Kapil Sibal

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal declared to the media that he had been proven right by the CBI court that acquitted all of the accused in the 2G Spectrum case yesterday after six years since the case was filed, reported The Wire.

The Supreme Court challenge of the Bar Council of India (BCI) age limit to studying law has given the BCI until Friday (3 March) to figure out its position after the BCI asked for more time because its general council would discuss the matter tomorrow at a meeting.

Supreme Court Justice SA Bobde, presiding over a bench with Justice L Nageswara Rao, told the Bar Council of India (BCI) today that it should reconsider the undergraduate law degree age limit of 20 years that it had foisted unexpectedly on law aspirants late last year.

Scoop: The Allahabad high court has today ordered the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) convenor to allow around 70 aspirants older than 20 years to apply for the exam, despite the last minute rule change by the Bar Council of India (BCI), though the order is contingent on the pending Supreme Court challenge of the age limit, which we had first reported last week.

Supreme Court Justice Dipak Misra recused himself yesterday from hearing the writ petition by three petitioners, including by one Increasing Diversity by Increasing Access (IDIA) scholar who is an orphan, against the Bar Council of India (BCI) surprise resurrection of an age limit on studying law.

There have been numerous pending challenges and at least six high court judgments on the issue of whether the Bar Council of India (BCI) can impose a maximum age limit on law students (of which four judgments quashed the age limit and two upheld the BCI’s power to set one - see table above).

The hearing of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) reform case before Justice Dipak Misra-led bench this afternoon in Supreme Court room number 2, as expected, did not lead to any tangible outcome.

It was 3 pm in court 4 yesterday (20 July) and the arguments on either side on the plea to stay the disqualification of the Congress rebels in Uttarakhand seemed endless.

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.

Five celebrity petitioners, who claim to have experienced the wrong end of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code because of their sexual orientation, have sought the Supreme Court's intervention through a writ petition to declare it unconstitutional.

It was an exchange of barbs, rarely witnessed, in the Supreme Court’s courtrooms. But then it was not an ordinary case, with huge stakes in the outcome, even if there are several rounds of battle ahead.

As news of the Uttarakhand high court quashing President’s rule in the state reached the Supreme Court, suspense was building up whether the Centre would seek an immediate stay by mentioning the matter before Court No.1, where the Chief Justice of India (CJI) TS Thakur and Justice R Banumathi were hearing the pollution matter.

After a suspenseful countdown to delivery of order in the JNU students union leader, Kanhaiya Kumar’s bail application, Delhi high court justice Pratibha Rani, gave the key accused in the JNU sedition case conditional bail for six months in a 23 page order.

The Supreme Court today issued notice to filmstar Salman Khan on the Maharashtra government’s petition challenging a Bombay high court verdict acquitting him in a 2002 accident case.

The Supreme Court today appointed a team of six senior lawyers to go to Patiala House court to observe the situation there and report back.

Adding to his list of failed litigations, Supreme Court of India has dismissed a public interest litigation filed by advocate Manohar Lal Sharma, in which Sharma had urged the Court to take judicial note of a statement made by actor Salman Khan’s father Salim Khan that the Khan family had spent Rs 25 crore on the litigation involving 2002-hit and run case.

The proceedings in Court number 3 during the hearing of item number 53 today were full of suspense.