After a brief exchange with petitioner M L Sharma, CJI proceeded to pass the order dismissing the PIL and noted: “Multiple causes of action have been combined, one having no connection with the other. While some of the reliefs sought may lie, if at all within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, the other reliefs sought are not appropriate for being dealt with in the manner in which they have been projected. We, therefore, decline to entertain this petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The same is accordingly dismissed.”
This is a first exercise being undertaken by the Bombay High Court for conferring the distinction of senior advocate after the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment dated October 12, 2017 in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, that ruled that the process of designation would be dealt with by a Permanent Committee, comprising the Chief Justice of India (or the respective Chief Justice of High Court), two senior judges, Attorney General (or the respective Advocate General) and an eminent jurist based on a “100 Points Index” to ensure non-discrimination and transparency.
Gadchiroli police in the late hours of January 30, 2019, took custody of noted human rights lawyer and Nagpur-based Dalit rights activist Surendra Gadling and activist-poet-writer P Varvara Rao from Pune’s Yerwada Jail authorities. The Police made the arrests in connection with another alleged case of involvement of Gadling and Rao in so-called “unlawful activity” related to the Surjagadh case of 2016. With these arrests, the apprehensions of “ever-greening” of charges on the civil rights activities becoming a reality.
In a series of recusals from hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by NGO Common Cause and RTI activist Anjali Bharadwaj challenging the appointment of M Nageswara Rao as interim director CBI, Justice N V Ramana has become third judge in a row after CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justice A K Sikri, who recused himself from hearing the said PIL. The PIL was listed before a three-judge bench comprising Justices N V Ramana, Mohan M Shantanagoudar and Indira Banerjee.
The process of selecting Senior Advocates ultimately turned out to be an exercise in choosing junior advocates, claim the Petitioners. Further, the foremost criterion governing the designation — namely, the standing at the Bar — was given a complete go-by and was totally ignored, according to the Petitioners. Many of the senior members of the Bar who had applied for designation and who enjoy very good reputation and command extensive and varied practice were left out, while many advocates of much higher standing and much better credentials were not recommended and were not designated as Senior Advocates and their claims were totally overlooked, write the Petitioners.
The Union of India has filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking permission of the Court to allow it to handover the excess/superfluous lands around disputed site in Ayodhya to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas and other owners the land adjacent to the disputed site in Ayodhya. The Centre has sought a direction from the Supreme Court to release 67 acres of land, out of which 0.313 acres are disputed. Centre has also sought modification of the Supreme Court’s order wherein the court had ordered to maintain the status quo.
In his PIL, Harsh Mander has highlighted human rights violations of detainees held presently in six detention centres/prisons in Assam, either because they have been declared as foreigners by one of the one-hundred Foreigners Tribunals in Assam or after serving out their sentence for illegally entering India, detained pending deportation. To buttress his claim, petitioner has relied upon the findings of the deplorable conditions in Assam detention centres, prepared as a report for the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) by the petitioner, as Minorities Monitor at NHRC.
The Petitioner states that Sanskrit shlokas and prayers promote particular religious beliefs which any educational institution funded by state cannot do so. Since the prayers are based on Hinduism, the petitioner asks for a common prayer for students and teachers throughout the country.
A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices S Muralidhar and Sanjeev Narula has dismissed an appeal filed by All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) seeking lifting of the stay on the recruitment process of nurses in its four centres across the country. Before the division bench, AIIMS pleaded that due to one person the entire process is stalled and patients are suffering.
The challenge in these petitions is mainly based on the ground that economic criteria cannot be the sole basis for reservations under the Constitution. To buttress this argument, petitioners have relied upon the Constitution bench judgment in Indira Sawhney Vs. Union of India. In addition, petitioners have asserted that 50 percent ceiling limit for reservation which has been laid down in M Nagaraj v. Union of India & Ors., cannot be violated as the same has been culminated as a part of the basic structure of the Constitution i.e. equality, in the present case.
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices A K Sikri, Abdul Nazeer and M R Shah today, January 24, 2019, refused to stay the operation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018 which had reversed the effect of the Supreme Court’s judgment dated March 20, 2018 diluting the stringent provisions of the SC/ST Act, 1989 such as no anticipatory bails and preliminary enquiries in the cases of atrocities reported under the SC/ST Act, 1989.
Justice A K Sikri, the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court, on Thursday, January 24, 2019, chose to recuse himself from hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the appointment of M Nageswara Rao as interim director CBI. PIL was listed for hearing today, January 24, 2019, before a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices A K Sikri, Abdul Nazeer and M R Shah. The matter came up before Justice Sikri after the recusal of the CJI Ranjan Gogoi from the case on January 21, 2019 and the judicial order passed by him listing the case before Court 2, i.e. bench presided over by Justice Sikri.