The Week that was: The Supreme Court of India

A very eventful week passed by at the Supreme Court of India. Cases on medical colleges admission and Uttarakhand Presidential rule hogged the limelight aside from various interesting Public Interest Litigation petitions. Most importantly, the Collegium recommended four new judges to the Supreme Court including Senior Advocate L Nageswara Rao..Here is a glimpse of what happened at the apex court this past week..Monday, May 2 .Third Lodha committee in 15 months – this time to supervise MCI.A five-judge bench upheld the law regulating fees and other admission criteria to private unaided medical colleges prescribed by the Madhya Pradesh government..Justices Anil R Dave, AK Sikri, RK Agrawal, AK Goeland R Banumathi also constituted a committee headed by retired Supreme Court judge Justice RM Lodha to supervise the functioning of the Medical Council of India. The committee will have the power to oversee all statutory functions of the Medical Council of India and policy decisions of the MCI for one year..Senior Advocates KK Venugopal, Rajeevn Dhavan, Rakesh Dwivedi, Harin Raval and Ajit Kumar Sinha appeared for various medical colleges. Senior Advocate Vibha Dutta Makhija appeared for the State of Madhya Pradesh while ASG Pinky Anand and Senior Advocate Vikas Singh also supported Makhija’s arguments..Placing FIRs online: Supreme Court issues notice in Youth Bar Association’s PIL .The Court issued notice to the Central and State government in a petition praying for uploading First Information Reports on the official websites of the concerned police departments..The public interest litigation petition filed by Youth Bar Association of India was heard by a Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh. Advocates Sanpreet Singh Ajmani, Manohar Pratap, Peeyush Bhatiaand Aastha Vashishth appeared for the petitioner Association..Tuesday, May 3.Ban whatsapp, RTI activist moves Supreme Court.RTI activist Sudhir Yadav filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court seeking a ban on Whatsapp and other messenger services having end to end encryption..As per this report on trak.in, Sudhir had first sought information on Whatsapp’s encryption rules under RTI Laws, but when he was not successful in the same, he decided to approach the Supreme Court..NEET: Phase 1 a success.CBSE told the Supreme Court that phase 1 of NEET was successful and around 6.5 lakh students appeared for the exam. The Court also began hearing different States and private colleges pertaining to their grievances in holding NEET this year..ASG Pinky Anand appeared for CBSE. Senior Advocate KK Venugopal appeared for private medical colleges from Karnataka. Senior Advocate L Nageswara Rao appeared for Christian Medical College, Vellore and State of Tamil Nadu..Senior Advocates Gopal Subramanium and KV Viswanathan appeared for Jammu & Kashmir. Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appeared for Maharashtra while Senior Advocate V Giri appeared for Kerala..Wednesday, May 4.L Nageswara Rao and 3 others recommended for Supreme Court judgeship.Senior Advocate L Nageswara Rao was recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium for appointment as judge of the Supreme Court of India. Besides Rao, the Chief Justices of three High Courts – Justice DY Chandruchudof Allahabad High Court, Justice Ashok Bhushan of Kerala High Court and Justice AM Khanwilkar of Madhya Pradesh High court were also recommended by the Collegium..The recommendations of the Collegium have been sent to the Law Ministry for approval. If the four appointments go through, the strength of the Supreme Court will go up to 29..Thursday, May 5.Whatsapp message as letter petition?.Can the Supreme Court register a petition on the basis of a WhatsApp message received by a judge?.Bizzare events unfolded during mentioning in CJI’s court when Advocate Ashok Arora told the Chief Justice of India TS Thakur that he had sent the CJI a WhatsApp message from USA about the issue and that the court should have taken cognizance of the case based on the same..The CJI replied that he does not use whatsapp but agreed to hear the case, which pertains to implementation of fundamental duties, on May 9..Can persons in judicial service be appointed district judges by direct recruitment?.A Bench of Chief Justice TS Thakur and R Banumathi J. issued notice to the High Courts of Delhi and Allahabad in a slew of petitions praying that persons in judicial service should be allowed to compete for the posts of district judges based on their experience at the Bar, without having to go through ‘promotions through the rank’..Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave was among the lawyers who appeared for the petitioners..Friday, May 6.Uttarakhand: Floor test on May 10, video-graphed, monitored by Supreme Court.The Court accepted the suggestion made by Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi and ordered that a floor test be held in the Uttarakhand Assembly on May 10, between 11 am and 1 pm..The Bench of Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh JJ. also directed that the entire proceedings of the floor test be videographed and that the records of the same be submitted to the Supreme Court. The Court also said that the nine disqualified MLAs shall not be allowed to participate in the floor test..NEET: Students who skipped phase 1 now allowed for phase 2.In a clear departure from the previous stance of the CBSE and Supreme Court, it was decided that candidates who did not appear for phase 1 of NEET can appear for phase 2 of the exam..The order to this effect was published on Supreme Court website..This development came after candidates, who had applied for AIPMT, had initially been informed by the authorities that they would have to sit for phase 1 of NEET. They were also told that they will not be allowed to appear for phase 2; the second phase would only be for those who had not applied for AIPMT..Notice in ML Sharma’s AgustaWestland PIL.In a surprising development, the Court issued notice to the Central government and Central Bureau of Investigation in a petition filed by advocate ML Sharma pertaining to the AgustaWestland scam..The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh..Sharma in his petition has sought the registration of FIRs against those Indians named in the judgment passed by the Court of Appeal of Milan. He has also sought a direction for constitution of a Special Investigation Team to inquire into the case under the supervision of the Supreme Court..RAW report on sexual harassment charges are no threat to national integrity, Supreme Court.The Court held that a report pertaining to allegations of sexual harassment by RAW officers would not be protected under Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act and the same should be furnished to the appellant..The case pertained to allegations of sexual harassment made by former RAW employee Nisha Priya Bhatia against her senior Sunil Uke, Joint Secretary in the department and Ashok Chaturvedi. The allegation of sexual harassment by Sunil Uke was looked into by a Committee and a report was submitted on May 19, 2008. A separate enquiry was held by a separate Committee into the allegation of sexual harassment by Ashok Chaturvedi. This Committee gave its Report on January 23, 2009..The Central government opposed furnishing the reports to Bhatia claiming exception under Section 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. This was on the ground that disclosure of the contents of the Report would be against national interest and would compromise national security. The Court after perusing the reports refused to accept the submission made by the Central government and held the following:.“We have gone through both the Reports and the accompanying documents and find absolutely nothing therein which could suggest that there is any threat to the integrity of the country or anything contained therein would be detrimental to the interests of the country…… We find it very odd that in a matter of an enquiry in respect of an allegation of sexual harassment, the Union of India should claim privilege under Sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act. The contents of Reports alleging sexual harassment can hardly relate to affairs of State or anything concerning national security.”