A summary of important cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India, the Delhi High Court and the Bombay High Court. .Supreme court of India.1. Nabam Rebia v. Registrar General, Gauhati High Court and Ors..[Item 501 in court 3 – SLP (Civil) 876/2016].Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, Dipak Misra, Madan B Lokur, PC Ghose, NV Ramana JJ..This case pertains to the removal of Arunachal Pradesh Speaker Nabam Rebia and is an appeal against the decision of the Gauhati High Court. Recently, the Union Cabinet recommended imposition of President’s Rule in the State which has been challenged by the Congress party..When the matter was heard yesterday, the Court had asked the Centre to provide a list of documents seized from the office of the former Chief Minister Nabam Tuki so that he can ascertain as to which of those documents he requires. “You can’t say that the documents seized by you are not related to them (Tuki and his cabinet minister). You give the full list and let them decide what they want and what they do not”, the Court said..The hearing will continue today..Today in court: Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi completed his submissions. The hearing will resume tomorrow..2. Verhoeven, Marie-Emmanuelle v. Union of India & Ors..[Item 31 in court 9 – Crl MP 2219/2016 in Writ Petition (Crl.) 178/2015].Bench: V Gopala Gowda, UU Lalit JJ..A habeas corpus petition for the release of French national Marie Verhoeven. When the matter was last heard Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram, appearing on behalf of the petitioner had made a submission that he intends to seek modification / clarification of the order passed by the Supreme Court December 15, 2015 to the extent that the proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate may not continue till this matter is decided on merits. The Court had allowed the same and granted time to the petitioner to file an application to that effect..Today in court: This case did not come up for hearing today..3. Star Sports India Pvt Ltd. v. Prasar Bharati & Ors..[Item 2 in court 12 – SLP(C) NO. 8988/2014].Bench: AK Sikri, PC Pant JJ..The issue involved in this case is whether Broadcasters, when sharing live feed of sporting events with Prasar Bharati, have to edit/ censor the ads inserted by the organisers of the event from who the feed is taken..Section 3 of the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007 mandate that broadcasters have to share the feed of sporting events of national importance with Prasar Bharati. Prasar Bharati had interpreted the said provision to the effect that the feed which the broadcasters share with it should be clean and should not have any ads/ commercials. It is the stance of Star Sports that they take the feed from organisers of sporting events, like the ICC and the BCCI, and the feed that the organisers give has ads/ commercials which the organiser have inserted. It is Star’s contention that they cannot remove such ads as it would involve expenditure on their part and might also breach their contract with the organisers from whom the feed is obtained..Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued for Star Sports today while Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi appeared for Prasar Bharati. The Court after hearing the parties reserved its judgment..with .Prasar Bharti v. Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors..[Item 2 in court 12 – SLP(C) 4572-4573/2015].Bench: AK Sikri, PC Pant JJ..An appeal against the Delhi HC judgment barring Doordarshan from sharing a live feed of World Cup Cricket matches with private cable operators. The Court had issued notice, and stayed the judgment of the Delhi High Court on February 10, 2015. You can read more about the case here..Today in court: This case will be heard on February 16..4. Pankajakshi (Dead) Through L.Rs. & Ors. v. Chandrika & Ors..[Item 501 in court 2 at 3 pm – Civil Appeal 201/2005].Bench: Anil R Dave, Kurian Joseph, Shiva Kirti Singh, AK Goel, Rohinton Fali Nariman.Case pertaining to whether Civil Procedure Code will override a statute which was a precursor to the Act which governs the High Court. The Court is considering the issue of whether a case can be referred to a third judge when there is a conflict between two judges of the High Court on a question of fact, and not question of law as required by Section 98 of the CPC. The hearing is in its final stage. And is likely to conclude in half an hour today..Today in court: This Bench did not sit today..5. Lovelesh Kumar D. Mulsaniya v. Bar Council of Gujarat & Anr..[Item 16 in court 8 – SLP(C) NO. 494/2012].Bench: MY Eqbal, Arun Mishra JJ..Check evening updates..Today in court: This case could not be tracked. Any update/ information would be appreciated..6. Wanglam Sawin, MLA And Anr. v. The Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh and Ors..[Item 33 in court 2 – SLP(C) NO. 2044/2016].Bench: Anil R Dave, AK Goel JJ..Check evening updates to know more about the case..Today in court: This petition, filed by two former Members of Legislative Assembly of Arunachal Pradesh, is connected with the ongoing controversy in the State about the removal of Speaker. The MLAs contention was that their resignation letters were obtained under duress and the Speaker should have exercised due diligence before accepting the same. Senior Advocate L Nageswara Rao appeared for the petitioners..The court dismissed the petition observing that the petitioners did not raise this issue immediately and it was raised only after 15 days from the resignation..Delhi High Court.1. Kirti Azad & Ors Vs Delhi District Cricket Association & Ors..[Item 49, Court 10- W.P.