Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news
www.barandbench.com
News

The B&B Causelist #58:September 16, 2015 (Evening Updates)

Murali Krishnan

Supreme Court of India

1. Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt v. Union of India & Ors.

[Item 21 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Crl.) 135/2011]

Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Arun Mishra J.

An application filed by suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt seeking impleadment of Amit Shah and S Gurumurthy in the 2011 case Bhatt had filed in the Supreme Court.

Bhatt has also sought an SIT probe into current ASG Tushar Mehta, saying that Mehta tried to scuttle the investigation.

Today in court: This petition was taken up at 3:55 pm. Senior Advocate Indira Jaising had barely commenced her arguments when the court rose for the day. The case will now be taken up tomorrow.

2. State of Assam v. Union of India & Ors.

[Item 13 in court 2 – IA 16, 17 & 18/2015 in Orgnl. Suit 1/1989]

Bench: TS Thakur J., Kurian Joseph J.

This suit date back to 1989 and pertains to a boundary dispute between the States of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh. The issues for consideration include:

  • Maintainability of the suit filed by Assam
  • Determination of areas which are disputed after the demarcation.

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Krishnan Venugopal had appeared for Assam while Arunachal Pradesh was represented by Senior Advocates Raju Ramachandran and TR Andhyarujina

Today in court: The hearing today pertained to an interim application filed by Arunachal Pradesh alleging that Assam’s police forces encroached into Arunachal administered territory which is part of the disputed territory. Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, representing Arunachal, submitted that the police cordoned off the area, started clearing the forest and bulldozing the place.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Assam, also made similar submissions against Arunachal, buttressing his submissions with printed copies of satellite maps to prove Arunachal’s activity in the disputed territory.

The Court was, however, reluctant to accept the submissions pertaining to the disputed territory stating that it is not possible to verify such claims. It suggested that the two States should sit across the table and resolve the dispute.

“What next? Will your police forces start firing at each other now? There are enough problems on the border, don’t create problems within it”, remarked Justice Thakur. 

The court also observed that “there is a possibility of violence erupting in the disputed areas”. It adjourned the matter for six weeks allowing time to the parties to file additional documents.

3. Parivartan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

[Item 102 in court 2 – Writ Petition (civil) 93/2004]

Bench: TS Thakur J., Kurian Joseph J.

Petition pertaining to protection for whistleblowers. The court is now hearing arguments on the working of the Central Vigilance Commission and how it can be made more transparent.

Today in court: This case was not taken up today.

Delhi High Court

1. Bar Council of India Vs Mahendra Kumar Mehta

[Item 37, Court 9: WP (C) 8871/2015]

Bench: RS Endlaw J.

This is a fresh petition.

Today in Court: The matter was not taken up today. It will now be heard on September 18.

2. Bonded Labour Watch Vs Union of India & Ors. 

[Item 20, Court No. 1: WP (C) 8813/2015]

Bench: Chief Justice, Jayant Nath J. 

Today in Court: The Bench did not sit today. This matter will now be heard on September 28.

3. Manohar Lal Sharma Vs Union of India & Ors.

[Item 64, Court No. 2: WP (Crl) 2001/2015]

Bench: BD Ahmed J, Sanjeev Sachdeva J. 

A petition moved by ML Sharma for curtailing the powers exercisable by Council of Ministers under Articles 74, 75 & 78 of the Constitution. He had also arraigned Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley as a Respondent for failing to ‘take any action’ upon the SIT Report on black money. The SIT had suggested stricter norms for participatory notes.

Today in Court: Based on Sharma’s submissions made in Court, the Bench sought certain pertinent clarifications from him regarding FIIs (Foreign Institutional Investor) and KYC norms to which he requested for an adjournment till tomorrow. The same was granted and the matter is now slated to be heard tomorrow.