Supreme Court.State of Kerala v. State of Tamil Nadu.[Item 1 in court 1 – I.A. 25-27 IN ORGNL.SUIT NO. 3/2006].A number of interim applications filed by Tamil Nadu in the Mullaperiyar dam dispute between Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Various prayers have been made including stopping Kerala from constructing a new dam, deployment of CISF personnel for the dam, and direction to repair a road in the vicinity of the dam..The Supreme Court has been dealing with this inter-State dispute since 2006; the case has been closely watched by the people from both States..Today in court: On the interim application by Tamil Nadu seeking CISF security for dam, the Court today asked the Tamil Nadu government to respond to the Centre’s stance that CISF security cannot be provided unless the Kerala government makes that demand. On the plea by Tamil Nadu to stop Kerala from undertaking an environmental impact assessment for a new dam, the Court has sought Kerala government’s response. The matter will now be heard in August..Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras v. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.[Item 9 in court 1 – SLP (Civil) 14842/2015].A dispute between Madras High Court and its sitting judge Justice CS Karnan and pertains to the selection of civil judges for the State of Tamil Nadu. The Madras Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul had constituted a committee to interview candidates for the same. Justice Karnan, a sitting judge of the High Court, had passed orders staying this administrative decision of the CJI..The Madras High Court had then moved the Supreme Court against Justice Karnan’s judicial order and procured a stay on Justice Karnan’s order. The Supreme Court while issuing notice to Justice Karnan had also directed that the selection of civil judges will not be interfered with, till this case is disposed of..The matter assumes great significance in the light of the fact that the judiciary in Tamil Nadu including the High Court have been in the news for all the wrong reasons. It is indeed one of the rarest of rare instance wherein a High Court has moved the Supreme Court challenging an order passed by its own judge.Justice Karnan has been in the news even before for opposing Collegium appointments and making allegations of caste discrimination..Even in this case, after the Supreme Court issued notice to him, Justice Karnan had written a letter to the High Court requesting it to bear his expenses for engaging a Senior Advocate to conduct his case in Supreme Court..Today in court: The case was adjourned on a request made by the advocate representing the Madras High Court.. Yogesh Gupta v. Election Commission of India & Anr..[Item 50 in court 2 – Writ Petition (Civil) 422/2014].A PIL filed by Punjab based advocate Yogesh Gupta praying for stoppage of ward-wise counting of votes on the ground that the declaration of result of every polling booth violates the right to privacy attached to voting. The alternative that has been proposed is that the result of every parliamentary constituency be declared as a whole and not through ward-wise counting of votes of every electronic voting machine (EVM)..The Court had issued notice in this case on May 12, 2014. When the matter was last heard on March 23 this year, the Court had allowed the respondents four weeks’ time, to submit a report of the Law Commission which discusses the issues which are a subject matter of this petition..Today in court: In accordance with the directions of the Court, the Centre had submitted the report of the Law Commission on April 27. Additional Solicitor General Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for Central government, informed the same today and also submitted that the Ministry of Law has been intimated about the issue. He said that they have sought time for discussion with stakeholders and, therefore, prayed for adjournment of the case for three months. A Division Bench presided by Justice TS Thakur allowed the same and directed that the matter be listed after three months..P Yasmin Begum v. The Chairman, Bar Council of India, New Delhi.[Item 16 in court 2 – SLP (Crl.) …../2015 Crlmp no. 9252].This is an appeal filed against a judgment of the Madras High Court directing Bar Council of India to take action against lawyers with criminal records..Today in court: The case was adjourned today on a request by the petitioner’s advocate..Delhi High Court .Satish Kumar v. State (GNCT of Delhi) .[Item 11 Suppl. List, Court 30- Bail Appln.1288/2015 with Crl. M.A. 9331/2015].The matter relates to the molestation episode of St. Stephen’s college. Assistant Professor Satish Kumar was denied bail by the trial court and has moved an anticipatory bail application before the Delhi HC..Today in Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Indermeet Kaur granted stay on arrest till the next date of hearing on 17th August and further directed the police to file a status report before the next date..(Send us your tips/suggestions at info@barandbench.com)
