Supreme Court

Access will be chargeable but is hoped to overcome difficulties.

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, accused in a defamation case filed by senior congress leader Kapil Sibal’s son Amit, appeared before a court here on Saturday.

Kejriwal appeared before Metropolitan Magistrate Sunil Kumar Sharma after Amit Sibal’s counsel opposed his application seeking exemption from personal appearance as Kejriwal had to attend the convocation function of St. Stephen’s College.

Sibal’s counsel Mohit Mathur opposed Kejriwal’s plea and said whether a college convocation was more important than attending court proceedings.

Kejriwal’s counsel Rahul Mehra told the court that Kejriwal and Sisodia would appear before it at 12.30 p.m. and after that both marked their presence in the afternoon.

Mathur, however, did not oppose the exemption plea moved by Sisodia.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan and Shazia Ilmi, who has quit the Aam Aadmi Party, accused in the case also appeared before court.

Meanwhile, the court recorded the statement of Amit Sibal.

The case was filed by Amit Sibal after Kejriwal, during a press conference in 2013, alleged conflict of interest over his appearing in the Supreme Court for telecom major Vodafone while his father was the union communication minister.

Mint reported that Justice Anil R Dave, who’s heading the five-judge constitution bench that will hear challenges to the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, today recused himself from the case:

The move came after senior lawyer Fali S Nariman, who represents lawyers body and petitioner Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association, raised an objection. He argued that after a 13 April notification by the government which brought into force the NJAC Act, Justice Dave became part of the commission whose validity has been challenged.

Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi called the objection raised by Nariman “unfounded” and “completely condemnable”.

PTI reported that Supreme Court justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C Pant rejected a PIL filed by Prashant Bhushan with his father, senior counsel Shanti Bhushan, appearing:

seeking registration of an FIR against former apex court judge and Press Council of India Chairman Justice C K Prasad for allegedly passing some inappropriate orders in a civil appeal during his tenure as a judge, saying if such pleas are taken up it will “open dangerous doors”.

The bench found that the Lalita Kumari guidelines - requiring police to compulsorily register an FIR in certain cases - should not apply on the present facts to judges. The Bhushans alleged that:

Justice Prasad, during his tenure as Supreme Court judge, passed an order directing listing of a civil appeal before him which was previously pending before another bench.

PTI reported that a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice AR Dave rejected the review of Yakub Abdul Razak Memon’s death penalty, after having stayed his execution on 2 June 2014 and upholding the sentence on 21 March 2013.

Memon had planted explosives in cars in Mumbai, with 10 of his accomplices having had their death sentences commuted to life terms.

The proposed National Judicial Appointments Commission’s (NJAC) validity will now be examined by a Constitution bench in the Supreme Court after a three judge bench referred petitions challenging it to a five judge bench, reported//Mint.

The Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association, the Bar Association of India and several individual lawyers had challenged the NJAC Act on the ground that not only did it threaten the independence of the judiciary but also that the parliament was not competent to pass it because the constitutional amendment giving it such power had not come into effect.

Senior advocate Fali Nariman had argued before the bench of justices Anil R Dave, J Chelameswar and Madan B Lokur that there was a substantial question of law involved in the case, which could be considered only by a constitution bench.

Senior advocate Harish Salve is assisting the 50-lawyer strong society of Indian lawyers fighting the Bar Council of India (BCI) in the Supreme Court, for liberalisation in Indian legal services.

The Bar Council of India’s (BCI) appeal opposing entry of foreign law firms into India today inched forward in the Supreme Court, as the respondents finished filing their written submissions 32 months after the first hearing in the case.

The Supreme Court has announced that its next advocate-on-record (AOR) examination will take place from 26 to 29 May 2015: Read SC notification and guidelines here (PDF).