On December 12, 2018, the Supreme Court asked Justice Bedi (Retd.) as to whether he had shared the reports submitted to the Court with other members of the monitoring committee. The Court also directed that the report shall not be shared with the petitioners until further order. The Gujarat Government contended that the report was unilateral. The case has been adjourned and the hearing will resume after the winter vacations.
A two-judge bench comprising the Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Rohinton F Nariman extended the date of filing claims and objections in response to draft NRC from December 15, 2018 to December 31, 2018. The Assam Government filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking an extension of one month for receiving claims and objections in response to draft NRC.
FIRs for offences under Sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB, 376E and the POCSO shall not be put in public domain. No person can print or publish the name of the victim or even in a remote manner disclose any facts that can lead to the identification of the victim, even when she is deceased and the family agrees to disclosure, unless authorised by a judge.
NHRC observed that the Bulandshahr incident is indicative of ‘yet another violent protest and rampaging by the unruly mob exposing lawlessness and failure of the administration’ to tackle the sensitive issues and situations. It added that ‘even the police officers do not appear to be safe and can be easily eliminated at free will of the uncontrolled lawless elements’.
Rizwana Khan approached the Rajasthan High Court under Article 226 claiming protection for her husband who is currently in the Udaipur Jail. She claimed that there is a possibility of his assassination as he was an important witness in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh case, Tulsiram Prajapati fake encounter case and Haren Pandya case.
The Counsels submitted that only the Statutory Committee appointing the CBI Director can tweak the otherwise two-year fixed term of the CBI Director, as per Section 4B(1) of DSPE Act, 1946. The Counsels in the case were Fali Nariman for Alok Verma, Dushyant Dave for NGO Common Cause, Kapil Sibal for Mallikarjun Kharge, Rajeev Dhavan for AK Bassi and Indira Jaising for M K Sinha, while Attorney General KK Venugopal represented DoPT, Government of India.
Dr Hamza V K, the petitioner, challenged the selection process on the ground of non-adherence to the UGC regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education-2010.
Pushpa Archal Lal died under mysterious circumstances days after the deceased filed a sexual harassment complaint against T Chandrakant Naik, advocate and Chetan Desai, Government Pleader on November 20, 2018.
Advocate Sunil Fernandes, on behalf of Manish Kumar Sinha IPS, DIG (Head of Branch), CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch, Nagpur, Maharashtra approached the Supreme Court pleading that Sinha’s transfer is arbitrary, motivated and mala fide, made solely with the purpose and intent to victimise the officer as the investigation revealed cogent evidence against certain powerful persons. Sinha demanded a Supreme Court `monitored SIT probe in the FIR against CBI Special Director Rakesh Asthana, while also adding the the evidence in the FIR against Rakesh Asthana as well as the call records and messages on mobile phones on IO Devender Sharma be preserved, and his transfer be nullified.
CJI Ranjan Gogoi categorised the CVC report as: (1) very complimentary to petitioner on some charges, (2) not complimentary to some charges, (3) not very complimentary to some charges and (4) further probe required in some charges. CJI Gogoi also informed that Justice Patnaik had said that findings in CVC report are not by him. He has just supervised the probe as directed by the Court.
The Union Government has not yet implemented the directions issued by the Supreme Court of India that required the Central Government to give wide-scale publicity to the Supreme Court judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India.
The apex court has reserved the judgment on a clutch of four Public Interest Litigations filed by six persons, namely — the first two by Advocates M L Sharma and Vineet Danda, a third by AAP MLA Sanjay Singh, and the last one jointly filed by former finance minister Yashwant Sinha, former telecom minister Arun Shourie and lawyer Prashant Bhushan.
October 22,2018
August 13,2018
June 11,2018
June 15,2018
August 15,2018
June 11,2018
June 11,2018
August 30,2018
August 29,2018
