The Week that was: Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court sat for only 3 days this week – it remained shut on July 6 and July 7 for Eid. There were however, some important cases which were heard by the court including the battle between Delhi government and Centre and the PIL on Common Law Admission Test. Besides, the court also delivered some very important judgments..Below is a flashback of the important events that transpired in the Supreme Court this past week..July 4.NEET ordinance challenge to be heard by Anil Dave J..The petition challenging the challenging the Ordinance passed by the Central government on the National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET) will be heard by a Bench presided by Justice Anil R Dave..The matter came up for hearing before a Bench presided by Chief Justice TS Thakur when the court said that the matter would be heard by the Bench presided by Justice Anil R Dave..The petitioners had challenged the NEET Ordinance, which exempts government colleges and government seats in private colleges from the ambit of NEET this year..Indira Jaising and Attorney General lock horns in Delhi govt. v. Centre battle.Senior Advocate Indira Jaising and Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi engaged in war of words during the hearing of the case between the Delhi government and the Lt. Governor..It all started when Justice Khehar recused from the case and Jaising then requested that the matter be posted for hearing the next day considering the urgency in the case. The Bench was initially reluctant to accede to this request,.“If we are not hearing the case, it is not fair for us to say anything”..Jaising persisted with her request whereupon the Bench sought the opinion of the Attorney General. To this Rohatgi said that he does not have any problem in the case being heard tomorrow; however the proper procedure would be to make a request to the Chief Justice..This triggered a war of words between Jaising and Rohatgi..“I dont expect an AG to behave like this. You consented initially”, Jaising said animatedly..“I am not consenting then”, replied Rohatgi..Justice Khehar intervened at the right time to diffuse the tension. The matter later came up for hearing on July 8 though the friction between the two lawyers continued..July 5.Delhi govt. v. Centre: Justice L Nageswara makes it two recusals in two days.After Justice JS Khehar, it was the turn of Justice L Nageswara Rao. The recently elevated judge, who had served as Additional Solicitor General for the current Central government, also recused from the case. The matter would eventually be listed before Justice Dipak Misra on July 8. .Summary Court Martial should be used rarely and only when immediate action is called for.The Court ruled that the power of Summary Court Martial (SCM) provided in the Army Act, 1950 should be exercised very rarely and only when “immediate action” is called for..The Court also held that it is not necessary that an SCM be held by the Commanding Officer of the unit to which the accused belongs; it could also be held by the CO of the unit to which the accused is attached to..The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justice UU Lalit in a batch of appeals challenging the decisions of the Delhi High Court, the Rajasthan High Court and the Armed Forces Tribunal, Kolkata..Apex Court resigns to the failure of Bar Councils, stresses on urgent need to review Advocates Act.Berating the fading ethics of a profession that once hosted its proceedings in a dignified manner, the Supreme Court found an advocate guilty of criminal contempt for intimidating and threatening a civil judge..A 3-judge Bench comprising Justices Anil R Dave, Kurian Joseph, and Adarsh Kumar Goel, upheld the decision of the Allahabad High Court convicting advocate Mahipal Singh Rana (appellant) of criminal contempt..Interestingly, the Court also called for overhaul of the Advocates Act to regulate the legal profession more effectively..Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand appeared for the Central government while advocate CD Singh represented the State of Uttar Pradesh. Bar Council of India was represented by advocate AK Prasad while the appellant was represented by advocates TN Singh, Vikas K Singh, and Rajashree Singh..July 8.Manipur encounters: Members of armed forces can be tried by criminal courts .The Supreme Court ruled that all incidents involving suspected use of excessive and retaliatory force by the Army or police in Manipur must be investigated. A Bench comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and UU Lalit also allowed the Army to conduct its own enquiries into the accusations of fake encounters in Manipur till the court examines these cases and orders an independent enquiry..The Court held that the use of excessive force or retaliatory force by the Manipur Police or the Armed Forces of the Union is not permissible even under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958..Regarding whether members of Armed forces can be tried by regular criminal courts, the court placed reliance on its earlier judgments and held the following:.“The law is therefore very clear that if an offence is committed even by Army personnel, there is no concept of absolute immunity from trial by the criminal court constituted under the Cr.P.C. ….”.Centre fails to appear in PIL for permanent body for CLAT.The Central Government failed to respond in the public interest litigation filed in the Supreme Court seeking a permanent body for conducting CLAT..The petition, filed by IP expert Shamnad Basheer in August 2015, came up for hearing in court 1 as item 2, but there was no lawyer representing the Centre..The Court then proceeded to allow the petitioner’s counsel Liz Mathew to serve any of the Central government’s law officers..Delhi govt v. Centre: Supreme Court refuses to interfere in Delhi HC proceedings.The Court refused to interfere with the proceedings before the Delhi High Court in the case between Delhi government and Union. A Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and UU Lalit said that the court will not interfere at a stage, when the High Court had already reserved its judgment..The dispute concerning the powers of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi had been heard by the High Court, which had reserved its judgment in the case. The Delhi government, in a most interesting SLP filed in the Supreme Court, had challenged the order of the High Court by which it had reserved its judgment in the matter..Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi and Senior Advocate Indira Jaising were again at loggerheads during the hearing.