said the court did not appreciate the way the withdrawal of the case was sought after the judges had gone through four volumes of the petition running into 890 pages.
Imposing the cost, the bench said: “If you wanted to withdraw, why did you in first instance file it and persuaded us to issue notice.”
This is not a drawing room where you can walk in and walk out at your own ease, it added.
The Supreme Court dismissed the public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to curtail attorneys general’s ability to act for private parties.
Headline: No issue for AG to act for private parties, says SC
“As long as there is no conflict of interest, there is no issue. We may address him as learned Attorney General even when he is appearing for private parties but that does not mean he is considered as the law officer of the government. No, we cannot intervene in the matter and issue any orders,” said a bench of Chief Justice HL Dattu and Justice Amitava Roy.
reported The Indian Express.
A Supreme Court bench comprising justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C Pant today invoked Sir Winston Churchill through late Justice VR Krishna Iyer, to direct the High Court of Manipur at Imphal to decide expeditiously the election petition against Mairembam Prithviraj, elected from the Moirang assembly constituency of Bishnupur district, Manipur, in the election held on 28 January 2012.
The Modi government’s law ministry wants the Supreme Court to disclose greater details about itself, including court-wise pendency of civil as well as criminal cases, number of adjournments in each particular case and sanctioned and working strength of judges to increase transparency in the legal system reported The Times of India.
The suggestions, given with an intent to increase transparency in the appraisal of Judges, were given to the e-court committee of the Supreme Court that operates the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG).
The government is considering conducting an independent study using the data available through the NJDG to find out the cause of huge pendency in courts; at last count, the pendency in subordinate courts was estimated to be more than 2.65 crore while the total pendency was around 3.10 crore, including those in the SC and HCs.
The government’s demand comes before the Supreme Court is set to announce its verdict on the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) on which arguments were heard in detail in July this year. Transparency in appointment of judges has been one of the arguments used in favour of the NJAC
Should it be directed to the Government of India not to give permission to the Attorney General for India to appear for private parties against the state and its instrumentalities? This is the question which a Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice HL Dattu and Justice Amitava Roy would be faced with, when a PIL seeking such a direction would be called for hearing before them.
In Arjun Gopal vs UOI filed in the Supreme Court, the three infants, all residents of Delhi, have sought the immediate intervention of Supreme Court against the inevitable and upcoming widespread use of firecrackers and fireworks and other products of the same classification, especially during the festivals of Dussehra and Diwali. The Supreme Court, their petition says, is bound under Article 32 to take interim steps in effectuating the people’s right to clean, healthy and breathable air under Article 21.
The reported comments of the Chief Justice of India, Justice HL Dattu, while refusing to entertain a petition from a journalist from Chennai seeking a ban on the sacrifice of animals during religious festivals across the country, have led to considerable consternation.
Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Monday said his government has almost prepared the Jan Lokayukta Bill’s draft and planned to present it in the next session of the state assembly.
“Jan Lokayukta Bill (is) almost ready. We should be able to present it in next session of assembly,” Kejriwal tweeted.
Delhi government officials confirmed that the draft of the bill has been prepared.
“Draft of the bill has been completed. Some final touches are being given to it. A team under Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia is working hard in this connection,” an official told IANS
Kejriwal government in its previous 49-day tenure had resigned after failing to get the bill passed in the Delhi Assembly last year.
The AAP, which returned to power by winning 67 of the 70 seats in the assembly elections, had positioned the Jan Lokayukta Bill as one of its key poll promises.
The bill was earlier scheduled to be tabled in the Budget session of the assembly in June.
The bill was to be tabled in the assembly in June but at that time the city government and Lt Governor Najeeb Jung were engaged in a bittter row over the transfer of bureaucrats, and the matter had reached President Pranab Mukherjee, the Supreme Court and the Delhi high court.
In a huge setback to corporate honcho Anshuman S Ruia and Ravi S Ruia and their company Essar Teleholding, the Supreme Court today upheld their trial by the Special CBI court trying 2G scam cases, rejecting their plea that they should instead be tried by a magisterial court.