Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news

The B&B Causelist #61:September 21, 2015 (Evening Updates)

Bar & Bench

Supreme Court of India

1. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras v. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission

[Item 60 in court 1 – SLP(C) 14842/2015]

Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Amitava Roy J. 

The dispute between the Madras HC and  Justice CS Karnan pertaining to the selection of civil judges for the State of Tamil Nadu.

The Madras High Court had moved the Supreme Court against Justice Karnan’s judicial order and procured a stay on Justice Karnan’s order.

When the matter was last heard, Senior Advocate KK Venugopal appeared for High Court yet again. The court allowed the High Court to file a status report on the matter and adjourned the case.

Today in court: The matter swerved to a different path today as Senior Advocate KK Venugopal brought to the court’s notice the recent incidents in Madras High Court. The Court proceeded to rebuke the Bar Associations for their  inaction. Read the full report here.

2. Chinta Mohan v. Union of India and Ors.

[Item 61 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 661/2015]

Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Amitava Roy J.

A fresh PIL.

Today in court: This case could not be tracked. Any lead/ information would be appreciated.

3. Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India and Ors.

[Item 40 in court 3 – Writ Petition(C) 192/2015]

Bench: Anil R Dave J., AK Goel J. 

A matter pertaining to the pay scale of Supreme Court employees. Check evening updates.

Today in court: This case could not be tracked.

4. Harsh Mander v. Union of India & Ors.

[Item 10 in court 6 – Writ Petition (Crl.) 158/2015]

Bench: Jasti Chelameswar J., AM Sapre J. 

A petition seeking a court-monitored investigation into the allegations made by NIA’s Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) that she was asked to go “soft” on certain accused in the 2008 Malegaon blasts case.

When the matter was last heard, the Court had issued notice to the Centre, Maharashtra government and the NIA, and directed them to file their response within one week. 

Today in court: The Centre today told the Court that it had not asked the SPP to go soft on the accused as alleged in the petition. Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi sought time to file counter affidavit which was allowed by the court. The matter will now be taken up after a week.

5. Anindita Pujari v. Supreme Court of India thr. the Secretary General and Anr

[Item 37 in court 8 – Writ Petition (Civil) 509/2015]

Bench: Ranjan Gogoi J., NV Ramana J. 

Check evening updates to know more about this case.

Today in court: This case pertains to creche facilities in Supreme Court. The matter was adjourned to October 12.

6. Common Cause & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors

[Item 301 in court 9 – Writ Petition (Civil) 463/2012]

Bench: Madan B Lokur J., Kurian Joseph J., AK Sikri J.

Interim applications pertaining to the coal scam. At the last hearing, the Court had held that former CBI Special Directotr ML Sharma, who has been entrusted with the task of investigating into ex-Director Ranjit Sinha’s conduct, will have the power to summon anyone in connection with the investigation and directed Sharma to complete the investigation within 3 months. The Court also accepted Sharma’s request for three retired police officers and two support staff to assist him in the investigation. The Court will fix the remuneration to be paid to Sharma on November 16 which has been fixed as the date of next hearing.

Today in court: Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi informed the court today that the investigating team led by ML Sharma is ready to start the investigation.

Regarding the contempt petition filed against 7 companies for failure to pay the penalty prescribed by the Supreme Court, the AG submitted that only one company has paid up. He sought time to file replies to the other companies who have contested the claim.

Regarding Hindalco’s role in the coal block scam, CBI advocate Amarendra Sharan submitted that the details revealed by Ranjit Sinha’s diary might warrant investigation. The Court said that it will hear him with regard to this on October 12.

7. Gohil Anilbhai Bachubhai Malvan v. Principal District Judge and Anr.

[Item 7 in court 1 – SLP(C)… /2015]

Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Amitava Roy J.

Check evening updates to know more about this case.

Today in court: This case was dismissed. 

8. Prachiti v. Supreme Court of India, through its Secretary General

[Item 46 in court 3 – Writ Petition(Civil) 979/2014]

Bench: Anil R Dave J., AK Goel J.

Check evening updates to know more about this case.

Today in court: This case could not be tracked.

9. Snehasish Mukherjee v. Union of India and Anr.

[Item 17 in court 3 – Writ Petition (Civil) 664/2015]

Bench: Anil R Dave J., AK Goel J.

A fresh public interest litigation petition.

Today in court: This petition praying for a direction to the Union government to declassify the files pertaining to Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose’s death was disposed of by the Court with a direction to the Centre to respond to the petitioner’s representations at the earliest.

Delhi High Court

1.Prashant Bhushan Vs Union of India & Anr.

[Item 8, Court 1- WP (C) 1524/2015]

Bench- Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J.

Prashant Bhushan’s petition challenging the denial of passport of full validity to him.

Today in Court: Due to paucity of time, the matter was adjourned to be heard on September 23.

2. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Vs Union of India

[Item 36, Court 1- WP (C) 5888/2015]

Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J.

A petition filed by the Delhi Govt challenging the May 21 MHA notification that deprived the ACB from taking cognizance of offences against officers of the Central Government.

In view of the constitutional questions involved in the matter, the Bench had adjourned the matter on the last hearing to be heard by a Division Bench.

Today in Court: The Bench adjourned the matter to be heard on September 24 when  similar matters relating to apportionment of powers between Center & State Govt are scheduled to be heard before the same Bench.

3. AX v. Union of India

[Item 23, Court 1- Writ Petition (Civil) 8622/2015]

Bench: RS Endlaw J.

A petition filed by a TERI researcher who had levelled sexual harrassment charges against former TERI Chief RK Pachauri. While she had previously moved the High Court for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Pachauri, this petition seeks to challenge the manner in which TERI has been handling the entire issue and why no action had been taken against Pachauri so far.

On the last hearing, the Bench directed for the matter to be posted before a Division Bench. 

Today in Court: In spite of Senior Counsel Rajeev Nayyar’s insistence (he appeared for TERI) that the Petitioner was ‘forum-hunting’ as the said issue was already pending before the concerned tribunal for adjudication and therefore the petition could be disposed off with necessary directions, the Bench stated that this was not an issue which could be decided ‘at the threshold itself.’

The Bench then proceeded to issue notice to TERI as well as Pachauri and sought their replies on the progress made in the investigation. The matter will now be heard on November 16.

4. Ajay Maken v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors

[Item 26, Court 1- WP (C) 9058/2015]

Bench: Chief Justice, Jayant Nath J. 

A petition filed by Congress leader Ajay Maken, raising concerns about the manner in which the dengue outbreak in Delhi is being handled by the AAP Govt.

This is not the first time that Maken has initiated legal proceedings against the present Delhi Govt. His earlier petition was against extravagant spending of public money by AAP on its publicity campaign. 

Today in Court: In a hearing that evoked political imputations from both sides, Counsel appearing for Maken argued before the Court that although the AAP Govt had sanctioned a fixed percentage of money to combat the dengue outbreak, it had not yet released the funds to the MCD. This callousness, he argued, was being exhibited during ‘peak dengue season.’

Responding to this, Additional Standing Counsel for GNCTD Sanjoy Ghose submitted that the State was ready to file all the relevant information in it’s ‘comprehensive reply’ but it was pertinent for the Bench to note that the said petition was filed by a politician who had ‘suppressed his representation made to the Chief Minister’ in this regard.

Ghose further argued that after the petition was filed, a press release was given by the Petitioner regarding the details of the plea. Indicating that the plea had a political angle behind it, Ghose also said that ‘this Court should not be used for political purposes.’ The Bench posted the matter for further hearing on September 24, by which time the Govt is expected to apprise the Court of the relevant steps taken to tackle dengue.