A summary of important cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India, the Bombay High Court, and the Delhi High Court. .Supreme Court of India.1. Samaj Bachao Mission Committee v. Union of India and Ors..[Item 9 in court 1 – Writ Petition. (C) 42/2016].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur J., A.K. Sikri J., R. Banumathi J..A fresh public interest litigation petition. Check evening updates..Today in Court- This case could not be tracked. Any leads/inputs would be appreciated..2. Karma Dorjee & Ors v. U.O.I & Ors.[Item 23 in court 1 – Writ Petition. (C) 103/2014].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, A.K. Sikri J., R. Banumathi J..Check evening updates..Today in Court- This case was not taken up..3. Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India & Anr.[Item 24 in court 1 – Writ Petition. (C) 38/2016].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, A.K. Sikri J., R. Banumathi J..A fresh public interest litigation petition. Check evening updates..Today in Court- This case was not taken up..4. Trained Nurses Association of India v. Union of India & Ors..[Item 1 in court 2 – Writ Petition. (C) 527/2011].Bench: Anil R. Dave J., Shiva Kirti Singh J., Adarsh Kumar Goel J. .Check evening updates..Today in Court- The case that was filed to highlight the poor pay scales and service benefits accorded to nurses all over India, saw the Bench disposing off the petition after passing certain directions. These directions are given here under:-.a) The Central Government has been directed to form a committee and after examining the factual position as regards making payments to nurses employed in private hospitals and private nursing homes, will make certain recommendations to the all the States..b) These recommendations of the Committee, the Court said, need not necessarily mirror the prayer in the petition but can be framed as per the Committee’s assessment of the factual position..c) The Court has granted a time of four weeks to the Centre for the purpose of forming the Committee and the Committee’s recommendations will have to be acted upon by the States within a period of six months thereafter..5. Goa Paryavaran Savrakshan Sangharsh Samitee, v. State of Goa and Ors..[Item 11 in court 3 – Writ Petition.(C) 204/2015].Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, C. Nagappan JJ..Check evening updates..Today in Court- This was a petition that sought a CBI probe into the illegal mining activities carried out by companies in Goa..The Court dismissed the case on the grounds that a similar case which had ‘similar and overlapping’ grounds was being heard by another Bench of the same Court..6. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.[Item 54 in court 3 – I.A.NOS. 2722-2723/2016 IN IA No. 18 IN W.P. (C) NO. 4677/1985].Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar J., C. Nagappan J..Check evening updates..Today in Court- The Bench granted extension of time to file documents..7. Common Cause, A Regd. Society vs. Union of India and Ors.[Item 48 in court 8 – Writ Petition. (C) 330/2001].Bench: Madan B. Lokur J., R.K. Agrawal J..Check evening updates..Today in Court- The case which pertains to modernization and better upkeep of slaughterhouses, saw the Bench granting extension of time to the Respondents for completion of pleadings and filing of certain relevant affidavits..8. Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons v. …...[Item 49 in court 8 – Writ Petition. (C) 406/2013].Bench: Madan B. Lokur J., R.K. Agrawal J..Check evening updates..Today in Court- The case pertaining to inhuman treatment of prisoners and under-trials in jails saw the Bench seek clarification from the Central Government over certain issues. These issues are broadly mentioned here under:-.a) Establishment of an under-trial review committee in every district, which the Bench noted that it had not yet been done..b) Setting up of a software for prison management. ASG Neeraj Kishan Kaul representing the Centre stated that ten states have come ‘on-board’ for this project and necessary funds have also been allocated for the said purpose..c) Preparation of a model prison manual. The ASG informed the Court that this had already been complied with..d) Similar prison manual to be prepared for juveniles/child offenders..e) Creche facility in the jails..f) Release of under-trial prisoners in Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra..g) Framing of a list of compoundable offences..After outlining these broad parameters for which it sought a detailed reply from the parties, the Bench said that it will adjourn the case to March 14, consider the replies submitted by all parties and pass a detailed order on these issues on that day.. 9. Savelife Foundation & Anr v. Union of India & Anr.