A summary of important cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India, and the Bombay High Court..Supreme Court of India.1. Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India & Anr.[Item 501 in court 2 – Writ Petition (Civil) 215/2005].Bench: Anil R Dave, Kurian Joseph, Shiva Kirti Singh, AK Goel, Rohinton Fali Nariman JJ..A petition seeking a declaration to the effect that the ‘right to die with dignity’ be held a facet of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the Centre and States to adopt suitable procedure to ensure that the persons with deteriorating health or the terminally ill be allowed to execute a document, viz., a ‘living will & Attorney authorization’. This document could then be presented to a hospital for appropriate action in the event the executant’s health worsens..A 3-judge Bench of the Court had referred the matter to a Constitution Bench. When the case was last heard, the case was adjourned to February 1 after the Bench sought the Centre’s reply..Today in court: The case was not taken up today because another part matter was being heard..2. Devika Biswas v. Union of India & Ors..[Item 47 in court 3 – Writ Petition (C) 95/2012].Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar J., C. Nagappan J..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..When the matter was last heard, the Chhattisgarh government had informed the court that steps have been taken to attach the properties of the absconding accused responsible for the death of the 14..Today in court: The Court directed the Chhattisgarh government to submit the Anita Jha Commission report pertaining to the 14 casualties in a week. The case will now be heard by another Bench which was seized of the matter..3. Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India and Ors..[Item 50 in court 8 – Writ Petition (Civil) 857/2015].Bench: Madan B Lokur, RK Agarwal JJ..A petition filed by Swaraj Abhiyan seeking among other things, a direction to provide free food-grains guaranteed under National Food Security Act to people living in drought-affected states..The Court had sought a response from the Central government on the implementation of Food Security Act and MNREGA in the drought affected areas. The Court also asked the drought hit States to provide information on the implementation of welfare schemes..On the last hearing, the Central government had sought more time to collect data on the implementation of various social security measures in the drought-hit States. The Agricultural Secretaries of those States were scheduled to meet the Union Agricultural Secretary between January 25-27 to take stock of the situation..Today in court: The Court today pulled up the Gujarat government for failing to implement the National Food Security Act..“Do you want to break away from the Union that you do not implement a law made by the Parliament. What if some State says tomorrow that it will not implement IPC, CrPc or Evidence Act?”, the Court asked. .The Court also asked the Central government what it was doing about this. The Court has now asked the Centre to respond about the parameters followed by 3 States – Gujarat, Bihar and Chattisgarh in deciding whether they are drought-hit or not..4. Common Cause v. Abhijat & Ors.[Item 48 in court 12 – Conmpt. Pet. (C) 550/2015 in WP (C) 821/1990].Bench: Kurian Joseph, Rohinton Fali Nariman JJ..A contempt petition filed against the Delhi High Court Bar Association and District Bar Associations The petitioner has contended that the Bar bodies resorting to strike recently was in violation of the Supreme Court judgment in Harish Uppal’s case..When the matter was last heard, the Court had remarked that the problem of lawyers going on strike has become a rampant one and something has to be done. Senior Advocate Ram Jethmalani, appearing on behalf of lawyers bodies, had then admitted that it was a serious issue but said that if a proper grievance redressal mechanism is put in place, this might not happen. Jethmalani then said that he will consult with prominent sections of the Bar and try to chalk out a solution..The court had recorded the same and adjourned the case..Today in court: This case could not be tracked. Any update/ information would be appreciated..5. Nabam Rebia v. Registrar General, Gauhati High Court and Ors..[Item 501 in court 3 – SLP(C) 876/2016].Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, Dipak Misra, Madan B Lokur, PC Ghose, NV Ramana JJ..This case pertains to the removal of Arunachal Pradesh Speaker Nabam Rebia and is an appeal against the decision of the Gauhati High Court..Recently, the Union Cabinet recommended imposition of President’s Rule in the State which was challenged by the ruling party. The Court had issued notice to the Centre and Governor for their response over the issue of President’s Rule..Today in court: The court today recalled the notice issued to the Governor of the State after accepting the submission of the Attorney General that there is a complete immunity to the Governor under Article 361 of the Constitution of India, and that, even notice cannot be issued to the Governor. The Attorney General had relied on the case Ramehswar Prasad v. Union of India [2006 (2) SCC 1] to buttress his point. The Court also issued notice in two fresh petitions challenging the imposition of President’s rule in the State..The Court then directed that copies of all official files and documents which were seized from the office of the former Chief Minister, Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries be furnished to them. The Court also directed that all private books, letter and files which were seized, be returned to the Chief Minister and former Ministers..6. Nakkheeran Gopal v. Union Of India And Ors.