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..SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.Nivedita Jha vs the State of Bihar.Item 7 in Court No. 2 – SLP(C) No. 24978/2018.Bench: Madan B Lokur, S Abdul Nazeer, Deepak Gupta, JJ..This petition concerns the plight of the various shelter homes established for children in the State of Bihar based on a report by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences. On having found that many of these shelter homes have “grave concerns” including abuse and violence of inmates, the Supreme Court has pulled up the Bihar government about the probe conducted in the case..Today in Court: The Court transferred the investigation in the Bihar Shelter Home Case from the Bihar State Police to the CBI. The CBI was already investigating the Muzaffarpur Shelter Home Case but after today’s order, the agency will also probe the other Shelter Homes in Bihar that were flagged by TISS to have had grave concerns. Read the story here..Shamnad Basheer vs Union of India.Item 5 in Court Court No. 5 – W.P.(C) No. 600/2015.Bench: SA Bobde, L Nageswara Rao, Subhash Reddy, JJ..This PIL filed by IP Expert Shamnad Basheer relates to the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) which is held for admissions to National Law Universities. The petition prays for a permanent body to be formed to conduct the said exam every year as opposed to the present system wherein the exam is conducted by a different National Law University each year..Today in Court: The Supreme Court today expressed an inclination towards handing the responsibility of conducting the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) to the National Testing Agency (NTA), although, did not pass anh lrder in this regard. Read the story here..DELHI HIGH COURT.Rakesh Asthana vs Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. .Item 1 in Court No. 31- W.P.(CRL) 3248/2018.Bench: Justice Najmi Waziri.The case pertains to Special Director of CBI, Rakesh Asthana’s plea seeking to quash an FIR filed against him by the CBI..Today in Court: The Delhi High Court allowed Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Director Alok Verma and Joint Director AK Sharma to inspect the case files pertaining to the FIR registered against CBI Special Director Rakesh Asthana in relation to a bribery case..Read complete story here..MADRAS HIGH COURT.Film Exhibitors Association Vs The State of Tamil Nadu.Item 29/L2 in Court No. 21- WP 28366/2018.Bench: Justice Pushpa Sathayanarayana.A theatre owners’ collective had moved the Madras High Court seeking protection from false accusations of piracy levelled against them by film producers. On the last date of hearing, the Court had suggested that all stakeholders initiate a dialogue to work out a solution among themselves to curb the practice of movie piracy..Today in Court: The Court was informed that the stakeholder meeting could not be organised and it was requested that more time be granted to conduct the same. The Court therefore posted the matter for January 8, while directing the concerned authorities to ensure that the meeting is conducted and workable solutions arrived at by then. In the meanwhile, the Court declined to issue any orders conferring a blanket protection from arrest to theatre owners. However, the judge orally cautioned that the theatre owners should not be unduly harassed without any cause..AR Murugadoss Vs The Commissioner of Police and another.Item 161 in Court No. 46 – CRL OP 26095/2018.Bench: Justice GK Ilanthiriyan.An anticipatory bail plea moved by AR Murugadoss, director of 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. Yesterday, the Court had adjourned the matter after the state expressed dissatisfaction in the statement furnished by the applicant to close the case. The applicant had submitted that the objectionable scenes in question had been removed to give quietus to the matter and that a second Censor Board certificate had also been obtained..Today in Court: Appearing for AR Murugadoss, advocate Vivekanandan informed the Court that he will not be submitting any revised statement undertaking to refrain from criticising the government, as requested by the state. He argued that he is not bound to waive his fundamental right to free speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution. In view of the same, the Court has granted the state two weeks to register a case if any cognisable offence is made out. In the meanwhile, the interim protection granted to Murugadoss from arrest will continue. The matter will be taken up next on December 13.
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..SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.Nivedita Jha vs the State of Bihar.Item 7 in Court No. 2 – SLP(C) No. 24978/2018.Bench: Madan B Lokur, S Abdul Nazeer, Deepak Gupta, JJ..This petition concerns the plight of the various shelter homes established for children in the State of Bihar based on a report by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences. On having found that many of these shelter homes have “grave concerns” including abuse and violence of inmates, the Supreme Court has pulled up the Bihar government about the probe conducted in the case..Today in Court: The Court transferred the investigation in the Bihar Shelter Home Case from the Bihar State Police to the CBI. The CBI was already investigating the Muzaffarpur Shelter Home Case but after today’s order, the agency will also probe the other Shelter Homes in Bihar that were flagged by TISS to have had grave concerns. Read the story here..Shamnad Basheer vs Union of India.Item 5 in Court Court No. 5 – W.P.(C) No. 600/2015.Bench: SA Bobde, L Nageswara Rao, Subhash Reddy, JJ..This PIL filed by IP Expert Shamnad Basheer relates to the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) which is held for admissions to National Law Universities. The petition prays for a permanent body to be formed to conduct the said exam every year as opposed to the present system wherein the exam is conducted by a different National Law University each year..Today in Court: The Supreme Court today expressed an inclination towards handing the responsibility of conducting the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) to the National Testing Agency (NTA), although, did not pass anh lrder in this regard. Read the story here..DELHI HIGH COURT.Rakesh Asthana vs Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. .Item 1 in Court No. 31- W.P.(CRL) 3248/2018.Bench: Justice Najmi Waziri.The case pertains to Special Director of CBI, Rakesh Asthana’s plea seeking to quash an FIR filed against him by the CBI..Today in Court: The Delhi High Court allowed Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Director Alok Verma and Joint Director AK Sharma to inspect the case files pertaining to the FIR registered against CBI Special Director Rakesh Asthana in relation to a bribery case..Read complete story here..MADRAS HIGH COURT.Film Exhibitors Association Vs The State of Tamil Nadu.Item 29/L2 in Court No. 21- WP 28366/2018.Bench: Justice Pushpa Sathayanarayana.A theatre owners’ collective had moved the Madras High Court seeking protection from false accusations of piracy levelled against them by film producers. On the last date of hearing, the Court had suggested that all stakeholders initiate a dialogue to work out a solution among themselves to curb the practice of movie piracy..Today in Court: The Court was informed that the stakeholder meeting could not be organised and it was requested that more time be granted to conduct the same. The Court therefore posted the matter for January 8, while directing the concerned authorities to ensure that the meeting is conducted and workable solutions arrived at by then. In the meanwhile, the Court declined to issue any orders conferring a blanket protection from arrest to theatre owners. However, the judge orally cautioned that the theatre owners should not be unduly harassed without any cause..AR Murugadoss Vs The Commissioner of Police and another.Item 161 in Court No. 46 – CRL OP 26095/2018.Bench: Justice GK Ilanthiriyan.An anticipatory bail plea moved by AR Murugadoss, director of 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. Yesterday, the Court had adjourned the matter after the state expressed dissatisfaction in the statement furnished by the applicant to close the case. The applicant had submitted that the objectionable scenes in question had been removed to give quietus to the matter and that a second Censor Board certificate had also been obtained..Today in Court: Appearing for AR Murugadoss, advocate Vivekanandan informed the Court that he will not be submitting any revised statement undertaking to refrain from criticising the government, as requested by the state. He argued that he is not bound to waive his fundamental right to free speech and expression under Article 19 of the Constitution. In view of the same, the Court has granted the state two weeks to register a case if any cognisable offence is made out. In the meanwhile, the interim protection granted to Murugadoss from arrest will continue. The matter will be taken up next on December 13.
