A summary of important cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India and the Bombay High Court..LIST OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.In Re: Muslim Women’s Quest For Equality Jamiat Ulma-I-HindSudhir v. Union of IndiaNavtej Singh Johar and Ors. v. Union of IndiaGS Grewal and Ors v. Medical Council Of India And Ors.Dr. Naresh Chand Gupta v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority & Ors..Bombay High Court.Punjabi Cultural Heritage Board Public Charitable v. Union of IndiaJayashree Ramakant Khadilkar Pande v. Union of India & OrsVanashakti & Anr v. State of Maharashtra.Rabia A Khan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors..SUMMARY OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.1. MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors..[Item 301 in court 1 – IA 460 in WP(C) 13029/1985].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AK Sikri, R Banumathi JJ. .Case about the ban on Diesel cars with an engine capacity of 2000 cc or more in NCR..2. In Re: Muslim Women’s Quest For Equality Jamiat Ulma-I-Hind.[Item 40 in court 1 – SMW(C) 2/2015].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AM Khanwilkar J. .Petition challenging the Constitutionality of Muslim practices of polygamy, triple talaq (talaq-e-bidat) and nikah halala. The Court had issued notice in this case on February 29 this year..It is learnt that the Central government might not be opposing the petition while the Muslim Personal Law Board will oppose the petition..Today in court: The Court granted the parties 8 weeks time to complete the pleadings. The Court also indicated that it might refer the case to a larger Bench after a preliminary hearing. The parties have been asked to frame issues to be considered by the court. The case will now be heard on September 6. Read the full story here..3. Sudhir v. Union of India.[Item 24 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 321/2016].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AM Khanwilkar J. .A Public Interest Litigation filed by RTI activist Sudhir Yadav in the Supreme Court seeking a ban on Whatsapp and other messenger services having end to end encryption. Whatsapp had introduced end to end encryption in April this year. Sudhir’s stand is that he is not against the encryption per se but he wants the private key to be provided to the government so that the government can decrypt a message if it wants..Today in court: This petition was dismissed..4. Navtej Singh Johar and Ors. v. Union of India.[Item 25 in court 13 – Writ Petition (Crl) 76/2016].Bench: SA Bobde, Ashok Bhushan JJ. .A petition challenging Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and seeking a declaration that “sexuality” and “sexual autonomy” is part of right to life under Article 21. This petition has been filed by dancer NS Johar, journalist Sunil Mehra, chef Ritu Dalmia, hotelier Aman Nath and business executive Ayesha Kapur. The petitioners have contended that Section 377 impedes their sexual preferences which is part and parcel of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution..Today in court: This Bench directed that this petition be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. Senior Advocate Arvind Datar appeared for the petitioner. Read the full story here..5. GS Grewal and Ors v. Medical Council Of India And Ors..[Item 21 in court 1 – WP (Crl.) 78/2016].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AM Khanwilkar J. .A fresh public interest litigation petition. Check evening updates to know more..Today in court: This case could not be tracked. Any update/ information would be appreciated..6. Dr. Naresh Chand Gupta v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority & Ors..[Item 23 in court 1 – Writ Petition (C) 316/2016].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AM Khanwilkar J. .A fresh public interest litigation petition. Check evening updates to know more..Today in court: This petition prays for prohibition of installation of mobile phone towers near residential areas, hospitals, schools etc. The Court issued notice to the Telecom Ministry and NOIDA..Bombay High Court.1. Punjabi Cultural Heritage Board Public Charitable v. Union of India.[Item 906 Court 31- WP(OS)/1430/2016].Bench: SC Dharmadhikari, Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi JJ.The petitioner, an MLC from suburban Mulund sought stay on release of the fim ‘Santa Banta’ alleging that it hurts religious sentiments of the Sikh community. The bench had refused to stay the release. Senior counsel BA Desai appears for the petitioner while Senior counsel Ravi Kadam appears for the film’s producers..Today in court: Appearing for the producers, Madhu Gadoria submitted that the petition has now become infructuous since the film has already been released. Dharmadhikari J asked the petitioner’s lawyer to go through the Udta Punjab Order and consider withdrawing the petition..2. Jayashree Ramakant Khadilkar Pande v. Union of India & Ors.