A summary of important cases from the causelist of the Supreme Court of India, the Delhi High Court and the Madras High Court..The causelist will be updated in the evening to reflect the developments in court today..SUMMARY OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.In Re: Outrage As Parents End Life After Childs Dengue Death.Item 3 in Court No. 2 – SMW(C) No. 1/2015.Bench: Justices Madan B Lokur, S Abdul Nazeer, and Deepak Gupta.This case concerns the issue of solid waste management in the capital city, Delhi which had surfaced following the Dengue outbreak..Sampurna Behrua Vs Union of India.Item 5 in Court No. 2 – W.P.(C) No. 473/2005.Bench: Justices Madan B Lokur, S Abdul Nazeer, and Deepak Gupta.This case was taken up by the Court’s own motion after the horrendous instance of Muzzafarpur Shelter homes had come to light. The case revolves around the improvement of shelter homes across the country..Nivedita Jha Vs the State of Bihar.Item 6 in Court No. 2 – SLP(C) No. 24978/2018.Bench: Justices Madan B Lokur, S Abdul Nazeer, and Deepak Gupta.This SLP was filed against the Patna High Court’s order that restrained the media from covering the investigation in the Muzaffarpur Shelter homes case. Setting aside that order, the Supreme Court is now looking into the larger issue of violation of various standards and checks imposed on the media by media regulatory bodies when it comes to reportage of sensitive cases of sexual violence..Tarun Jit Tejpal v. State of Goa & Anr. .Item 7 in court 4 – SLP (Crl.) 1383/2018.Bench: AK Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, MR Shah JJ..Petition by Tehelka magazine founder Tarun Tejpal in a rape case filed by a former colleague. Tejpal has challenged the judgment of Bombay High Court which had dismissed his petition to quash the charges of rape against him..Delhi High Court.Central Vigilance Commission vs Walmart India Pvt Ltd..Item 106 in court No. 3 – LPA 642/2018 .Bench: Justices S Muralidhar and Sanjeev Narula.The case is an LPA against a September order of the High Court setting aside a CVC inquiry into allegations of bribery by Walmart. .Today in Court: Stating that the matter concerns “deep questions of law”, the Court agreed to hear the appeal on February 26,2019..Madras High Court.Kalyan Jewellers India Ltd. Vs Union of India and two others.Item 21 in Court 3 – WP 21479/2018.Bench: Justices S Manikumar and Subramonium Prasad.The petition brought by Kalyan Jewellers challenges the Constitutionality of the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) Act, 2016. The petitioner has contended that the new Act, which replaced the erstwhile BIS Act of 1996, imposes disproportionate and arbitrary penalties on jewellers/licence holders alone, while disregarding basic principles of natural justice and criminal procedure.Today in Court: The matter, originally in the morning list, was posted for arguments in the afternoon..S Hussain Afroze Vs Union of India.Item 23 in Court No. 3 – WP 26183/2018.Bench: Justices S Manikumar and Subramonium Prasad.The PIL has challenged the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Ordinance, 2018 which seeks to criminalize the practice of Triple Talaq. The petition prays that clauses 4-7 of the Triple Talaq ordinance be declared as unconstitutional. It also contends that the Triple Talaq Ordinance was promulgated in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 123 of the Constitution.Today in Court: The matter will be taken up next on December 12..AR Murugadoss v The Commissioner of Police and another.Item 78 in Court No. 46 – CRL OP 26095/2018.Bench: Justice GK Ilanthiriyan.An anticipatory bail plea has been moved by AR Murugadoss, director Vijay-starrer Tamil film Sarkar, apprehending arrest on charges of sedition and causing public mischief after members of the ruling AIADMK party objected to scenes allegedly portraying former CM Jayalalithaa and the ruling government in a bad light. On the last date of hearing, the Court had restrained the police from arresting Murugadoss until November 27..Today in Court: The matter will be taken up again tomorrow. Counsel for the Applicant today informed the Court that the objectionable scenes have already been removed and a second censor board certificate was also obtained. A statement to this effect was also furnished before the Court. However, when the respondent side expressed that the statement was not satisfactory, the Court adjourned the matter, so that the applicant may furnish another statement if he chooses to. The Applicant counsel also emphasised before the Court today that the objectionable scenes were only removed to give quietus to the matter, and not on account of any admitted wrongdoing.
