Read Time: 01 hours
[Ex-gratia compensation] The Supreme Court has reiterated its anguish over the fake certificates being issued by the Doctors in view of the attempts of family members of the persons who died of Covid-19 to receive ex gratia compensation. The bench said, “We never visualised it that it'll be misused in such a way, it is a very serious thing. It is even worse if the officials are involved in this, it is a pious world.” During the arguments, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asked the bench to give directions setting a limitation for applying for the ex-gratia compensation. To which the bench asked Mehta to submit an appropriate application in this regard. Bench: Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna Case Title: Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India Click here to read more
[NEET PG] The Supreme Court pulled up a lawyer for filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking relaxation of NEET-PG 2020-2021 marks. The petition further sought that the mop up round should not be completed till the revised cut-off marks is published. When the matter came up for hearing Justice Rao questioned the lawyer, “Who are you, what is your interest in it? Have you just seen something in newspaper and filed a writ petition?” While refraining from imposing cost on the lawyer, the bench warned him not to file such cases going forward. Bench: Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice BR Gavai Case Title: M.N.Umesh v. Union of Ind Click here to read more
[Delhi Judiciary exams] Supreme Court as a one-time measure, permitted candidates over 32 years of age and 45 years of age to appear for Delhi Judiciary Service examination and Delhi Higher Judiciary Examination respectively. This was done mainly owing to the fact that the Delhi High Court did not conduct judiciary examinations for the years 2020 and 2021. The last date for submission of application for Delhi Judicial Service has now been extended to 3rd April 2022, while the examination will be held on 24th April 2022. The last date for submission of application for Delhi Higher Judicial Service has now been extended to 26th March, 2022 while the examination will be conducted on 3rd April 2022. Bench: Justices Chandrachud, Bopanna and Hima Kohli Case Title: High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma Click here to read more
[Fuel price increase] The Supreme Court has refused to interfere in the plea filed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) against increase in prices for bulk diesel sold by state-owned oil marketing companies. Justice Nazeer remarked on the matter, “You are a state that pays lifelong pension to ministerial staff who served merely for two years. You have so much money. We read this in the newspaper.” He then asked the transport corporation to approach the High Court in this regard after Sr. Adv. V. Giri, appearing for the transport corporation sought liberty to do so. Bench: Justices Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari Case Title: Kerala State Road Transport Corporation through its Chairman & Managing Director v. Union of India & Ors. Click here to read more
[Plea in SC] BJP MLA Girish Dattatraya Mahajan has moved Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court order dismissing the Public Interest Litigation filed against the amendment of Rules 6 and 7 of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Rule, 1960 concerning the election of Speaker and Deputy Speaker. On Monday, the plea was mentioned before a bench of Justice UU Lalit, however, Justice Lalit has asked the petitioner to mention the matter before the Chief Justice of India. The plea has alleged that the Impugned Notification has been wrongly issued exercising powers under Rule 225 (3) of the MLA Rules which envisages a situation that there were no objections received by the committee to the proposed amendments. Case Title: Girish Dattatraya Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Click here to read more
[MediaOne ban] The Supreme Court has stayed the order of Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) revoking the security clearance of TV channel Media One which had taken the channel off air. The order of MHA was upheld by a Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv, appearing for the television channel Media One alleged that the channel was being targeted by the Centre because it was run by members from the Minority community. He had further argued that after 11 years of continuous broadcast, the Division Bench of Kerala High Court had turned around and upheld the revocation of their license despite knowing very well that a security clearance was not required at the renewal stage. Bench: Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath Case Title: Madhayamam Broadcasting vs Union of India Click here to read more
[Tablighi Jamaat] Before the Supreme Court, the Centre through Solicitor General of India (SG) Tushar Mehta urged to decide on the law relating to rights of foreigners on them violating their visa conditions. The SG mentioned that “this law would have long lasting implications.” The bench was hearing a batch of petitions relating to a communication by the Ministry of Home Affairs' (MHA) blacklisting of foreign nationals who attended Tablighi Jamaat in 2020 in violation of their visa regulations. The Court asked him to file written submissions and posted the matter for hearing on April 8, for further consideration. Bench: Justices Khanwilkar and CT Ravikumar Case Title: Maulana Ala Hardami v. Union of India Click here to read more
[Lavanya Death] Before the Supreme Court, in the Tamil Nadu Police challenge of the Madras High Court order the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) has filed an intervention application. The Tamil Nadu government, through the DGP has filed the Special Leave Petition challenging the validity of the order passed by a single-judge bench of the high court transferring investigation into 17-year old Thanjavur girl’s (Lavanya) alleged forceful conversion & suicide case to CBI. NCPCR states that there has been a grave injury and violation of the rights and it feels duty-bound to submit the findings of its inquiry to assist the Apex Court. Case Title: The Director General of Police and Ors. v. Murugananthan & Anr. Click here to read more