[Item 49 in court 10 – Writ Petition. (C) 235/2012].Bench: V. Gopala Gowda J., UU Lalit J. .Check evening updates..Today in Court- This case was posted for hearing after two weeks..10. In Re: Harassment & Physical Abuse Of Ambika Das, Advocate Commissioner Of Police & Ors..[Item 50 in court 1 – SUO-MOTO WP (Crl.) NO. 92/2014].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, R Banumathi J..A suo motu matter based on a letter written by lawyer Ambika Das alleging that some policemen and others manhandled her inside the Lajpat Nagar police station..Today in Court- This case was not taken up..11. Wildlife Trust of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.. [Item 301 in court 5 – Writ Petition. (C) NO. 50/2008].Bench: J. Chelameswar J., Abhay Manohar Sapre J., Amitava Roy J..The case pertains to a challenge posed by certain environmental activist groups, with Wildlife Trust of India being one of them, to the Forest Rights Act of 2006 and the subsequent Rules of 2008 framed under the Act. Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appeared for Wildlife Trust of India..Today in Court- Divan argued that in more than ten years, they have collected sufficient data from CAG reports and satellite imagery to show that much of tribal protected forest land has been encroached upon..The Bench passed an interim order when it asked all the states and union territories except Tamil Nadu to reply regarding the status of ownership and possession of such land within 2 weeks. The court will look into Tamil Nadu’s issue separately on Monday as the Madras High Court had earlier stayed the issue of title deeds based on possession to forest dwellers..Delhi High Court.1. Yu Televentures Pvt Ltd Vs TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM Ericcson (Publ) & Ors and Rahul Sharma & Ors Vs TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM Ericcson (Publ) & Ors..[Item 1-2, Court 1- LPA 888/2015, LPA 889/2015].Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J..Appeals filed by Yu Televentures, a subsidiary company of Micromax and the founder of Micromax Rahul Sharma against the adverse orders passed against the company by the Delhi High Court..2. Ramakant Kumar Vs Government of NCT of Delhi.[Item 12, Court 1- W.P.(C) 348/2016].Bench- Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J. .Check evening updates..3. Action Committee of Unaided Recognized Private Schools Vs Directorate of Education and Forum for Promotion of Quality Education For All Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. .[Item 2 & 3, Court 10- W.P.(C) 448/2016].Bench- Manmohan J..Petitions filed against AAP government’s decision to scrap management and all other quotas, except for economically weaker sections, in the city’s private schools for nursery admissions..On the last date of hearing, Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar. appearing for the government, argued that absolute and unregulated power cannot be given to private schools. He further submitted that the decision of scrapping management quota and other criteria was justified in order to ensure that private schools adopt a criteria that is ‘fair, just and reasonable.’.4. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Vs Union of India, Rajendra Prashad Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi, MA Usmani Vs Union of India & Ors, Naresh Kumar Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors..[Item 16-22, Court 1].Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J..Petitions questioning the apportionment of powers between the Chief Minister and Lt-Governor..Bombay High Court .1. Dr. Vishwambhar Hanumantrao Choudhari v. Government of Maharashtra through its secretary..[Item 905 court 54 – PIL(civil)/45/2015].Bench: Naresh H. Patil, AA Sayed JJ..The petition relates to the River Regulation Zone Policy. The petitioner Dr.Vishwambhar contends that the said policy was deviated through a Government Resolution(GR) which granted certain relaxations to industries..Today in court: P.P. Kakade, assistant government pleader said that the state issued the GR after realizing the previous GR issued in 2000 may have encroached upon the centre’s jurisdiction since regulation of industry was not within the powers of the state..The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board informed the bench that it already has a condition of zero liquid discharge for industries..The bench recorded that some clarity needs to be established with regard to the state’s jurisdiction in this matter. The matter was adjourned for four weeks, by when the State will file an affidavit..2. Dayanand Stalin v. Ashok Lavasa and 9 ors..