A summary of important cases from the causelist of the Supreme Court of India, the Delhi High Court and the Madras High Court..The causelist will be updated in the evening to reflect the developments in court today..SUMMARY OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.In Re: Outrage As Parents End Life After Childs Dengue Death.Item 3 in Court No. 2 – SMW(C) No. 1/2015.Bench: Justices Madan B Lokur, S Abdul Nazeer, and Deepak Gupta.This case concerns the issue of solid waste management in the capital city, Delhi which had surfaced following the Dengue outbreak..Sampurna Behrua Vs Union of India.Item 5 in Court No. 2 – W.P.(C) No. 473/2005.Bench: Justices Madan B Lokur, S Abdul Nazeer, and Deepak Gupta.This case was taken up by the Court’s own motion after the horrendous instance of Muzzafarpur Shelter homes had come to light. The case revolves around the improvement of shelter homes across the country..Nivedita Jha Vs the State of Bihar.Item 6 in Court No. 2 – SLP(C) No. 24978/2018.Bench: Justices Madan B Lokur, S Abdul Nazeer, and Deepak Gupta.This SLP was filed against the Patna High Court’s order that restrained the media from covering the investigation in the Muzaffarpur Shelter homes case. Setting aside that order, the Supreme Court is now looking into the larger issue of violation of various standards and checks imposed on the media by media regulatory bodies when it comes to reportage of sensitive cases of sexual violence..Tarun Jit Tejpal v. State of Goa & Anr. .Item 7 in court 4 – SLP (Crl.) 1383/2018.Bench: AK Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, MR Shah JJ..Petition by Tehelka magazine founder Tarun Tejpal in a rape case filed by a former colleague. Tejpal has challenged the judgment of Bombay High Court which had dismissed his petition to quash the charges of rape against him..Delhi High Court.Central Vigilance Commission vs Walmart India Pvt Ltd..Item 106 in court No. 3 – LPA 642/2018 .Bench: Justices S Muralidhar and Sanjeev Narula.The case is an LPA against a September order of the High Court setting aside a CVC inquiry into allegations of bribery by Walmart. .Today in Court: Stating that the matter concerns “deep questions of law”, the Court agreed to hear the appeal on February 26,2019..Madras High Court.Kalyan Jewellers India Ltd. Vs Union of India and two others.Item 21 in Court 3 – WP 21479/2018.Bench: Justices S Manikumar and Subramonium Prasad.The petition brought by Kalyan Jewellers challenges the Constitutionality of the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) Act, 2016. The petitioner has contended that the new Act, which replaced the erstwhile BIS Act of 1996, imposes disproportionate and arbitrary penalties on jewellers/licence holders alone, while disregarding basic principles of natural justice and criminal procedure.Today in Court: The matter, originally in the morning list, was posted for arguments in the afternoon..S Hussain Afroze Vs Union of India.Item 23 in Court No. 3 – WP 26183/2018.Bench: Justices S Manikumar and Subramonium Prasad.The PIL has challenged the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Ordinance, 2018 which seeks to criminalize the practice of Triple Talaq. The petition prays that clauses 4-7 of the Triple Talaq ordinance be declared as unconstitutional. It also contends that the Triple Talaq Ordinance was promulgated in violation of Articles 14, 15 and 123 of the Constitution.Today in Court: The matter will be taken up next on December 12..AR Murugadoss v The Commissioner of Police and another.Item 78 in Court No. 46 – CRL OP 26095/2018.Bench: Justice GK Ilanthiriyan.An anticipatory bail plea has been moved by AR Murugadoss, director Vijay-starrer Tamil film Sarkar, apprehending arrest on charges of sedition and causing public mischief after members of the ruling AIADMK party objected to scenes allegedly portraying former CM Jayalalithaa and the ruling government in a bad light. On the last date of hearing, the Court had restrained the police from arresting Murugadoss until November 27..Today in Court: The matter will be taken up again tomorrow. Counsel for the Applicant today informed the Court that the objectionable scenes have already been removed and a second censor board certificate was also obtained. A statement to this effect was also furnished before the Court. However, when the respondent side expressed that the statement was not satisfactory, the Court adjourned the matter, so that the applicant may furnish another statement if he chooses to. The Applicant counsel also emphasised before the Court today that the objectionable scenes were only removed to give quietus to the matter, and not on account of any admitted wrongdoing.