The Week that was: The Supreme Court of India

The Supreme court witnessed a relatively relaxed week before it closed for Holi vacation on Friday, the 18th of March. Besides the cases on Satluj-Yamuna Link canal, and the All India Bar Exam, it was the tussle in the SCBA that once again kept the apex court in the news..Below are some of the important events that transpired in the Supreme Court during the past week..March 14.Satluj-Yamuna canal link: Politics in Supreme Court.When a Special reference made by the President to the Supreme Court in 2004 came up for hearing in 2016, it was not just law and Constitution that was being decided upon. Three governments – the Central government, Punjab, and Haryana fought a pitched battle in what many consider as a case of significant political importance..The case was referred to the Supreme Court under Article 143 by the President in 2004 and pertained to the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004 passed by Punjab terminating all the water sharing agreements with the neighbouring States. This legislation had jeopardised the construction of Satluj-Yamuna Link canal..When the matter came up for hearing, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi informed the court that the Punjab government might pass a bill which will return the canal land to the farmers. He asked the court to adjourn the case till after the Holi vacation. Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Haryana, objected to the same. He submitted that the legislation by Punjab amounted to denuding the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and is against the federal structure envisaged in the Constitution besides being in violation of Rule of law..Senior advocate Ram Jethmaani, appearing for Punjab, however, sought some time whereupon the court adjourned the case for March 17..March 15.Dushyant Dave back as SCBA President, or not?.After a public appeal by Chief Justice of India, TS Thakur during the inauguration of the new Bar room, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave chose to withdraw his resignation as President of the Supreme Court Bar Association. Dave also wrote to the Executive Committee of the SCBA conveying his decision to withdraw his resignation. In his letter, Dave has expressed his desire to carry out ‘unfinished work’ for the ‘betterment of the Bar’. But the return would not be as smooth as he might have thought it to be..March 17.“Cannot be a mute spectator” Supreme Court tells Punjab.The case pertaining to Satluj-Yamuna link canal witnessed another eventful hearing culminating in the Supreme Court ordering status-quo with respect to the canal land. The court also rebuked the Punab government for what it considered as acts rendering the court’s decree “un-executable”..The Court was swayed by Senior Advocate Shyam Divan’s submissions that the Bill for returning the canal land to farmers has been passed and farmers have already begun taking possession of the land and filling up the canal..Divan sought interim protection and prayed that the Court should appoint a receiver to take possession of the land and not allow Punjab to defeat the jurisdiction of the court when the matter is pending before the court. Though Ram Jethmalani, appearing for Punjab, argued that the court does not have the jurisdiction to pass interim orders in a special reference case, the Court thought otherwise..It proceeded to order status quo to be maintained with respect to the canal land. It also appointed the Union Home Secretary, Chief Secretary of Punjab and Director General of Police of Punjab as joint receivers with regard to the land. The Court also recorded in its order that certain acts have made its decree un-executable and “it cannot be a mute spectator” in such cases..March 18.AIBE: Court frames issues, refers challenge to Constitution Bench.Aided by Amicus Curiae KK Venugopal, a 3-judge Bench of the Supreme Court presided by Chief Justice of India TS Thakur framed 3 issues to be considered in the challenge to the All India Bar Exam (AIBE) and referred the case to a Constitution Bench..The three questions were as follows:.“1. Whether BCI can prescribe a pre-enrolment training in terms of the BCI (Training) Rules, 1995 as framed under Section 24 (3)(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961. If so whether the case of V Sudhir v. BCI has been correctly decided?.2. Whether a pre-enrolment exam can be prescribed by BCI as a condition precedent for enrolment?.3. If the above questions are answered in the negative, then whether a post-enrolment exam can be validly prescribed.”.The case will be heard after four weeks..Gogoi J. led Bench allows review of government ads judgment.The Court modified its judgment regulating government advertisements. A Division Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Pinaki Chandra Ghose pronounced its order reviewing its judgment of May 13, 2015..As per the new order, photographs of Chief Ministers and Governors of States can also be used in government ads. Further, in the place of Prime Minister’s photo, the concerned Cabinet Minister’s photo can be used. Likewise, State Cabinet Minister’s photo can be used in the place of Chief Minister’s photograph..In the judgment delivered on May 13 last year, the Court had ruled that photographs of political leaders should not be carried in government advertisements which are published using funds from government exchequer. However, exception had been carved out for Prime Minister, President and Chief Justice of India whose photographs can be used in such advertisements. This exception has now been extended to Chief Ministers, Governors and Cabinet ministers..High Court cannot decide on Constitutionality of statute in suo-moto cases.In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot exercise suo moto jurisdiction and stay the operation of a statutory provision unless a person aggrieved has assailed such a provision..A Division Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh delivered this judgment in an appeal against an order passed by the Meghalaya High Court. Advocate Ranjan Mukherjee appeared for the Meghalaya government..By an order dated December 14, 2015, a Division Bench of the Meghalaya High Court comprising Justice Uma Nath Singh and T Nandakumar Singh had referred to clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014 which provides for appointment of a non-judicial member as Chairperson of State Lokayukta. It had then proceeded to stay the said provision. The State government had challenged this in Supreme Court..Bar fight in open: SCBA meeting marred by shouting, chaos.A meeting of the Supreme Court Bar Association’s Executive Committee convened at Milon Banerji hall was marred by drama. The meeting was called by certain members of the EC after senior counsel Dushyant Dave withdrew his resignation as SCBA President..However, melee ensued after Dave was asked not to attend the meeting leading to chaos and shouting by lawyers who had gathered outside the hall..In the midst of all these events, Dave assumed office as SCBA President once again. This is, however, disputed by certain members of the EC including Secretary Gaurav Bhatia who termed the meeting as “illegal”. Eleven members of the Executive Committee have now scheduled a meeting of the EC on March 29..The saga is far from over.