Supreme Court of India
1. Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker and Ors.
[Item 29 in court 3 – SLP(C) 189/2016]
Bench: JS Khehar, C Nagappan JJ.
Check evening updates to know more about this case.
Today in court: This case pertains to ouster of Arunachal Pradesh Speaker Nabam Rebia and is an appeal against a decision of the Gauhati High Court Chief Justice rejecting a recusal application. Read more about the case here.
2. Union of India v. Courts on its own Motion thr. Registrar, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi and Ors
[Item 1 in court 2 – SLP(C) NO. 35077/2015]
Bench: Anil R. Dave, Adarsh Kumar Goel
This case is a challenge to the decision of the Delhi High Court, which had quashed the 60 per cent reservation offered by Sanskriti school to children of Group A Government officers. The Court had appointed Kapil Sibal as Amicus Curiae in the case.
Today in court: Amicus Curiae Kapil Sibal informed the court today that the 60 percent quota afforded to children of Group A government officers is bad in law. At the same time he acknowledged that the concern of the government officers is genuine and wards of government officers have to be accommodated. He suggested that the Central government should come up with an institutional mechanism to solve the issue. “There has to be an institutional solution under a statute, it cannot be an ad-hoc solution”, said Sibal. The case will now be taken up on January 11.
3. MC Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.
[Item 1 in court 1 (at 2 pm)– IA Nos. 366, 367, 368, 370, 371, 372 in IA No. 365 in IA No.345, IA No. 369, 373, 374 in IA No. 366 in IA No. 365 in IA No. 345 in WP (C) No. 13029/1985]
Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AK Sikri, R Banumathi JJ.
A batch of petitions relating to pollution in Delhi. The Court had passed a slew of directions including banning registration of diesel cars with engine capacity greater than 2000 cc.
The Court yesterday heard an application filed by toll collector SMYR Consortium, in which it has contended that the environment charge levied pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court had resulted in reduced revenue for the toll collector due to traffic diversion.
It submitted that it wanted to exit from its contractual obligations. It has, however, agreed to continue collecting toll till January 31. The parties will be exploring options to exit the contract without further litigation. The hearing on this issue will continue today.
Today in court: The Court terminated the contract between the toll collector SMYR Consortium and the South Delhi Municipal Corporation. The Court asked the toll collector to continue collecting the toll till January 31. It has directed the SDMC to engage a new toll collector starting February 1.
Delhi High Court
Prashant Bhushan Vs Union of India & Anr.
WP (C) 1524/2015
Bench- Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J.
Prashant Bhushan’s petition challenging the denial of passport of full validity to him.
Today in Court: The Bench dismissed Bhushan’s petition.
1. Virbhadra Singh Vs Enforcement Directorate & Ors.
[Item 38, Court 31- WP (Crl) 3107/2015]
Bench- Ashutosh Kumar J.
A petition filed by Himachal Pradesh Chief Minister Virbhadra Singh against the ED and the CBI to supply him with an authenticated copy of the money laundering case registered against him.
The ED had filed a case against Singh under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Singh had also prayed that the ED should be restrained from taking any action against him for “non-compliance” of summons issued to him on November 16 to appear before it.
On the last hearing, the Bench had issued notices to both CBI & ED while seeking their responses over the issue.
Today in Court- The Bench disposed off this petition after directing the CBI to hand over a copy of the complaint to Singh.
2. Cellulars Operators Association of India and Ors Vs Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
[Item 27, Court 1- WP (C) 11596/2015]
Bench- Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J.
A petition challenging TRAI’s tariff order making it mandatory for telecom operators to compensate subscribers for the first three calls dropped per day at the rate of Re 1 per dropped call from January 1.
Today in Court- Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued for the Petitioners and submitted that telecom operators were not solely responsible for call drops and TRAI’s Regulation was arbitrary as it was unreasonable. ASG PS Narsimha appeared for the Government. The Bench will continue to hear the matter on January 11.
3. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi v. Union of India, Rajendra Prashad v. Govt of NCT of Delhi, MA Usmani v. Union of India & Ors, Naresh Kumar v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.; Union of India & Anr. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
[Item 17-23 in Court 1]
Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J.
Petitions questioning the apportionment of powers between the Chief Minister and Lt-Governor in the National Capital.
Today in Court- This matter was not taken up.
With a premium account you get:
- One year of unrestrcited access to previous interviews, columns and articles
- One year access to all archival material
- Access to all Bar & Bench reports
Already a subscriber ?