[Lakhimpur Kheri] The Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice NV Ramana indicated that a bench consisting of himself, Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohil which heard the suo moto case pertaining to the Lakhimpur Kheri violence, will tomorrow hear the plea seeking cancellation of bail granted to Ashish Mishra, the prime accused in the violence incident. Adv. Prashant Bhushan submitted that one of the witnesses to the incident was brutally attacked and that the attackers claimed that since BJP has returned to power, the witness will be put to greater trouble. Bench: CJI NV Ramana and Justices Bopanna and Hima Kohli Case Title: Jagjeet Singh and Ors. v. Ashish Mishra Alias Monu and Anr. Click here to read more
[Hijab row- SC] A petition has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the Karnataka High Court order in dismissing the plea challenging the alleged ban on wearing the Hijab at Pre-University colleges in Udupi district of Karnataka. The plea filed through Advocate Anas Tanwir has alleged that the High Court has failed to note that the Karnataka Education Act, 1983, and the Rules made thereunder, do not provide for any mandatory uniform to be worn by students. Whereas, the Act reveals that it aims to regulate the institutions, rather than the students, the plea adds. In addition to this, the plea further added that, "there does not exist any provision in law which prescribes any punishment for students for not wearing uniforms. Even if one were to presume that there existed a mandate to wear a particular uniform, there is no punishment prescribed in case a student does not wear the uniform." Click here to read more
[Hijab Ban] Another SLP has been filed before the Supreme Court by one Mohammed Arif Jameel challenging the Karnataka High Court order whereby it dismissed the plea challenging the alleged ban on wearing the Hijab at Pre-University colleges in Udupi district of Karnataka. Before a bench of CJI NV Ramana, the subject matter concerning Hijab row was mentioned. As of now, the court has not fixed any date for hearing it. Recently, the High Court held that wearing Hijab is not essential religious practice of Islam and prescription of school uniform by the PU colleges is a reasonable restriction. Case Title: Mohamed Arif Jameel v. State of Karnataka & ORS Click here to read more
[Conflict of Interest] Justice Chandrachud today remarked that his conscience is clear and warned a lawyer against using certain tactics to take the matter off his bench. When the matter was called for hearing, the bench was informed by the court master that a letter for adjournment has been circulated in the matter. However, Vijay Hansari, Sr. Adv, appearing for the respondent objected to the adjournment and informed the bench that certain important facts pertaining to the matter have been concealed in the petition. The bench immediately summoned the counsel for the petitioner. On appearing the counsel said “Mr. Atul Chitale, Sr. Adv, used to appear in the matter milords.” It is to be noted that Chitale is Justice Chandrachud’s relative. A visibly upset Justice Chandrachud asked the counsel if Chitale is appearing in the matter now. When the counsel answered in the negative, Justice Chandrachud said, “Don’t say such thing to get this matter off my bench!” Bench: Justices Chandrachud and Surya Kant Click here to read more
[COVID Vaccine] The Central Government has informed the Supreme Court that the total number of doses administered is 180,13,23,547 in the country and the total number of adverse events reported (including minor, severe and serious cases) are 77,314 [0.004%]. The data has been supplied to top court in its response to the plea challenging the vaccine mandate in a PIL which has stated that vaccines are being administered to the public without testing its safety and that adequate data is not being disclosed to the public. Case Title: Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India & Ors. Click here to read more
[Lakhimpur Violence] The Supreme Court has issued notice in plea seeking cancellation of bail issued to Ashish Mishra, the prime accused in Lakhimpur Kheri violence. The Court further asked the state of Uttar Pradesh to file a detailed affidavit and provide protection to the witnesses. When the matter came up for hearing, Sr. Adv. Dushyant Dave, submitted that the judge of the Allahabad High Court has misdirected himself on granting bail. Dave submitted, “The judge has not even taken into consideration that a suo moto case was initiated by the Supreme Court.” The Court on hearing Dave issued notice and directed the state to file a reply along with a direction to protect witnesses. Bench: Chief Justice NV Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli Case Title: Jagjeet Singh and Ors. v. Ashish Mishra Alias Monu and Anr. | In Re: Violence in Lakhimpur Kheri (UP) leading to loss of life Click here to read more
[Municipal Elections of Delhi] Aam Admi Party has filed a petition before the Supreme Court challenging the State Election Commission's decision to postpone the Municipal Elections of Delhi. It is the political party's contention that the elections have been postponed "without any reasonable grounds", and solely on the basis of "unofficial communication" from the Government of India. The plea has sought direction for the Respondents to conduct the Municipal Elections in Delhi according to the initially conceived schedule of the State Election Commission, National Capital Territory of Delhi (“State Election”), before the expiry of the tenure of the Municipal Corporations of Delhi, in May 2022. Case Title: Aam Aadmi Part & Ors. v. State Election Commission Click here to read more
[Plea in SC] The Supreme Court has issued notice in a plea challenging the allegedly “arbitrary” appointment of persons belonging only to Muslim community to head the Karnataka Minority Commission while ignoring other minorities such as Christian, Sikhs, Jain and Bhudhist. The plea is a challenge to the order of Karnataka High Court dated 18th January 2021 which dismissed the plea on the ground that there is no law or statutory rule which mandates the Minority Commission to appoint persons from Christians, Sikhs, Parsis, Jain and Buddhists as the Chairperson to the Karnataka Minorities Development Corporation Limited by rotation. Bench: Justices Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose Case Title: Anil Antony Sv.tate of Karnataka Click here to read more
Please Login or Register
