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.
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.
Through a notice issued by the Registrar, Supreme Court of India, views/suggestions from stakeholders have also been solicited regarding the published names of the advocates aspiring to obtain the senior designation. Stakeholders have been requested to do the same within 15 days hence. Of 105 advocates who have sent in their applications, 15 are are women.
Now the matter will be heard on January 22, 2019 in the open court to enable the petitioners in the review petitions to present oral arguments to make out the case for the review of the decision of the Supreme Court permitting women’s into Sabarimala temple.
The Petitioner through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) had stated that the Fundamental Rights guarantee equality in protection and safeguarding measures, and ensures no discrimination on the basis of sex, life with human dignity, to equality, bodily integrity and privacy.