[Item 7 Court 13- PIL(OS) 26/2015].Bench: AS Oka and AA Sayed JJ.A PIL challenging loan recoveries initiated by various banks after lending money to farmers for emu farms. Senior counsel Mihir Desai had appeared for the petitioner, arguing that initially the Central government had painted “a rosy picture” when it came to the financial rewards of emu farming. However this did not turn out to be true..The High Court, in 2015, had not stayed the recovery proceedings but had directed that no possession of mortgaged properties would be taken..The High court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in the same matter had given the centre time to take a decision regarding loan waiver to these farmers till January 31, 2016 which they have not..Today in court: Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh submitted that the reply filed earlier with regard to the decision being taken by the Union for helping Emu Farmers was meant for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana only not Maharashtra. A fresh reply will now be filed where the Union will state its decision regarding Maharashtra. The matter will now be listed in August..3. Vanashakti & Anr v. State of Maharashtra..[Item 26 Court 21- PIL(C)/131/2014].Bench: SS Kemkar, MS Karnik JJ.A petition alleging that there has been inadequate protection of the State’s forests. The petitioner’s lawyer, Ahmad Abdi had stated that protected forests are required to be monitored by GPS, Google Imaging etc. AGP appearing for the state had submitted that there is no communication from the central government regarding guidelines for critical wildlife habitat. He was directed to take instructions and file a reply..Today in court: This matter could not be taken up due to paucity of time..4. Rabia A Khan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors..[Item 1 Court 54- WP(Cri)/669/2016].Bench: Naresh H Patil, PD Naik JJ.Rabia Khan, mother of late actress Jiah Khan, has sought a stay on the trial against Sooraj Pancholi. She is dissatisfied with CBI’s investigation and seeks an SIT to be formed. In the previous hearing, Patil J had declined a further stay on the trial. After Khan moved to the apex court seeking the same, the Supreme Court refused to intervene but asked the High Court to rule on the petition expeditiously..Petitioner’s counsel, Subhash Jha submitted that the petitioner had to travel abroad as her daughter is unwell hence the matter be adjourned. Although Patil J did say mention that the apex court had ordered the matter to be decided expiditiously, he eventually granted the request..Rabia’s lawyer was directed to file a rejoinder to CBI’s affidavit in the case..Today in court: The petitioner’s advocate sought adjournment in the matter stating that the petitioner is still abroad attending to her second daughter who is unwell..The bench has now adjourned the matter for the fourth time since the SC’s order, to July 4.
A summary of important cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India and the Bombay High Court..LIST OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.In Re: Muslim Women’s Quest For Equality Jamiat Ulma-I-HindSudhir v. Union of IndiaNavtej Singh Johar and Ors. v. Union of IndiaGS Grewal and Ors v. Medical Council Of India And Ors.Dr. Naresh Chand Gupta v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority & Ors..Bombay High Court.Punjabi Cultural Heritage Board Public Charitable v. Union of IndiaJayashree Ramakant Khadilkar Pande v. Union of India & OrsVanashakti & Anr v. State of Maharashtra.Rabia A Khan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors..SUMMARY OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.1. MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors..[Item 301 in court 1 – IA 460 in WP(C) 13029/1985].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AK Sikri, R Banumathi JJ. .Case about the ban on Diesel cars with an engine capacity of 2000 cc or more in NCR..2. In Re: Muslim Women’s Quest For Equality Jamiat Ulma-I-Hind.[Item 40 in court 1 – SMW(C) 2/2015].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AM Khanwilkar J. .Petition challenging the Constitutionality of Muslim practices of polygamy, triple talaq (talaq-e-bidat) and nikah halala. The Court had issued notice in this case on February 29 this year..It is learnt that the Central government might not be opposing the petition while the Muslim Personal Law Board will oppose the petition..Today in court: The Court granted the parties 8 weeks time to complete the pleadings. The Court also indicated that it might refer the case to a larger Bench after a preliminary hearing. The parties have been asked to frame issues to be considered by the court. The case will now be heard on September 6. Read the full story here..3. Sudhir v. Union of India.[Item 24 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 321/2016].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AM Khanwilkar J. .A Public Interest Litigation filed by RTI activist Sudhir Yadav in the Supreme Court seeking a ban on Whatsapp and other messenger services having end to end encryption. Whatsapp had introduced end to end encryption in April this year. Sudhir’s stand is that he is not against the encryption per se but he wants the private key to be provided to the government so that the government can decrypt a message if it wants..Today in court: This petition was dismissed..4. Navtej Singh Johar and Ors. v. Union of India.