A summary of cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India, the Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court..LIST OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.Jindal Stainless Steel v. State of HaryanaJustice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of IndiaRahul Gandhi v. Rajesh Mahadev Kunte and Anr.Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India through Secretary General and Ors.Devika Biswas v. Union of India & Ors..Bombay High Court.Ali Ahmad Siddique v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.Pratim Mukherjea Alias Peter Mukherjea v. Central Bureau of Investigation & AnrJaswantbhai Chaturbhai Nai and Ors v. State of Gujarat & Ors..Delhi High Court.Justice for All v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.Phuntsok Wangyal v. Ministry of External Affairs and Ors.Lobsang Wangyal v. Ministry of External Affairs and Ors..Supreme Court of India.1. Jindal Stainless Steel v. State of Haryana.[Item 301 in court 1 – SLP (CRL) 3119-3120/2014].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, A.K. Sikri, S.A. Bobde, Shiva Kirti Singh, N.V. Ramana, R. Banumathi, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan JJ..Case relates to the imposition of entry tax. The last hearing saw senior counsel Harish Salve answer certain questions framed by the Court..2. Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India.[Item 1 in court 4 – WP(C) 116/1998].Bench: Justice Dipak Mishra, Rohinton Nariman JJ..A fresh Public Interest Litigation, filed by the Sunanda Bhandare Foundation for the implementation of the provisions of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995..Today in Court: The matter is to be listed again after four weeks..3. Rahul Gandhi v. Rajesh Mahadev Kunte and Anr..[Item 17 in court 4 at 2 pm – SLP (Crl.) 3749/2015].Bench: Dipak Misra, Shiva Kirti Singh JJ..A petition filed by Rahul Gandhi to quash defamation proceedings pending against him in a Maharashtra court based on a complaint filed by RSS activist Rajesh Kunte. Gandhi’ plea for quashing was rejected by the Bombay High Court whereupon he had approached the Supreme Court..When the matter was last heard, the Court had remarked that “wholesale denunciation of an organization” for the actions of its members could attract the offence of defamation. The Court made it clear that if Rahul was not ready to express regret for his remarks, it would be a matter of trial..Today in Court: The Court took the view that in a criminal defamation, the police has no role to play. Read the full report..4. Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India through Secretary General and Ors..[Item 3 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 454/2015].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud JJ..[This Bench will sit only if the 9-judge Bench does not sit].A petition filed by Senior Advocate and former Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising in the Supreme Court challenging the allegedly non-transparent and arbitrary method followed by the Supreme Court of India in designating Senior Advocates. The Supreme Court has now filed an affidavit admitting that there are no Rules regulating designation of advocates as Seniors but the same is governed by certain resolutions passed by the court from time to time. The court has also claimed that the process currently followed is “fair” and “transparent”..Today in Court: This case was not taken up..5. Devika Biswas v. Union of India & Ors..[Item 301 in court 7 – Writ Petition (C) 95/2012].Bench: Madan B. Lokur, Uday Umesh Lalit JJ..This case pertains to sterilization and the implementation of directions pertaining to the same by various States. The petitioner had brought to the notice of the court, various unhealthy and unsafe and unethical sterilizations conducted across the country, especially Bihar and Chhattisgarh. Around 14 women had lost their lives in Chhattisgarh following such unsafe sterilizations..Today in Court: This case was not taken up..Bombay High Court.1. Ali Ahmed Siddique v. State of Maharashtra.[Item 13 Court 13- PIL(OS)/57/2014].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.This PIL seeks action against escort services all over the city, who advertise through the internet. State GP Poornima Kantharia had submitted that a total of 174 websites have been forwarded to group co-ordinating officer, cyber cell, department of IT & communications..These websites are registered on host website godaddy.com, a letter has been sent to its chief technical officer by the police informing him about these illegal websites..Today in court: The State was instructed to neutralize the phone numbers of identified dealers in a phased manner. The cyber cell filed another compliance affidavit regarding these websites..The matter will now be listed for directions and further compliance on September 30..2. Pratim Mukherjea Alias Peter Mukherjea v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.[Item 15 Court 21- BA(Cri)/1221/2016].Bench: PN Deshmukh J.Peter Mukherjea’s bail application will be heard today, Abad Ponda appears for Mukherjea in the case. Peter is an accused in the Sheena Bora murder case, although after Indrani mukherjea’s driver Shyamvar Rai gave his testimony as an approver in the case, Peter’s case of innocence has become stronger..Today in court: This matter could not be taken up due to paucity of time..3. Jaswantbhai Chaturbhai Nai and Ors v. State of Gujarat & Ors..