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.Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Union of IndiaBhanu Pratap Gupta v. Bar Council of India And Anr.Muneesh Kumar v. State of Jammu And KashmirState of Maharashtra v. Salman Salim Khan.Bombay High Court.Jayshree Ramakant Khadilkar Pande v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & 7 Ors.Shalini Harishkumar Kotian v. State of MaharashtraBombay Lawyers Association v. Union of India & 3 Ors.Mr. Santosh Digambar Honkarape & Anr v. Central Adoption Resources Agency & Ors.SUMMARY OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India.[Item 45 in court 2 – SLP(C) 16107-16108/2016].Bench: Anil R Dave, L Nageswara Rao JJ..The case between Delhi government and the Lieutenant Governor regarding powers of the LG. When the matter came up for hearing yesterday, Justice JS Khehar had recused from the case. Read more here..Today in court: Justice L Nageswara Rao also recused from the matter prompting Senior Advocate Indira Jaising to mention the matter once again before the Chief Justice. Read more here..2. Bhanu Pratap Gupta v. Bar Council of India And Anr..[Item 23 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 380/2016].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, DY Chandruchud J. .A fresh public interest litigation petition. Check evening updates to know more..Today in court: This petition concerning verification of lawyers by BCI was dismissed..3. Muneesh Kumar v. State of Jammu And Kashmir.[Item 25 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 385/2016].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, DY Chandruchud J. .A fresh public interest litigation petition. Check evening updates to know more..Today in court: This petition was dismissed..4. State of Maharashtra v. Salman Salim Khan.[Item 65 in court 3 – SLP(CRL) 704/2016].Bench: JS Khehar, Arun Mishra JJ..An appeal filed by the Maharashtra government against the Bombay High Court judgment acquitting Salman Khan in the hit and run case. The Court had issued notice to Salman Khan on February 19 this year. Besides the State government, the widow and son of the victim have also challenged the verdict of the Bombay High Court..Today in court: The court granted leave in the matter. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Salman while Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the State government. Rohatgi sought early hearing in the matter but the Bench asked him to place the request before the Chief Justice of India..Bombay High Court.For Pronouncement of Judgement.1. Jayshree Ramakant Khadilkar Pande v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & 7 Ors..[Item 901 Court 21- PILST(OS)/51/2016].Bench: SS Kemkar, MS Karnik JJ.The five contractors who were awarded contracts to build four bridges in the city by BMC had criminal records. These contracts were then stayed by a vacation bench of Justices BR Gavai and Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi. The final order on these contracts was reserved and will now be pronounced today..Today in court: The bench has set aside all four contracts awarded to persons with criminal records. Read the order for more details..2. Shalini Harishkumar Kotian v State of Maharashtra .[Item 904 Court 31- WP(C)/6608/2016].Bench: SC Dharmadhikari and Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi JJ.The petition challenging the Maharashtra Common Entrance Test for law. During the last hearing, held just days before the CET was to take place, the Bombay High Court refused to grant any stay on the exam. The State, represented by Shreehari Aney, submitted its arguments yesterday. The petitioner’s lawyer Pradnya Talekar submitted her final arguements as well..Today in court: A detailed report can be read here..3. Bombay Lawyers Association v. Union of India & 3 Ors..[Item 15 Court 13- PIL(OS)/52/2016].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.A PIL seeking thirty percent reservation for women in Bar Council of India as well as other Bar Associations..Today in court: The petition was disposed off after BCI submitted an undertaking that they would seek the law ministry opinion, and then take the necessary steps based on the response..4. Mr. Santosh Digambar Honkarape & Anr v. Central Adoption Resources Agency & Ors.[Item 16 Court 13- PIL(C)/162/2015].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.The petitioners had challenged the 2015 guidelines on adoption issued by Central Adoption Resources Agency (CARA). They had alleged that the new procedure established by the guidelines, of viewing the children online, is unfavourable to these children..The intervenors (parents who support the new guidelines) had stated that these guidelines are more transparent. Recording the facts in an order by the apex court dated 14 March 2016, Oka J said since certain procedures in the new guidelines were in direct conflict with the Juvenile Justice Act 2015. .Since then, the central government has come out with new model rules for adoption under the Juvenile Justice Act. The state was directed to frame regulations in consonance with these model rules. Read our previous report..Today in court: Another three weeks was granted to the state government to formulate model rules.