[Item 10 in court 9 – WP (Crl.) 4/2016].Bench: MY Eqbal, Arun Mishra JJ..Check evening updates..Today in court: This case could not be tracked. Any lead/ information would be appreciated..7. SM Anantha Murugan v. The Chairman, Bar Council of India and Ors.[Item 23 in court 10 – SLP(CRL.)… /2016].Bench: V Gopala Gowda, Uday Umesh Lalit JJ..Check evening updates..Today in court: This is a petition challenging the Madras High Court judgment to consider disbanding the Bar Council of India. The Court issued notice in the case. Read more about it here..8. Satyanarayana Murthy Jandhyala v. Registrar National Consumer disputes Redressal Commission & Anr..[Item 33 in court 1 – Writ Petition (C) 785/2015].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AK Sikri, R Banumathi JJ..Check evening updates..Today in court: This case did not come up for hearing..9. Vineet Dhanda v. Union of India and Ors..[Item 20 in court 1 – Writ Petition (C) 50/2016].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AK Sikri, R Banumathi JJ..A fresh public interest litigation. Check evening updates..Today in court: This petition was withdrawn..Bombay High Court.1. Jaysingh Hindurao Patil & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary.[Item 4 Court 54 – WP(civil)/945/2015].Bench: Naresh H. Patil, A.A. Sayyed JJ.The petition contends that 44 petitioners in the present petition and around 800 others who are not party to this petition have not recieved their salaries since October 2013..In a meeting in September 2013, the Minister of Social Justice had taken a decision to apply pay-scale to teaching and non-teaching staff at ashram shala, after the meeting directions were given and the petitioners have not recieved salaries ever since..Today in court: Government pleader, A.B. Vagyani submitted that the state has found that the earlier decision taken to grant aid to 148 schools was approved at the secretary level in 2008 and not the cabinet level. Hence the state government would have to review the decision. He also informed the court that the state would want to scrutinize the authenticity of these claims..The bench asked the state to deposit 50% of the salary grant once the state was satisfied with the re-asessment of these claims, which would be four weeks..In the meantime the state was asked to file an additional affidavit highlighting the progress in the matter. The next hearing will be in 2 weeks..2. Late. SOU. Meenatai Thakare(MASAHEB) Krida v. State of Maharashtra and ors..[Item 21 Court 54 – WP(Civil)/1164/2016].Bench: Naresh H. Patil, AA Sayyed JJ.Today in court: The matter could not be taken up due to paucity of time, it will now come up in two weeks..3. Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika Shikshak Sabha v. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation.[Item 46 Court 54 – WP(O)/1302/2013].Bench: Naresh H. Patil, A.A. Sayyed JJ.The petitioner contends that even though under the Right to Education Act students of municipal and other schools in Mumbai are entitled to Class VIII, no such provision has been made by either the Municipal Corporation or the state government..(Read the previous order of the Bombay High Court).Today in court: The matter did not come up today..4. Aarti Thakur v. State of Maharashtra through Women & Child.[Item 45 Court 43 – WP(Civil)/4267/2014].Bench: V.M. Kanade, Revati Mohite Dere JJ.The petitioner Aarti Thakur is a victim of an acid attack that took place in December of 2012. The petitioner has sought compensation under ‘Manodhairya Scheme’. The Dean of Sir JJ Group of Hospitals was asked to give an estimate of the requisite plastic surgery and lazer therapy to the petitioner. He was also asked to assist the petitioner in taking treatment from either Grant medical hospital or KEM hospital..Today in court: The matter could not be taken up today due to paucity of time.
A summary of important cases from the causelists of the Supreme Court of India, and the Bombay High Court..Supreme Court of India.1. Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India & Anr.[Item 501 in court 2 – Writ Petition (Civil) 215/2005].Bench: Anil R Dave, Kurian Joseph, Shiva Kirti Singh, AK Goel, Rohinton Fali Nariman JJ..A petition seeking a declaration to the effect that the ‘right to die with dignity’ be held a facet of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the Centre and States to adopt suitable procedure to ensure that the persons with deteriorating health or the terminally ill be allowed to execute a document, viz., a ‘living will & Attorney authorization’. This document could then be presented to a hospital for appropriate action in the event the executant’s health worsens..A 3-judge Bench of the Court had referred the matter to a Constitution Bench. When the case was last heard, the case was adjourned to February 1 after the Bench sought the Centre’s reply..Today in court: The case was not taken up today because another part matter was being heard..2. Devika Biswas v. Union of India & Ors..[Item 47 in court 3 – Writ Petition (C) 95/2012].Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar J., C. Nagappan J..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..When the matter was last heard, the Chhattisgarh government had informed the court that steps have been taken to attach the properties of the absconding accused responsible for the death of the 14..Today in court: The Court directed the Chhattisgarh government to submit the Anita Jha Commission report pertaining to the 14 casualties in a week. The case will now be heard by another Bench which was seized of the matter..3. Swaraj Abhiyan v. Union of India and Ors..