The second day of the new year will be a significant one for the Supreme Court of India. Reopening after two weeks of winter vacations, the apex court will pronounce judgments in many significant cases..While a 7-judge Bench will pronounce judgments on three important cases, a 3-judge Bench will deliver the verdict in Indira Jaising’s petition challenging the process followed by Supreme Court for designating lawyers as Senior Advocates..Besides these judgments, a number of important cases are listed for hearing on that day. One such case relates to delay in filling up judicial vacancies, a case which has already witnessed strong remarks by Chief Justice TS Thakur against the Central government. Tomorrow also happens to be the penultimate working day of the current Chief Justice of India; Justice Khehar will assume the office of the CJI from January 4..Below is a list of important judgments that will be pronounced and cases that will be heard by the Supreme Court of India on the first working day of 2017..Judgments.1. Abhiram Singh v. CD Commachen.[Item 1A in court 1 – Civil Appeal 37/1992].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, Madan B Lokur, SA Bobde, AK Goel, UU Lalit, DY Chandrachud, L Nageswara Rao JJ..A keenly contested case relating to malpractices under the Representation of People Act of 1951. This has been popularly termed as a review of the “Hindutva case”, although the reality is far different..The genesis of the case lies in the 1990 Assembly elections to the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly. The appellant Abhiram Singh, a candidate of the BJP, was elected from Santa Cruz constituency. The respondent, a candidate of the Congress party came in second. It led to an election petition alleging that the appellant had appealed for votes on the basis of Hindu religion. The election petition was allowed by the Bombay High Court in 1991..Singh went to the Supreme Court in appeal; his primary argument was that requirements of notice and opportunity under Section 99 of the Act was not complied with. Another issue for consideration was whether the appellant could be held liable for speeches made without his consent by other party members..On April 16, 1996, a Bench of Justices K Ramaswamy, SP Bharucha and KS Paripoornan referred the matter to a Constitution Bench after framing the following three questions:.[i] whether the learned Judge who tried the case is required to record prima facie conclusions on proof of the corrupt practices committed by the returned candidate or his agents or collaborators [leaders of the political party under whose banner the returned candidate contested the election] or any other person on his behalf?.[ii] whether the consent of the returned candidate is required to be proved and if so, on what basis and under what circumstances the consent is held proved?.[iii] on reaching the conclusion that consent is proved and prima facie corrupt practices are proved, whether the notice under Section 99(1) proviso (a) should contain, like mini judgment, extraction of pleadings of corrupt practices under Section 123, the evidence – oral and documentary and findings on each of the corrupt practices by each of the collaborators, if there are more than one, and supply them to all of them for giving an opportunity to be complied with?.On January 30, 2014, a 5-judge Bench referred the case to a 7-judge. When the notification setting up the bench was published on the Supreme Court website, it generated considerable media interest as it was speculated that the court would reconsider the 1995 judgment regarding the definition and scope of Hindutva..However, the terms of reference did not spell out any issues regarding the meaning of Hindutva, but only dealt with the larger issue of corrupt practices..Chief Justice TS Thakur confirmed the same when he said that the court won’t revisit the definition of Hindutva as it was not part of the reference order. On October 27, judgment was reserved by the Court..Read more about the case here..2. Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar.[Item 1B in court 1 – CA 5875/1994].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, Madan B Lokur, SA Bobde, AK Goel, UU Lalit, DY Chandrachud, L Nageswara Rao JJ..This case relates to the effect of ordinances made by executive which have lapsed..The court is considering two issues in this matter:.(i) the effect of acts undertaken pursuant to an ordinance which subsequently lapses..(ii) scope of judicial review over ordinance, more specifically whether a court can strike down an ordinance on the ground that there was no material to prove that an “immediate action” by way of ordinance raj, was required by the executive..Read more about the case here..3. State Of UP v. Jai Bir Singh.[Item 1C in court 1 – Civil Appeal 897/2002].