Supreme Court.State of Kerala v. State of Tamil Nadu.[Item 1 in court 1 – I.A. 25-27 IN ORGNL.SUIT NO. 3/2006].A number of interim applications filed by Tamil Nadu in the Mullaperiyar dam dispute between Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Various prayers have been made including stopping Kerala from constructing a new dam, deployment of CISF personnel for the dam, and direction to repair a road in the vicinity of the dam..The Supreme Court has been dealing with this inter-State dispute since 2006; the case has been closely watched by the people from both States..Today in court: On the interim application by Tamil Nadu seeking CISF security for dam, the Court today asked the Tamil Nadu government to respond to the Centre’s stance that CISF security cannot be provided unless the Kerala government makes that demand. On the plea by Tamil Nadu to stop Kerala from undertaking an environmental impact assessment for a new dam, the Court has sought Kerala government’s response. The matter will now be heard in August..Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras v. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.[Item 9 in court 1 – SLP (Civil) 14842/2015].A dispute between Madras High Court and its sitting judge Justice CS Karnan and pertains to the selection of civil judges for the State of Tamil Nadu. The Madras Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul had constituted a committee to interview candidates for the same. Justice Karnan, a sitting judge of the High Court, had passed orders staying this administrative decision of the CJI..The Madras High Court had then moved the Supreme Court against Justice Karnan’s judicial order and procured a stay on Justice Karnan’s order. The Supreme Court while issuing notice to Justice Karnan had also directed that the selection of civil judges will not be interfered with, till this case is disposed of..The matter assumes great significance in the light of the fact that the judiciary in Tamil Nadu including the High Court have been in the news for all the wrong reasons. It is indeed one of the rarest of rare instance wherein a High Court has moved the Supreme Court challenging an order passed by its own judge.Justice Karnan has been in the news even before for opposing Collegium appointments and making allegations of caste discrimination..Even in this case, after the Supreme Court issued notice to him, Justice Karnan had written a letter to the High Court requesting it to bear his expenses for engaging a Senior Advocate to conduct his case in Supreme Court..Today in court: The case was adjourned on a request made by the advocate representing the Madras High Court.. Yogesh Gupta v. Election Commission of India & Anr..[Item 50 in court 2 – Writ Petition (Civil) 422/2014].A PIL filed by Punjab based advocate Yogesh Gupta praying for stoppage of ward-wise counting of votes on the ground that the declaration of result of every polling booth violates the right to privacy attached to voting. The alternative that has been proposed is that the result of every parliamentary constituency be declared as a whole and not through ward-wise counting of votes of every electronic voting machine (EVM)..The Court had issued notice in this case on May 12, 2014. When the matter was last heard on March 23 this year, the Court had allowed the respondents four weeks’ time, to submit a report of the Law Commission which discusses the issues which are a subject matter of this petition..Today in court: In accordance with the directions of the Court, the Centre had submitted the report of the Law Commission on April 27. Additional Solicitor General Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for Central government, informed the same today and also submitted that the Ministry of Law has been intimated about the issue. He said that they have sought time for discussion with stakeholders and, therefore, prayed for adjournment of the case for three months. A Division Bench presided by Justice TS Thakur allowed the same and directed that the matter be listed after three months..P Yasmin Begum v. The Chairman, Bar Council of India, New Delhi.[Item 16 in court 2 – SLP (Crl.) …../2015 Crlmp no. 9252].This is an appeal filed against a judgment of the Madras High Court directing Bar Council of India to take action against lawyers with criminal records..Today in court: The case was adjourned today on a request by the petitioner’s advocate..Delhi High Court .Satish Kumar v. State (GNCT of Delhi) .[Item 11 Suppl. List, Court 30- Bail Appln.1288/2015 with Crl. M.A. 9331/2015].The matter relates to the molestation episode of St. Stephen’s college. Assistant Professor Satish Kumar was denied bail by the trial court and has moved an anticipatory bail application before the Delhi HC..Today in Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Indermeet Kaur granted stay on arrest till the next date of hearing on 17th August and further directed the police to file a status report before the next date..(Send us your tips/suggestions at info@barandbench.com)
