Supreme Court of India.1. Parivartan v. Union of India.Item 101 in court 2 – Writ Petition (Civil) 93/2004.Bench: TS Thakur J., Kurian Joseph J..Petition pertaining to protection for whistleblowers. The Centre had sought an adjournment at the last hearing. The court is now hearing the petitioners on the working of the Central Vigilance Commission and how it can be made more credible and transparent..Today in court: This matter was not taken up today..Delhi High Court.1. Sugandhi Snuff King Pvt Ltd & Anr v. Commissioner (Food Safety) Govt of NCT of Delhi (Lead matter in a batch of 4 connected matters).[Item 43, Court 13- WP (C) 3362/2015].Bench: VP Vaish J..The matter pertains to a blanket ban on the manufacture and sale of all forms of chewable tobacco for one year in Delhi. A Single Bench of the Delhi High Court had stayed the notification in April and further directed the Delhi Government to not take ‘coercive action’ till the next date of hearing..On May 20th, the Delhi Govt approached the HC for vacation of stay with Senior Advocate Indira Jaising arguing that, ‘the ban had been imposed for reasons of public health and interest.’ However, no interim relief was granted..On the last hearing, Senior Advocates CS Vaidyanathan & Indira Jaising appeared for the petitioners and respondents respectively, and informed the Court that they were ready for final arguments..Today in Court: Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the Petitioners and argued that tobacco under all its forms (manufacturing, packaging, distributing etc) was covered under the Cigarettes & Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA) which was a Central Act and therefore, the notification of the Delhi Govt banning tobacco in the capital was ‘ultra-vires’ and done without ‘non-application of mind.’.Due to paucity of time, Singhvi requested the Bench to adjourn the matter for a short date. It will now be heard on September 8..2. Ajay Maken v. Union of India & Anr (Lead matter in a batch of 3 connected matters).[Item 12, Court 1- WP (C) 6702/2015].Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J..A petition filed by Congress leader Ajay Maken against Aam Aadmi Party’s ad campaigns. The AAP Government had filed their reply and informed the Court that they had spent Rs. 22.3 crore on various advertisements over the past month..During the last hearing, the Bench tagged together all similar matters and posted them for hearing today..Today in Court: The Bench rapped the Center for not filing its affidavit pursuant to the order of July 15 passed by the Court. After granting more time for all the pleadings and applications relevant to the matter to be brought on record, the matter was adjourned to October 7..3. Sathiyam Media Vision Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. Union of India & Anr. .[Item 68, Court 13- WP (C) 8351/2015].Bench: VP Vaish J..A petition filed by a TV Channel against the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting for an order passed by the Ministry ‘warning’ the channel for airing political criticism about Prime Minister Narendra Modi..The petition states that the said order of May 12, 2015 illegally held the Petitioner to be in violation of Rule 6(1)(c), (d), (e) and (i) of the Programme Code and Advertisement Code issued by the Centre..Today in Court: You can read the detailed report here.
Supreme Court of India.1. Parivartan v. Union of India.Item 101 in court 2 – Writ Petition (Civil) 93/2004.Bench: TS Thakur J., Kurian Joseph J..Petition pertaining to protection for whistleblowers. The Centre had sought an adjournment at the last hearing. The court is now hearing the petitioners on the working of the Central Vigilance Commission and how it can be made more credible and transparent..Today in court: This matter was not taken up today..Delhi High Court.1. Sugandhi Snuff King Pvt Ltd & Anr v. Commissioner (Food Safety) Govt of NCT of Delhi (Lead matter in a batch of 4 connected matters).[Item 43, Court 13- WP (C) 3362/2015].Bench: VP Vaish J..The matter pertains to a blanket ban on the manufacture and sale of all forms of chewable tobacco for one year in Delhi. A Single Bench of the Delhi High Court had stayed the notification in April and further directed the Delhi Government to not take ‘coercive action’ till the next date of hearing..On May 20th, the Delhi Govt approached the HC for vacation of stay with Senior Advocate Indira Jaising arguing that, ‘the ban had been imposed for reasons of public health and interest.’ However, no interim relief was granted..On the last hearing, Senior Advocates CS Vaidyanathan & Indira Jaising appeared for the petitioners and respondents respectively, and informed the Court that they were ready for final arguments..Today in Court: Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the Petitioners and argued that tobacco under all its forms (manufacturing, packaging, distributing etc) was covered under the Cigarettes & Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA) which was a Central Act and therefore, the notification of the Delhi Govt banning tobacco in the capital was ‘ultra-vires’ and done without ‘non-application of mind.’.Due to paucity of time, Singhvi requested the Bench to adjourn the matter for a short date. It will now be heard on September 8..2. Ajay Maken v. Union of India & Anr (Lead matter in a batch of 3 connected matters).[Item 12, Court 1- WP (C) 6702/2015].Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J..A petition filed by Congress leader Ajay Maken against Aam Aadmi Party’s ad campaigns. The AAP Government had filed their reply and informed the Court that they had spent Rs. 22.3 crore on various advertisements over the past month..During the last hearing, the Bench tagged together all similar matters and posted them for hearing today..Today in Court: The Bench rapped the Center for not filing its affidavit pursuant to the order of July 15 passed by the Court. After granting more time for all the pleadings and applications relevant to the matter to be brought on record, the matter was adjourned to October 7..3. Sathiyam Media Vision Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. Union of India & Anr. .[Item 68, Court 13- WP (C) 8351/2015].Bench: VP Vaish J..A petition filed by a TV Channel against the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting for an order passed by the Ministry ‘warning’ the channel for airing political criticism about Prime Minister Narendra Modi..The petition states that the said order of May 12, 2015 illegally held the Petitioner to be in violation of Rule 6(1)(c), (d), (e) and (i) of the Programme Code and Advertisement Code issued by the Centre..Today in Court: You can read the detailed report here.