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, Madan B Lokur, SA Bobde, AK Goel, UU Lalit, DY Chandrachud, L Nageswara Rao JJ..Case relating to the scope of the definition of industry’ under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947..The seminal moment in this dispute was the case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A Rajappa & Ors. In this case, employees of the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board were fined for misconduct. These employees started litigation under the ID Act claiming violation of principles of natural justice. The Board’s contention was that it was a statutory body, one that did not all under an “industry” in section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently the employees were not workmen and the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction to decide their claim..The Supreme Court constituted a 7-judge Bench to finally settle the issue. The Bench composed of M Hameedullah Beg, YV Chandrachud, PN Bhagwati, VR Krishna Iyer, Jaswant Singh, VD Tulzapurkar and DA Desai..Since Chief Justice Beg was to retire on February 21, 1978 the Bench delivered the judgment on that very day, concluding that the appeal should be dismissed. The above conclusion was unanimous. Justice VR Krishna Iyer penned the judgment on behalf of himself, Bhagwati, and Desai JJ. in what is widely considered to be the majority opinion. Justice Beg delivered a separate judgment..Interestingly, three Judges, Chandrachud J. Jaswant Singh and Tulzapurkar JJ., did not deliver their separate opinions on the day the judgment was delivered. They only said that they would deliver their separate opinions later..The different judgments in Bangalore Water Supply case led to different interpretations by later benches. Noteworthy are two judgments – Chief Conservator of Forests  2 SCC 293 Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar  9 SCC 713..This issue of conflict in the interpretation came to fore in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jai Bir Singh and connected matters heard along with it. A 3-judge Bench which noticed the conflict between the two aforesaid cases referred the matter to a Constitution bench..In its judgment delivered on May 5, 2005, the Constitution Bench referred the matter to a larger bench whereupon the matter came up for hearing before the current 7-judge Bench..The immediate issue which the 7-judge Bench considered during the hearing was whether the matter should be heard by a 9-judge Bench. The judgment which will be pronounced tomorrow will in all likelihood be limited to the issue of reference..Read more about the case here..4. Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India through Secretary General and Ors..[Item 1F in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 454/2015].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, DY Chandrachud, L Nageswara Rao JJ..Judgment in the petition filed by Senior Advocate and former Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising in the Supreme Court challenging the allegedly non-transparent and arbitrary method followed by the apex court in designating Senior Advocates..According to a survey conducted by Bar & Bench, 56 percent of the participants had opined that the institution of Senior Advocate should be done away with..The Supreme Court had filed an affidavit in the matter admitting that there are no Rules regulating designation of advocates as Seniors but the same is governed by certain resolutions passed by the court from time to time. The court had, however, claimed that the process currently followed is “fair” and “transparent”..5. Board of Control For Cricket v. Cricket Association Of Bihar & Ors. [For order].[Item 1I in court 1 – Civil Appeal 4235/2014].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud JJ. .Order by the Court on Justice RS Lodha Committee’s recommendation that BCCI’s office bearers should be replaced for failing to implement the recommendations made by the Committee..Cases for hearing.1. Lt. Col. Anil Kabotra v. Union Of India.[Item 2 in court 1 – WP(C) 625/2016].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud JJ..Petition concerning delay in judicial appointments. The Court has time and again pulled up the Central government in this case. As of now, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi has submitted that out of 77 files sent to the Central government, 34 were cleared and remaining have been sent back to the Collegium for re-consideration. The Supreme Court subsequently, informed AG Rohatgi that it has reiterated the 43 names that was sent back by the Centre to the Collegium for re-consideration..2. Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union Of India And Ors..[Item 2 in court 3 – Writ Petition (Civil) 754/2016].Bench: Dipak Misra, NV Ramana JJ. .Petition seeking action against cow protection groups indulging in violence. The Court had sought response from the Centre and six States on the issue though no formal notice was issued..3. Mukesh v. State for NCT of Delhi.[Item 301 in court 3 at 2 pm– SLP (CRL) 3119-3120/2014].Bench: Dipak Misra, R Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan JJ..The appeal filed by the convicts in the 2012 Delhi gang rape.