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.Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Union of IndiaBhanu Pratap Gupta v. Bar Council of India And Anr.Muneesh Kumar v. State of Jammu And KashmirState of Maharashtra v. Salman Salim Khan.Bombay High Court.Jayshree Ramakant Khadilkar Pande v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & 7 Ors.Shalini Harishkumar Kotian v. State of MaharashtraBombay Lawyers Association v. Union of India & 3 Ors.Mr. Santosh Digambar Honkarape & Anr v. Central Adoption Resources Agency & Ors.SUMMARY OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India.[Item 45 in court 2 – SLP(C) 16107-16108/2016].Bench: Anil R Dave, L Nageswara Rao JJ..The case between Delhi government and the Lieutenant Governor regarding powers of the LG. When the matter came up for hearing yesterday, Justice JS Khehar had recused from the case. Read more here..Today in court: Justice L Nageswara Rao also recused from the matter prompting Senior Advocate Indira Jaising to mention the matter once again before the Chief Justice. Read more here..2. Bhanu Pratap Gupta v. Bar Council of India And Anr..[Item 23 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 380/2016].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, DY Chandruchud J. .A fresh public interest litigation petition. Check evening updates to know more..Today in court: This petition concerning verification of lawyers by BCI was dismissed..3. Muneesh Kumar v. State of Jammu And Kashmir.[Item 25 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 385/2016].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, DY Chandruchud J. .A fresh public interest litigation petition. Check evening updates to know more..Today in court: This petition was dismissed..4. State of Maharashtra v. Salman Salim Khan.[Item 65 in court 3 – SLP(CRL) 704/2016].Bench: JS Khehar, Arun Mishra JJ..An appeal filed by the Maharashtra government against the Bombay High Court judgment acquitting Salman Khan in the hit and run case. The Court had issued notice to Salman Khan on February 19 this year. Besides the State government, the widow and son of the victim have also challenged the verdict of the Bombay High Court..Today in court: The court granted leave in the matter. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Salman while Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the State government. Rohatgi sought early hearing in the matter but the Bench asked him to place the request before the Chief Justice of India..Bombay High Court.For Pronouncement of Judgement.1. Jayshree Ramakant Khadilkar Pande v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & 7 Ors..[Item 901 Court 21- PILST(OS)/51/2016].Bench: SS Kemkar, MS Karnik JJ.The five contractors who were awarded contracts to build four bridges in the city by BMC had criminal records. These contracts were then stayed by a vacation bench of Justices BR Gavai and Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi. The final order on these contracts was reserved and will now be pronounced today..Today in court: The bench has set aside all four contracts awarded to persons with criminal records. Read the order for more details..2. Shalini Harishkumar Kotian v State of Maharashtra .[Item 904 Court 31- WP(C)/6608/2016].Bench: SC Dharmadhikari and Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi JJ.The petition challenging the Maharashtra Common Entrance Test for law. During the last hearing, held just days before the CET was to take place, the Bombay High Court refused to grant any stay on the exam. The State, represented by Shreehari Aney, submitted its arguments yesterday. The petitioner’s lawyer Pradnya Talekar submitted her final arguements as well..Today in court: A detailed report can be read here..3. Bombay Lawyers Association v. Union of India & 3 Ors..[Item 15 Court 13- PIL(OS)/52/2016].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.A PIL seeking thirty percent reservation for women in Bar Council of India as well as other Bar Associations..Today in court: The petition was disposed off after BCI submitted an undertaking that they would seek the law ministry opinion, and then take the necessary steps based on the response..4. Mr. Santosh Digambar Honkarape & Anr v. Central Adoption Resources Agency & Ors.[Item 16 Court 13- PIL(C)/162/2015].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.The petitioners had challenged the 2015 guidelines on adoption issued by Central Adoption Resources Agency (CARA). They had alleged that the new procedure established by the guidelines, of viewing the children online, is unfavourable to these children..The intervenors (parents who support the new guidelines) had stated that these guidelines are more transparent. Recording the facts in an order by the apex court dated 14 March 2016, Oka J said since certain procedures in the new guidelines were in direct conflict with the Juvenile Justice Act 2015. .Since then, the central government has come out with new model rules for adoption under the Juvenile Justice Act. The state was directed to frame regulations in consonance with these model rules. Read our previous report..Today in court: Another three weeks was granted to the state government to formulate model rules.