•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student
other

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences

TR Andhyarujina

29 March 2017

Senior counsel TR Andhyarujina passed away early yesterday morning, with his funeral having taken place yesterday afternoon.

17 July 2016

The Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution bench judgment of 13 July, quashing president’s rule in Arunachal Pradesh, was a massive judgment in every way, and not just because it set off a series of dramatic events loaded with suspense.

12 May 2016

The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce on Friday its verdict on a batch of petitions including by Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and BJP leader Subramanian Swamy challenging the constitutional validity of sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code providing for criminal defamation.

10 February 2016

In the ongoing hearing of the Arunachal Pradesh matter before the constitution bench at court no 3, it was the turn of the senior advocate, TR Andhyarujina, to make his submissions today on behalf of the Governor.

21 January 2016

Court No 7 of Supreme Court was witness to a suspenseful hearing on 20 January as counsel after counsel told the Bench comprising justices Ranjan Gogoi and Prafulla C Pant that it had been misled by the Uttar Pradesh Government that Justice Virendra Singh, a former judge of the Allahabad high court, whom it appointed as the Lokayukta of Uttar Pradesh under Article 142 of the Constitution, which gives the Court extraordinary powers to do complete justice in a case, was in the list of names being considered by the selection panel. 

03 November 2015

SC open to good adviceAs 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.

07 August 2015

In Maru Ram vs Union of India in 1980, the Supreme Court’s five-Judge Constitution Bench heard the first challenge to section 433A Cr.P.C. and upheld its constitutionality.

Now, the issue has turned full circle.

29 July 2015

SCOI Report, Wednesday 29 July 2015: Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Home Department, and Others

24 July 2015

The Supreme Court will hear on Monday the plea by 1993 Mumbai serial bomb blasts convict Yakub Memon’s plea challenging the death warrant issued against him and for the stay of his execution set for July 30.

“I have already assigned the bench. It will come by Monday,” said Chief Justice HL Dattu as senior counsel TR Andhyarujina mentioned the matter before the bench on Friday.

Update: The NLU Delhi death penalty litigation clinic has issued a statement:

The writ petition filed by Yakub Memon along with an Intervention Application filed by National Law University, Delhi through its Death Penalty Litigation Clinic will challenge the validity of the death warrant on the grounds that the protections available to death row prisoners during death warrant proceedings (as laid down by the Supreme Court in Shabnam v. Union of India in May 2015) were violated by the Government of Maharashtra.

25 March 2015

A Supreme Court bench of justices Ranjan Gogoi and NV Ramana today stayed the 20 March Delhi high court order that restrained generic drug maker Glenmark Pharmaceuticals from manufacturing an anti-diabetes drug over which Merck allegedly held a patent, reported Mint.

Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi acted for Glenmark, with TR Andhyarujina acting for Merck. The next hearing will be on 28 April.

26 November 2014

The Congress’ Maharashtra unit Wednesday moved Bombay high court challenging the constitutional validity of the Devendra Fadnavis-led BJP government and seeking its dismissal.

Former minister M Naseem Khan filed a writ petition before the court questioning the constitutional validity of the nearly month-old government and terming it as “illegal”.

Justice VM Kanade has posted the matter for hearing Friday (Nov 28), he said.

After the Oct 15 elections, Maharashtra threw up a fractured verdict in which the Bharatiya Janata Party secured 123 seats (which came to 122 after a legislator’s death), the Shiv Sena got 63, the Congress 42 and the Nationalist Congress Party 41, with the remaining 18 going to independents and smaller parties.

“Fadnavis approached the Governor C V Rao to stake claim to form the government claiming it had the requisite majority in the 288-member assembly, and was asked to prove it (majority) within 15 days,” Khan, a legislator from Mumbai, told IANS

However, Khan said that the vote of confidence in the assembly Nov 12 was passed by a voice vote.

“Nobody knows how many MLAs (legislators) voted in favour of the government or against it in the voice vote. Our stand is that this remains a minority government which does not enjoy the confidence of the house and must be dismissed immediately,” he contended.

Later the Congress and Shiv Sena had led separate delegations to Governor Rao questioning the validity of the Nov 12 trust vote.

Khan also claimed that all the major decisions taken by this government are “illegal” and must be set aside.

Former additional solicitor-general of India B A Desai and former solicitor-general of India TR Andhyarujina will appear on behalf of Khan in the case.

Fadnavis was sworn-in as chief minister Oct 31 at the head of a 10-member ministry which is likely to be expanded shortly.