Supreme Court.1. Bar Council of India v. AK Balaji & Ors..[Item 37 in court 3 – SLP (Civil) 17150-17154/2012].Appeal against the judgement of the Madras High Court permitting foreign lawyers to visit India for a temporary period on a ‘fly in fly out’ basis for the purpose of giving legal advice on foreign law to their clients in India..Global Indian Lawyers had filed an appeal against the Bombay high Court judgment six years after the judgment was delivered. The Court had, however, issued notice in that case during the last hearing and tagged the two matters..Today in court: Both matters were adjourned to September 14. Read the complete report here..2. Digvijaya Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. .[Item 70 in court 1 – IA Nos. 5 & 6 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 417/2015].An interim application by the CBI in the Vyapam scam praying that the Special Task Force (SFT) of Madhya Pradesh be allowed to file charge sheets in those cases in which the investigation is over. Additional Solicitor General Maninder Singh mentioned the case last week and the Court listed the matter for July 20..Today in court: A three judge Bench comprising Chief Justice HL Dattu and Justices Amitava Roy and Arun Mishra has temporarily allowed the CBI’s plea that SFT of Madhya Pradesh should continue with the investigation and file chargesheets in those cases which the CBI has not taken over. The Court has fixed the next hearing for July 24 till which time the SFT will continue its investigation “in accordance with law” in those cases in which the CBI is yet to take over the investigation..3. K Shravan Kumar v. Bar Council of India.[Item 61 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 124/2014].The petitioner has challenged Explanation to Rule 5 of the Legal Education Rules, 2008. The provision states that those who have obtained 10+2 or graduation/ post-graduation through open Universities system directly without having any basic qualification for prosecuting such studies will not be eligible for admission to law courses. Notice was issued in the case on February 24, 2014. When the matter was heard on July 1, the court had adjourned it for two weeks..Today in court: The BCI, in an affidavit filed through its Advocate Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, has reaffirmed that candidates who have obtained 10+2 or graduation through open Universities will not be eligible for admission to law courses. The Court has now posted the case for final disposal..4. Common Cause & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. .[Item 301 in court 8 – IA No. 13 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 463/2012].Interim application seeking investigation into ex-CBI Director Ranjit Sinha’s conduct. During the last hearing, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), had informed the Court that the investigation could be carried out by a team of 3 or 4 officers..The Court had then recommended that former CBI Director ML Sharma could head the team and select other members to work with him. This was agreed to by Rohatgi and the Court had then directed him to ascertain from Sharma if he would be willing to head the investigation..Today in court: There were multiple coal related cases today..In the case relating to ex CBI Director Ranjit Sinha’s conduct, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi today informed the court that former CBI Special Director ML Sharma has consented to investigate the case pertaining to Ranjit Sinha’s diary. He also told the court that Sharma needs some time to finalise his team. The court allowed this prayer and granted three weeks’ time to Sharma..The Centre had filed another application today alleging that one of the companies has not yet deposited the penalty which had been imposed by the Court in the Coalgate judgment last year..“The first respondent is yet to pay Rs. 3000 crore. The deadline was in March. March has become July; yet no payment has been made”, Rohatgi informed the Court. The Court proceeded to issue notice in the case..Another case pertained to the jurisdiction of Special Judge Bharat Parashar who has been conducting the trial of coal allocation cases at Patiala House court. The issue was whether Parashar had the power to try disputes that happened after coal block allocation. The Court clarified that its judgment in Coalgate empowers Parashar to try post-allocation and pre-allocation cases pertaining to coal scam..5. Narendra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. .[Item 59 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 449/2015].A fresh public interest litigation petition..Today in court: The Petitioner was allowed to withdraw the petition..6. Rashid Ali Saudagar Union of India.[Item 63 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 176/2015].A fresh public interest litigation..Today in court: This petition sought for a direction to be issued to the Central government to refrain from promoting animal slaughter. The court dismissed the case..7. All India Bank Officers Confederation v. Union of India & Ors..[Item 58 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 445/2015].A fresh public interest litigation petition..This case could not be tracked. Any lead/ information would be appreciated..8. Virendra Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors..[Item 50 in court 2 – Writ Petition (Civil) 470/2015].This is a PIL filed by RTI activist Virendra Pandey seeking CBI probe into NAAN scam alleging that the Anti-Corruption Bureau is reportedly trying to shield high-profile key accused in case..This case could not be tracked. Any lead/ information would be appreciated..Delhi High Court.1. Nyayaa Path (NGO) Vs LT. Governor of NCT of Delhi And Ors.[Item 3, Court 13- WP (C) 6681/2015].Writ petition filed by an NGO Nyayaa Path challenging ads published by the Kejriwal government..The Bench had re-notified the matter on the last date for the reason that there was paucity of time and the matter required a detailed hearing..Today in Court: The Bench issued notice on the petition and sought a reply from the Centre within a week, regarding the steps taken by them to implement the Supreme Court Guidelines and whether a Committee had been setup or not. The matter was adjourned to August 3rd..2. Nitish Kumar Tripathi Vs Union Public Service Commission & Anr..[Item 1, Court 9- WP (C) 6652/2015].This is a writ petition filed by a physically challenged doctor against the UPSC for disallowing him from appearing in the UPSC-CMSE examination..Today in Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice RS Endlaw dismissed the petition and held that the exam could not be held again for just one candidate.