[Item 201 Court 49- APEAL(Cri)/1020/2009].Bench: VK Tahilramani, Mridula Bhatkar JJ.The appeal of eleven convicts in the Bilkis Bano case is being heard along with the CBI’s petition seeking death penalty for three of these convicts. They were sentenced to life by a special court in January 2008 for gang-raping a five month pregnant Bilkis Bano and murdering seven of her family members in the post-Godhra riots of 2002..Harshad Ponda is appearing for the appellants and Hiten Venegaokar is appearing for the CBI. Read our previous report for more details..Today in court: Harshad Ponda continued his submissions on Day 7 of the hearing. He pointed out how Bilkis had not mentioned her daughter Saleha and her killing in any of the statements given, except for her statement to the CBI..Saleha was three years old. Ponda argued since her body was not found there was no question of her murder..Also regarding injuries caused to Bilkis, she had stated to the CBI-.I did state before Limkheda police about the sword blow by accused number 1 but I do not know why it was omitted..Submissions will continue tomorrow..Delhi High Court.1. Justice for All v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors..[R.P. No. 129/2016 and 186/2016 in W.P. (C) No. 4109/2013 – Court No. 1; Item No. 1].Bench: G. Rohini, C.J., Jayant Nath, J..A Public Interest Litigation seeking that recognized private unaided schools, established on land allotted by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), take prior sanction of the Directorate of Education before hiking their fees..This matter is listed at 2:15 pm for judgment in certain interim applications filed in the matter..Today in Court: The petition was dismissed. The bench stated that the schools will continue taking prior sanction from the Directorate of Education before hiking their fees at the beginning of the academic year..2. Lobsang Wangyal v. Ministry of External Affairs and Ors. with Phuntsok Wangyal v. Ministry of External Affairs and Ors. .[W.P. (C) 4275/2016 with W.P. (C) 3539/2016 – Court No. 15; Item No. 27 and 29].Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva J..Petition filed by 46-year old Tibetan pushing for implementation of the Indian Citizenship Act to allow him to legally procure an Indian passport. His application for an Indian passport was rejected on the ground that, although he was born in India in 1970, he was of Tibetan descent..In the last hearing, the bench had issued notice to the Ministry of External Affairs Ministry and Department of Immigration and Passports asking them to file a reply. The petitioner has submitted that he is currently stateless, without a nationality or citizenship, and that the Regional Passport Office should consider Tibetan persons born in India on or before January 26, 1950 but before July 1, 1987 as Indian citizens by law..Today in Court: The lawyer representing the MEA argued that the Ministry was relying on directions from the Ministry of Home Affairs. Justice Sachdeva however held that the petitioners were Indian citizens by birth and not by application. The fact that they were born in India makes them natural born citizens of the country and therefore getting a passport is their fundamental right as citizens of the country. The matter will now come up on August 22, after the filing of a counter and a rejoinder.
A summary of cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India, the Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court..LIST OF CASES.Supreme Court of India.Jindal Stainless Steel v. State of HaryanaJustice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of IndiaRahul Gandhi v. Rajesh Mahadev Kunte and Anr.Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India through Secretary General and Ors.Devika Biswas v. Union of India & Ors..Bombay High Court.Ali Ahmad Siddique v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.Pratim Mukherjea Alias Peter Mukherjea v. Central Bureau of Investigation & AnrJaswantbhai Chaturbhai Nai and Ors v. State of Gujarat & Ors..Delhi High Court.Justice for All v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors.Phuntsok Wangyal v. Ministry of External Affairs and Ors.Lobsang Wangyal v. Ministry of External Affairs and Ors..Supreme Court of India.1. Jindal Stainless Steel v. State of Haryana.[Item 301 in court 1 – SLP (CRL) 3119-3120/2014].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, A.K. Sikri, S.A. Bobde, Shiva Kirti Singh, N.V. Ramana, R. Banumathi, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan JJ..Case relates to the imposition of entry tax. The last hearing saw senior counsel Harish Salve answer certain questions framed by the Court..2. Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of India.[Item 1 in court 4 – WP(C) 116/1998].Bench: Justice Dipak Mishra, Rohinton Nariman JJ..A fresh Public Interest Litigation, filed by the Sunanda Bhandare Foundation for the implementation of the provisions of the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995..Today in Court: The matter is to be listed again after four weeks..3. Rahul Gandhi v. Rajesh Mahadev Kunte and Anr..[Item 17 in court 4 at 2 pm – SLP (Crl.) 3749/2015].Bench: Dipak Misra, Shiva Kirti Singh JJ..A petition filed by Rahul Gandhi to quash defamation proceedings pending against him in a Maharashtra court based on a complaint filed by RSS activist Rajesh Kunte. Gandhi’ plea for quashing was rejected by the Bombay High Court whereupon he had approached the Supreme Court..When the matter was last heard, the Court had remarked that “wholesale denunciation of an organization” for the actions of its members could attract the offence of defamation. The Court made it clear that if Rahul was not ready to express regret for his remarks, it would be a matter of trial..Today in Court: The Court took the view that in a criminal defamation, the police has no role to play. Read the full report..4. Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India through Secretary General and Ors..[Item 3 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 454/2015].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud JJ..