[Item 1 Court 43 – CONPP(O)/1/2015].Bench: V.M Kanade, Revati Mohite Dere JJ..The petitioner in PIL/87/2014 had contended that massive reclamation of wetlands was taking place and illegal construction was rampant. In an order dated 19 March 2014, a total ban on destruction and reclamation of wetlands was imposed. Officers of the state pollution control board were also reminded of their responsibilities under Section 20,21 and 23 of the Water (prevention and control of pollution) Act, 1974..Today in court: Today’s petition was tagged along with another petition (PIL/87/2014). A bunch of petitioners approached a civil court and obtained a stay on illegal constructions taking place on wetlands in their area. V.M. Kanade J. ordered that no further suits will be entertained by the civil court as there were several orders issued by the High court. .The state was asked to look into the claims of the petitioner and file a reply. .3. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Developement Authority v. Fare Fixation Committee and 3 ors..[Item 29 Court 13 – WP(O)/2605/2015].Bench: A.S. Oka, C.V. Bhadang JJ..A plea seeking a stay on Mumbai Metro One fare hike. The Mumbai Metro One Private Ltd.(MMOPL) had moved to the apex court challenging the interim stay in fare hike ordered by the High Court..Today in court: When the matter came up, the division bench said that it would hear both the parties today itself and dispose off the matter. But Aspi Chinoy, appearing for MMRDA, and Prasad Dhakephalkar (for MMOPL) sought time for clarification from the Supreme court whether the final hearing would be on the interim relief or the case itself..Initially adamant on deciding the case today itself in accordance with the apex court’s order, A.S. Oka J finally adjourned the matter to February 11. The division bench said it got the impression that one of the parties may have mislead the apex court but lawyers for both parties asserted it may have been the stenographers mistake.
A summary of important cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India, the Bombay High Court, and the Delhi High Court. .Supreme Court of India.1. Samaj Bachao Mission Committee v. Union of India and Ors..[Item 9 in court 1 – Writ Petition. (C) 42/2016].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur J., A.K. Sikri J., R. Banumathi J..A fresh public interest litigation petition. Check evening updates..Today in Court- This case could not be tracked. Any leads/inputs would be appreciated..2. Karma Dorjee & Ors v. U.O.I & Ors.[Item 23 in court 1 – Writ Petition. (C) 103/2014].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, A.K. Sikri J., R. Banumathi J..Check evening updates..Today in Court- This case was not taken up..3. Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India & Anr.[Item 24 in court 1 – Writ Petition. (C) 38/2016].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, A.K. Sikri J., R. Banumathi J..A fresh public interest litigation petition. Check evening updates..Today in Court- This case was not taken up..4. Trained Nurses Association of India v. Union of India & Ors..[Item 1 in court 2 – Writ Petition. (C) 527/2011].Bench: Anil R. Dave J., Shiva Kirti Singh J., Adarsh Kumar Goel J. .Check evening updates..Today in Court- The case that was filed to highlight the poor pay scales and service benefits accorded to nurses all over India, saw the Bench disposing off the petition after passing certain directions. These directions are given here under:-.a) The Central Government has been directed to form a committee and after examining the factual position as regards making payments to nurses employed in private hospitals and private nursing homes, will make certain recommendations to the all the States..b) These recommendations of the Committee, the Court said, need not necessarily mirror the prayer in the petition but can be framed as per the Committee’s assessment of the factual position..c) The Court has granted a time of four weeks to the Centre for the purpose of forming the Committee and the Committee’s recommendations will have to be acted upon by the States within a period of six months thereafter..5. Goa Paryavaran Savrakshan Sangharsh Samitee, v. State of Goa and Ors..[Item 11 in court 3 – Writ Petition.(C) 204/2015].Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, C. Nagappan JJ..Check evening updates..Today in Court- This was a petition that sought a CBI probe into the illegal mining activities carried out by companies in Goa..The Court dismissed the case on the grounds that a similar case which had ‘similar and overlapping’ grounds was being heard by another Bench of the same Court..6. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.[Item 54 in court 3 – I.A.NOS. 2722-2723/2016 IN IA No. 18 IN W.P. (C) NO. 4677/1985].Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar J., C. Nagappan J..Check evening updates..Today in Court- The Bench granted extension of time to file documents..7. Common Cause, A Regd. Society vs. Union of India and Ors.[Item 48 in court 8 – Writ Petition. (C) 330/2001].Bench: Madan B. Lokur J., R.K. Agrawal J..Check evening updates..Today in Court- The case which pertains to modernization and better upkeep of slaughterhouses, saw the Bench granting extension of time to the Respondents for completion of pleadings and filing of certain relevant affidavits..8. Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons v. …...[Item 49 in court 8 – Writ Petition. (C) 406/2013].Bench: Madan B. Lokur J., R.K. Agrawal J..Check evening updates..Today in Court- The case pertaining to inhuman treatment of prisoners and under-trials in jails saw the Bench seek clarification from the Central Government over certain issues. These issues are broadly mentioned here under:-.a) Establishment of an under-trial review committee in every district, which the Bench noted that it had not yet been done..b) Setting up of a software for prison management. ASG Neeraj Kishan Kaul representing the Centre stated that ten states have come ‘on-board’ for this project and necessary funds have also been allocated for the said purpose..c) Preparation of a model prison manual. The ASG informed the Court that this had already been complied with..d) Similar prison manual to be prepared for juveniles/child offenders..e) Creche facility in the jails..f) Release of under-trial prisoners in Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra..g) Framing of a list of compoundable offences..After outlining these broad parameters for which it sought a detailed reply from the parties, the Bench said that it will adjourn the case to March 14, consider the replies submitted by all parties and pass a detailed order on these issues on that day.. 9. Savelife Foundation & Anr v. Union of India & Anr.[Item 49 in court 10 – Writ Petition. (C) 235/2012].Bench: V. Gopala Gowda J., UU Lalit J. .Check evening updates..Today in Court- This case was posted for hearing after two weeks..10. In Re: Harassment & Physical Abuse Of Ambika Das, Advocate Commissioner Of Police & Ors..[Item 50 in court 1 – SUO-MOTO WP (Crl.) NO. 92/2014].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, R Banumathi J..A suo motu matter based on a letter written by lawyer Ambika Das alleging that some policemen and others manhandled her inside the Lajpat Nagar police station..Today in Court- This case was not taken up..11. Wildlife Trust of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.. [Item 301 in court 5 – Writ Petition. (C) NO. 50/2008].Bench: J. Chelameswar J., Abhay Manohar Sapre J., Amitava Roy J..The case pertains to a challenge posed by certain environmental activist groups, with Wildlife Trust of India being one of them, to the Forest Rights Act of 2006 and the subsequent Rules of 2008 framed under the Act. Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appeared for Wildlife Trust of India..Today in Court- Divan argued that in more than ten years, they have collected sufficient data from CAG reports and satellite imagery to show that much of tribal protected forest land has been encroached upon..The Bench passed an interim order when it asked all the states and union territories except Tamil Nadu to reply regarding the status of ownership and possession of such land within 2 weeks. The court will look into Tamil Nadu’s issue separately on Monday as the Madras High Court had earlier stayed the issue of title deeds based on possession to forest dwellers..Delhi High Court.1. Yu Televentures Pvt Ltd Vs TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM Ericcson (Publ) & Ors and Rahul Sharma & Ors Vs TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM Ericcson (Publ) & Ors..[Item 1-2, Court 1- LPA 888/2015, LPA 889/2015].Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J..Appeals filed by Yu Televentures, a subsidiary company of Micromax and the founder of Micromax Rahul Sharma against the adverse orders passed against the company by the Delhi High Court..2. Ramakant Kumar Vs Government of NCT of Delhi.[Item 12, Court 1- W.P.(C) 348/2016].Bench- Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J. .Check evening updates..3. Action Committee of Unaided Recognized Private Schools Vs Directorate of Education and Forum for Promotion of Quality Education For All Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. .[Item 2 & 3, Court 10- W.P.(C) 448/2016].Bench- Manmohan J..Petitions filed against AAP government’s decision to scrap management and all other quotas, except for economically weaker sections, in the city’s private schools for nursery admissions..On the last date of hearing, Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar. appearing for the government, argued that absolute and unregulated power cannot be given to private schools. He further submitted that the decision of scrapping management quota and other criteria was justified in order to ensure that private schools adopt a criteria that is ‘fair, just and reasonable.’.4. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Vs Union of India, Rajendra Prashad Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi, MA Usmani Vs Union of India & Ors, Naresh Kumar Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors..[Item 16-22, Court 1].Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J..Petitions questioning the apportionment of powers between the Chief Minister and Lt-Governor..Bombay High Court .1. Dr. Vishwambhar Hanumantrao Choudhari v. Government of Maharashtra through its secretary..[Item 905 court 54 – PIL(civil)/45/2015].Bench: Naresh H. Patil, AA Sayed JJ..The petition relates to the River Regulation Zone Policy. The petitioner Dr.Vishwambhar contends that the said policy was deviated through a Government Resolution(GR) which granted certain relaxations to industries..Today in court: P.P. Kakade, assistant government pleader said that the state issued the GR after realizing the previous GR issued in 2000 may have encroached upon the centre’s jurisdiction since regulation of industry was not within the powers of the state..The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board informed the bench that it already has a condition of zero liquid discharge for industries..The bench recorded that some clarity needs to be established with regard to the state’s jurisdiction in this matter. The matter was adjourned for four weeks, by when the State will file an affidavit..2. Dayanand Stalin v. Ashok Lavasa and 9 ors..[Item 1 Court 43 – CONPP(O)/1/2015].Bench: V.M Kanade, Revati Mohite Dere JJ..The petitioner in PIL/87/2014 had contended that massive reclamation of wetlands was taking place and illegal construction was rampant. In an order dated 19 March 2014, a total ban on destruction and reclamation of wetlands was imposed. Officers of the state pollution control board were also reminded of their responsibilities under Section 20,21 and 23 of the Water (prevention and control of pollution) Act, 1974..Today in court: Today’s petition was tagged along with another petition (PIL/87/2014). A bunch of petitioners approached a civil court and obtained a stay on illegal constructions taking place on wetlands in their area. V.M. Kanade J. ordered that no further suits will be entertained by the civil court as there were several orders issued by the High court. .The state was asked to look into the claims of the petitioner and file a reply. .3. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Developement Authority v. Fare Fixation Committee and 3 ors..[Item 29 Court 13 – WP(O)/2605/2015].Bench: A.S. Oka, C.V. Bhadang JJ..A plea seeking a stay on Mumbai Metro One fare hike. The Mumbai Metro One Private Ltd.(MMOPL) had moved to the apex court challenging the interim stay in fare hike ordered by the High Court..Today in court: When the matter came up, the division bench said that it would hear both the parties today itself and dispose off the matter. But Aspi Chinoy, appearing for MMRDA, and Prasad Dhakephalkar (for MMOPL) sought time for clarification from the Supreme court whether the final hearing would be on the interim relief or the case itself..Initially adamant on deciding the case today itself in accordance with the apex court’s order, A.S. Oka J finally adjourned the matter to February 11. The division bench said it got the impression that one of the parties may have mislead the apex court but lawyers for both parties asserted it may have been the stenographers mistake.