(C) 1105/2016].Bench- Manmohan J..A petition filed by former cricketer & BJP MP Kirti Azad demanding appointment of an administrator and time-bound SIT probe of the alleged irregularities in the Delhi and District Cricket Association (DDCA). Azad’s petition also claims that Finance Minister Arun Jaitley was involved in embezzlement of funds at the DDCA..Today in Court: This petition was dismissed. Read the full story here..2. Digital Radio (Kolkata, Mumbai, Delhi) Broadcasting Ltd. and Anr Vs Union of India.[Item 38-40, Court 10- WP (C) 9345/2015, 9346/2015, 9347/2015].Bench: Manmohan J..Petitions filed by Digital Radio, the company that owns radio channel Red FM challenging the Govt’s denial to renew its license and enable its migration into Phase III regime from Phase II..Previously, Senior Counsel Harish Salve had appeared for the Petitioners and argued that in spite of sending various communications to the Government for renewal (the license expired on September 30 2015), the same had not been done. The Bench had sought instructions from the Union Govt in this regard. It also directed that until further orders are passed, the company’s license tenure shall stand extended..Today in Court: This matter could not be tracked. Any leads/updates would be appreciated..3. KN Govindacharya v. Union of India.[Item 10, Court 2 – WP (C) 3672/2012].Bench: BD Ahmed, Sanjeev Sachdeva JJ..A petition filed by former BJP Leader KN Govindacharya contending that minors opening accounts with social networking sites violated the Indian Contract Act of 1872, the Indian Majority Act of 1875 and the Information Technology Act of 2000..Today in Court: The question that arose for consideration before the Court today was whether Google was making money out of Ministry of Information & Broadcasting’s (I&B) content that was broadcast on their streaming website, YouTube..The Bench directed Google Inc. and Google India to file affidavits on whether they were making money by hosting I&B content on YouTube. The Court also directed ASG Sanjay Jain to file an affidavit on agreements that the Govt has with social networking sites like Facebook, Whatsapp etc and state on affidavit whether the Union has contracts with them or not..The case will now be heard on March 9..4. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice Vs Subhash Chandra Aggarwal.[Item 2, Court 1- LPA 168/2015].Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J..An appeal against a Single Bench order that had brought the office of the Attorney General under the scope of RTI Act. Solicitor General Ranjit Kumar had appeared for the Government at the admission stage and the Bench had stayed the Single Bench order..On the last date of hearing, the Union had told the Court that ‘public authority’ did not equate to a ‘public body’ as per the RTI Act..Today in Court: You can read the detailed report here. .5. Krittika Padode and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr..[Item 10 in Court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 2399/2015].Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J..A petition challenging the ban imposed on the documentary India’s Daughter. The Court has granted multiple adjournments in this matter, without issuing notice, stating that it wished to peruse the I&B Ministry’s advisory (banning the film) before passing any order in the petition..Today in Court- This case was adjourned to March 21..Bombay High Court.1. Dr.Noorjehan Safia Niaz & 1 Anr v. State of Maharashtra and Ors..[Item 912 Court 43 – PIL(O)/106/2014].Bench: V.M. Kanade, Revati Mohite Dere JJ..A PIL challenging the ban imposed on women from entering in the sanctum of the dargah by the Haji Ali Trust in 2011. The court had earlier said it would wait for the ruling by the Supreme court regarding entry of women in the Sabarimala Temple in Kerala..Advocate General Shrihari Aney will be filing a reply stating the government’s view..2. Juhi Chawla Mehta & 10 Ors. Union of India & 7 Ors..[Item 4 Court 43 – PIL(O)/97/2015].Bench: V.M. Kanade, Revati Mohite Dere JJ..Petitioner, Juhi Chawla seeks an embargo on the installation of mobile phone towers in public places due to the harmful radiation emanating. The PIL has been tagged along with several others. Senior counsel, Mihir Desai is appearing for Chawla..Today in court: The matter did not come up..3. Vanashakti Public Trust & 5 Ors. Union of India & 9 Ors. & Narendra Krishna.[Item 12 Court 43 – NMWST(O)/740/2015].Bench: V.M. Kanade, Revati Mohite Dere JJ..The petitioners have contended that massive reclamation of wetland, illegal dumping & construction has taken place in the following areas – Mumbai Dahisar link road, Ghodbundar road and Vikhroli-Mulund road..In the last hearing the state contended that the said areas were not identified as wetlands but paddy fields and its reclamation was legal. The petitioner’s lawyer, Zaman Ali submitted that the land was identified as a wetland in the central government atlas but not in the state’s..Today in court: The matter did not come up..4. Mumbai Hawkers Union State of Maharashtra & 5 Ors..[Item 29 Court 43 – WP(O)/358/2014].Bench: V.M. Kanade, Revati Mohite Dere JJ..The petitioner union claims that inspite of having almost 1,60,000 members and other unions around 1,000 or less, there was no proportionate representation in the 30-member Town Vending Committee. This committee was constituted as per a direction of the Supreme Court in September 2013..As per the orders, the municipal corporation’s lawyer, senior counsel S.U. Kamdar, had submitted that the Supreme court directions make no mention of proportionate representation in the committee..Today in court: The matter did not come up.