[Item 25 in court 13 – Writ Petition (Crl) 76/2016].Bench: SA Bobde, Ashok Bhushan JJ. .A petition challenging Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code and seeking a declaration that “sexuality” and “sexual autonomy” is part of right to life under Article 21. This petition has been filed by dancer NS Johar, journalist Sunil Mehra, chef Ritu Dalmia, hotelier Aman Nath and business executive Ayesha Kapur. The petitioners have contended that Section 377 impedes their sexual preferences which is part and parcel of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution..Today in court: This Bench directed that this petition be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. Senior Advocate Arvind Datar appeared for the petitioner. Read the full story here..5. GS Grewal and Ors v. Medical Council Of India And Ors..[Item 21 in court 1 – WP (Crl.) 78/2016].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AM Khanwilkar J. .A fresh public interest litigation petition. Check evening updates to know more..Today in court: This case could not be tracked. Any update/ information would be appreciated..6. Dr. Naresh Chand Gupta v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority & Ors..[Item 23 in court 1 – Writ Petition (C) 316/2016].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AM Khanwilkar J. .A fresh public interest litigation petition. Check evening updates to know more..Today in court: This petition prays for prohibition of installation of mobile phone towers near residential areas, hospitals, schools etc. The Court issued notice to the Telecom Ministry and NOIDA..Bombay High Court.1. Punjabi Cultural Heritage Board Public Charitable v. Union of India.[Item 906 Court 31- WP(OS)/1430/2016].Bench: SC Dharmadhikari, Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi JJ.The petitioner, an MLC from suburban Mulund sought stay on release of the fim ‘Santa Banta’ alleging that it hurts religious sentiments of the Sikh community. The bench had refused to stay the release. Senior counsel BA Desai appears for the petitioner while Senior counsel Ravi Kadam appears for the film’s producers..Today in court: Appearing for the producers, Madhu Gadoria submitted that the petition has now become infructuous since the film has already been released. Dharmadhikari J asked the petitioner’s lawyer to go through the Udta Punjab Order and consider withdrawing the petition..2. Jayashree Ramakant Khadilkar Pande v. Union of India & Ors.[Item 7 Court 13- PIL(OS) 26/2015].Bench: AS Oka and AA Sayed JJ.A PIL challenging loan recoveries initiated by various banks after lending money to farmers for emu farms. Senior counsel Mihir Desai had appeared for the petitioner, arguing that initially the Central government had painted “a rosy picture” when it came to the financial rewards of emu farming. However this did not turn out to be true..The High Court, in 2015, had not stayed the recovery proceedings but had directed that no possession of mortgaged properties would be taken..The High court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in the same matter had given the centre time to take a decision regarding loan waiver to these farmers till January 31, 2016 which they have not..Today in court: Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh submitted that the reply filed earlier with regard to the decision being taken by the Union for helping Emu Farmers was meant for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana only not Maharashtra. A fresh reply will now be filed where the Union will state its decision regarding Maharashtra. The matter will now be listed in August..3. Vanashakti & Anr v. State of Maharashtra..[Item 26 Court 21- PIL(C)/131/2014].Bench: SS Kemkar, MS Karnik JJ.A petition alleging that there has been inadequate protection of the State’s forests. The petitioner’s lawyer, Ahmad Abdi had stated that protected forests are required to be monitored by GPS, Google Imaging etc. AGP appearing for the state had submitted that there is no communication from the central government regarding guidelines for critical wildlife habitat. He was directed to take instructions and file a reply..Today in court: This matter could not be taken up due to paucity of time..4. Rabia A Khan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors..[Item 1 Court 54- WP(Cri)/669/2016].Bench: Naresh H Patil, PD Naik JJ.Rabia Khan, mother of late actress Jiah Khan, has sought a stay on the trial against Sooraj Pancholi. She is dissatisfied with CBI’s investigation and seeks an SIT to be formed. In the previous hearing, Patil J had declined a further stay on the trial. After Khan moved to the apex court seeking the same, the Supreme Court refused to intervene but asked the High Court to rule on the petition expeditiously..Petitioner’s counsel, Subhash Jha submitted that the petitioner had to travel abroad as her daughter is unwell hence the matter be adjourned. Although Patil J did say mention that the apex court had ordered the matter to be decided expiditiously, he eventually granted the request..Rabia’s lawyer was directed to file a rejoinder to CBI’s affidavit in the case..Today in court: The petitioner’s advocate sought adjournment in the matter stating that the petitioner is still abroad attending to her second daughter who is unwell..The bench has now adjourned the matter for the fourth time since the SC’s order, to July 4.