[This Bench will sit only if the 9-judge Bench does not sit].A petition filed by Senior Advocate and former Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising in the Supreme Court challenging the allegedly non-transparent and arbitrary method followed by the Supreme Court of India in designating Senior Advocates. The Supreme Court has now filed an affidavit admitting that there are no Rules regulating designation of advocates as Seniors but the same is governed by certain resolutions passed by the court from time to time. The court has also claimed that the process currently followed is “fair” and “transparent”..Today in Court: This case was not taken up..5. Devika Biswas v. Union of India & Ors..[Item 301 in court 7 – Writ Petition (C) 95/2012].Bench: Madan B. Lokur, Uday Umesh Lalit JJ..This case pertains to sterilization and the implementation of directions pertaining to the same by various States. The petitioner had brought to the notice of the court, various unhealthy and unsafe and unethical sterilizations conducted across the country, especially Bihar and Chhattisgarh. Around 14 women had lost their lives in Chhattisgarh following such unsafe sterilizations..Today in Court: This case was not taken up..Bombay High Court.1. Ali Ahmed Siddique v. State of Maharashtra.[Item 13 Court 13- PIL(OS)/57/2014].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.This PIL seeks action against escort services all over the city, who advertise through the internet. State GP Poornima Kantharia had submitted that a total of 174 websites have been forwarded to group co-ordinating officer, cyber cell, department of IT & communications..These websites are registered on host website godaddy.com, a letter has been sent to its chief technical officer by the police informing him about these illegal websites..Today in court: The State was instructed to neutralize the phone numbers of identified dealers in a phased manner. The cyber cell filed another compliance affidavit regarding these websites..The matter will now be listed for directions and further compliance on September 30..2. Pratim Mukherjea Alias Peter Mukherjea v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.[Item 15 Court 21- BA(Cri)/1221/2016].Bench: PN Deshmukh J.Peter Mukherjea’s bail application will be heard today, Abad Ponda appears for Mukherjea in the case. Peter is an accused in the Sheena Bora murder case, although after Indrani mukherjea’s driver Shyamvar Rai gave his testimony as an approver in the case, Peter’s case of innocence has become stronger..Today in court: This matter could not be taken up due to paucity of time..3. Jaswantbhai Chaturbhai Nai and Ors v. State of Gujarat & Ors..[Item 201 Court 49- APEAL(Cri)/1020/2009].Bench: VK Tahilramani, Mridula Bhatkar JJ.The appeal of eleven convicts in the Bilkis Bano case is being heard along with the CBI’s petition seeking death penalty for three of these convicts. They were sentenced to life by a special court in January 2008 for gang-raping a five month pregnant Bilkis Bano and murdering seven of her family members in the post-Godhra riots of 2002..Harshad Ponda is appearing for the appellants and Hiten Venegaokar is appearing for the CBI. Read our previous report for more details..Today in court: Harshad Ponda continued his submissions on Day 7 of the hearing. He pointed out how Bilkis had not mentioned her daughter Saleha and her killing in any of the statements given, except for her statement to the CBI..Saleha was three years old. Ponda argued since her body was not found there was no question of her murder..Also regarding injuries caused to Bilkis, she had stated to the CBI-.I did state before Limkheda police about the sword blow by accused number 1 but I do not know why it was omitted..Submissions will continue tomorrow..Delhi High Court.1. Justice for All v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors..[R.P. No. 129/2016 and 186/2016 in W.P. (C) No. 4109/2013 – Court No. 1; Item No. 1].Bench: G. Rohini, C.J., Jayant Nath, J..A Public Interest Litigation seeking that recognized private unaided schools, established on land allotted by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), take prior sanction of the Directorate of Education before hiking their fees..This matter is listed at 2:15 pm for judgment in certain interim applications filed in the matter..Today in Court: The petition was dismissed. The bench stated that the schools will continue taking prior sanction from the Directorate of Education before hiking their fees at the beginning of the academic year..2. Lobsang Wangyal v. Ministry of External Affairs and Ors. with Phuntsok Wangyal v. Ministry of External Affairs and Ors. .[W.P. (C) 4275/2016 with W.P. (C) 3539/2016 – Court No. 15; Item No. 27 and 29].Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva J..Petition filed by 46-year old Tibetan pushing for implementation of the Indian Citizenship Act to allow him to legally procure an Indian passport. His application for an Indian passport was rejected on the ground that, although he was born in India in 1970, he was of Tibetan descent..In the last hearing, the bench had issued notice to the Ministry of External Affairs Ministry and Department of Immigration and Passports asking them to file a reply. The petitioner has submitted that he is currently stateless, without a nationality or citizenship, and that the Regional Passport Office should consider Tibetan persons born in India on or before January 26, 1950 but before July 1, 1987 as Indian citizens by law..Today in Court: The lawyer representing the MEA argued that the Ministry was relying on directions from the Ministry of Home Affairs. Justice Sachdeva however held that the petitioners were Indian citizens by birth and not by application. The fact that they were born in India makes them natural born citizens of the country and therefore getting a passport is their fundamental right as citizens of the country. The matter will now come up on August 22, after the filing of a counter and a rejoinder.