The Week that Was: The Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court this week was treated to a mixed bag of matters, and a couple of them proved unintentionally interesting. While the banter between Justice Dipak Mishra and ML Sharma kept onlookers entertained, matters of national importance, such as the abortion laws case, and the Delhi Judicial Services Examination, had the Court in a legal quandary..Below is a flashback of some of the important events that transpired this week..July 25.SC issues notice to Vijay Mallya, corporate honcho’s legal troubles deepen.The Court on Monday heard a batch of appeals filed by a consortium of banks against an order of the Karnataka High Court which had turned down a plea to restrain Vijay Mallya from leaving the country..The consortium had rejected a proposal by Mallya for repayment of the loans. The Supreme Court issued a notice to Vijay Mallya for not complying with the Supreme Court’s order to disclose assets..Supreme Court grants permission to rape victim to terminate pregnancy.The petitioner, by the pseudonym of Ms. X, had approached the Supreme Court last week challenging the constitutional validity of Section 3(2) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971..The court had issued notice to the Central and Maharashtra governments last week and also directed a medical board to be constituted to determine the status of the pregnancy of Ms. X, and to ascertain whether it would be feasible to abort the foetus..The report mentioned that the foetus was not compatible with extra-uterine life, and the continuation of the pregnancy would pose a grave threat to the mental health and physical well being of the expectant mother..The Bench accepted the contention that while Section 3 does not permit the termination of a pregnancy that exceeds twenty weeks of uterine life, Section 5 lays down exceptions in the interest of the life of the mother..SC rejects plea for lower qualification marks for Scheduled Castes in Haryana Judicial Service.The petitioner, Volunteers for Social Justice, had challenged the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court to keep 45% as the qualification marks for SC candidates. The same benchmark was prescribed for backward caste candidates as well..The petitioner had challenged the same before the Punjab & Haryana High Court which had dismissed the case. This led to an appeal to the Supreme Court..Advocate Raghav Awasthi submitted that the qualification marks prescribed for Scheduled Caste candidates and Backward Caste candidates are the same and consequently, the SC candidates, who don’t have the benefit of going to good schools and colleges, suffer..Chief Justice Thakur, however, maintained that there should be a minimum qualification for being a judge..“For selecting a judge, there has to be a minimum qualification. There has to be a benchmark; just because one is a Scheduled Caste, the same cannot be done away with.”.The Court then said that if any of the aggrieved persons are affected, they can approach the Court rather than an NGO filing such a petition..SC files reply to Indira Jaising’s PIL.Former Additional Solicitor General of India, senior counsel Indira Jaising has challenged the procedure for designating senior advocates in the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court this week also filed its reply..The Supreme Court has also rejected an RTI request made by Jaising under the RTI Act seeking information regarding designation of five advocates as Seniors in April 2015..In an affidavit filed by Registrar Nisha Bhardwaj, the Supreme Court admits that it has not framed any rules laying down specific criteria or manner of procedure etc. for designating advocates as Seniors..July 26.Land owner is “consumer” despite entitlement to developed flats, Supreme Court.The Supreme Court has held that a contract between a land owner and developer which entitles the landowner to certain amount of built-up space, will not amount to a joint-venture between the land owner and the developer..Consequently, the court ruled that a land owner, who has entered into such a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with a developer, will be a consumer within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act..Jalikattu for trial: Can it survive?.In a matter relating to the conduction of Jallikattu, a centuries old tradition that argues its validity through a centuries old custom, the Supreme Court remarked that if parties are able to convince the Bench that the 2014 judgment is wrong, it will refer the case to larger Bench. The matter is now posted for hearing on the 30th of August..July 27.The Rahul Gandhi case: Court cries foul!.The Apex Court this week, fed up with the sudden explosion in litigation relating to defamation, spoke up against it while hearing a plea filed by RSS activist Rajesh Mahadev Kunte against Rahul Gandhi, saying that the latter had defamed the organization by his remarks equating Nathuram Godse with the RSS..When the matter came up for hearing today, Justice Dipak Misra, after perusing the records of the case, said that the Magistrate cannot ask the police to investigate into a criminal defamation complaint and seek a report..“In criminal defamation complaint, the police has no role. Magistrate cannot call for a report from the police in such a case. On that ground the matter can be remanded, but the ambitious prayer of quashing the case cannot be allowed”, said Justice Misra..The Court also stated that political parties exercise restraint and tolerance in their outlook. All criticism could not be construed as defamation..Supreme Court overhauls Delhi Judicial Services Examination.In a decision that might prove to be a game changer for the Delhi Judicial Services Examination aspirants, the Supreme Court asked the Delhi High Court to start giving copies of answer sheets to candidates under the Right to Information Act..The bench also made a number of directions including mentioning the names of the candidates and not just their roll numbers in the list of successful candidates and that Optical Mark Recognition sheets must be filled in with a pen, not a pencil..July 28.Furnish details on defamation cases filed by Jayalalithaa government.While hearing a plea filed by actor politician Vijayakanth, the Apex Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to furnish details of all defamation cases either filed through the office of public prosecutor on behalf of Tamil Nadu CM, Jayalalithaa. Advocate GS Mani appeared for Vijayakanth..In this particular case, a non-bailable warrant was issued against Vijayakanth for some remarks the actor allegedly made against Jayalalithaa. It was this case that eventually reached the apex court. When the matter came up for hearing, the court said that though defamation provisions should remain in statute book, they should not be abused. The case has now been listed for hearing on August 21..Entry tax case continues before the Constitution Bench.This week saw Senior Advocate Harish Salve complete his submissions. Senior counsel Arvind Datar, SK Bagaria and TN Andhyarujina also made their submissions in Court..July 29.Why doctors of the Indian Army have approached the Supreme Court.Since the retirement age of government officials is sixty-five, the doctors have sought that a writ of Mandamus be issued to the Centre to enhance the age of superannuation to 65 years. In the alternative, they have sought transfer to any other Central Ministry facing shortage of doctors. The Court, acknowledging the fact that the reasons for discontent appear to be genuine, issued notice to the Central government..Bench loses patience with Nirbhaya lawyer.Counsel for the accused ML Sharma continued his submissions this week, and chose to rake up matters relating to evidence that have already been decided by the trial Court. He further requested the Bench to accept a piece of evidence that he had gathered, whereupon he was suitably chastised by the Bench, which held that new evidence could not be taken up by the Appellate Court..Supreme Court asks Centre: Why no action?.In a PIL relating to the issue of inhuman treatment of birds in the poultry industry, which puts them and the humans who consume them, at risk for bird flu and salmonella contamination, the Supreme Court issued Notice to the Centre, asking why the recommendations of the animal welfare board in 2010 have not been acted upon..Advocate Jayakrishna appeared for the petitioners..The Court also had a lighter moment when Senior Advocate Harish Salve, who was waiting for another matter, jumped in to defend vegetarianism, saying that the stress hormones released by the birds pass on to the humans who consume them, thereby making vegetarianism a healthier lifestyle..Supreme Court requests status report on Jammu and Kashmir situation.The Supreme Court has requested a status report from Solicitor General on situation in Jammu and Kashmir, but declined the petitioners’ plea for governor rule..Justice Thakur loses patience with frivolous PILs.The Supreme Court was hearing a PIL relating to the implementation of the recommendations of the Justice Verma Committee, and the Constituent Assembly, relating to reform of the education system. The petitioner had prayed that the Court direct the State to discharge its duty under Article 51..The Court was inclined to dismiss the PIL, saying that it had no authority to grant the prayer. Justice Thakur tried to post it for January 2017, by which time Khehar J would become Chief Justice. But upon forceful persuasion by the Senior Advocate Ashok Arora, the matter has been listed for hearing on the 12th of August.