[Item 50 in court 8 – Writ Petition (Civil) 857/2015].Bench: Madan B Lokur, RK Agarwal JJ..A petition filed by Swaraj Abhiyan seeking among other things, a direction to provide free food-grains guaranteed under National Food Security Act to people living in drought-affected states..The Court had sought a response from the Central government on the implementation of Food Security Act and MNREGA in the drought affected areas. The Court also asked the drought hit States to provide information on the implementation of welfare schemes..On the last hearing, the Central government had sought more time to collect data on the implementation of various social security measures in the drought-hit States. The Agricultural Secretaries of those States were scheduled to meet the Union Agricultural Secretary between January 25-27 to take stock of the situation..Today in court: The Court today pulled up the Gujarat government for failing to implement the National Food Security Act..“Do you want to break away from the Union that you do not implement a law made by the Parliament. What if some State says tomorrow that it will not implement IPC, CrPc or Evidence Act?”, the Court asked. .The Court also asked the Central government what it was doing about this. The Court has now asked the Centre to respond about the parameters followed by 3 States – Gujarat, Bihar and Chattisgarh in deciding whether they are drought-hit or not..4. Common Cause v. Abhijat & Ors.[Item 48 in court 12 – Conmpt. Pet. (C) 550/2015 in WP (C) 821/1990].Bench: Kurian Joseph, Rohinton Fali Nariman JJ..A contempt petition filed against the Delhi High Court Bar Association and District Bar Associations The petitioner has contended that the Bar bodies resorting to strike recently was in violation of the Supreme Court judgment in Harish Uppal’s case..When the matter was last heard, the Court had remarked that the problem of lawyers going on strike has become a rampant one and something has to be done. Senior Advocate Ram Jethmalani, appearing on behalf of lawyers bodies, had then admitted that it was a serious issue but said that if a proper grievance redressal mechanism is put in place, this might not happen. Jethmalani then said that he will consult with prominent sections of the Bar and try to chalk out a solution..The court had recorded the same and adjourned the case..Today in court: This case could not be tracked. Any update/ information would be appreciated..5. Nabam Rebia v. Registrar General, Gauhati High Court and Ors..[Item 501 in court 3 – SLP(C) 876/2016].Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar, Dipak Misra, Madan B Lokur, PC Ghose, NV Ramana JJ..This case pertains to the removal of Arunachal Pradesh Speaker Nabam Rebia and is an appeal against the decision of the Gauhati High Court..Recently, the Union Cabinet recommended imposition of President’s Rule in the State which was challenged by the ruling party. The Court had issued notice to the Centre and Governor for their response over the issue of President’s Rule..Today in court: The court today recalled the notice issued to the Governor of the State after accepting the submission of the Attorney General that there is a complete immunity to the Governor under Article 361 of the Constitution of India, and that, even notice cannot be issued to the Governor. The Attorney General had relied on the case Ramehswar Prasad v. Union of India [2006 (2) SCC 1] to buttress his point. The Court also issued notice in two fresh petitions challenging the imposition of President’s rule in the State..The Court then directed that copies of all official files and documents which were seized from the office of the former Chief Minister, Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries be furnished to them. The Court also directed that all private books, letter and files which were seized, be returned to the Chief Minister and former Ministers..6. Nakkheeran Gopal v. Union Of India And Ors.[Item 10 in court 9 – WP (Crl.) 4/2016].Bench: MY Eqbal, Arun Mishra JJ..Check evening updates..Today in court: This case could not be tracked. Any lead/ information would be appreciated..7. SM Anantha Murugan v. The Chairman, Bar Council of India and Ors.[Item 23 in court 10 – SLP(CRL.)… /2016].Bench: V Gopala Gowda, Uday Umesh Lalit JJ..Check evening updates..Today in court: This is a petition challenging the Madras High Court judgment to consider disbanding the Bar Council of India. The Court issued notice in the case. Read more about it here..8. Satyanarayana Murthy Jandhyala v. Registrar National Consumer disputes Redressal Commission & Anr..[Item 33 in court 1 – Writ Petition (C) 785/2015].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AK Sikri, R Banumathi JJ..Check evening updates..Today in court: This case did not come up for hearing..9. Vineet Dhanda v. Union of India and Ors..[Item 20 in court 1 – Writ Petition (C) 50/2016].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AK Sikri, R Banumathi JJ..A fresh public interest litigation. Check evening updates..Today in court: This petition was withdrawn..Bombay High Court.1. Jaysingh Hindurao Patil & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra through Secretary.[Item 4 Court 54 – WP(civil)/945/2015].Bench: Naresh H. Patil, A.A. Sayyed JJ.The petition contends that 44 petitioners in the present petition and around 800 others who are not party to this petition have not recieved their salaries since October 2013..In a meeting in September 2013, the Minister of Social Justice had taken a decision to apply pay-scale to teaching and non-teaching staff at ashram shala, after the meeting directions were given and the petitioners have not recieved salaries ever since..Today in court: Government pleader, A.B. Vagyani submitted that the state has found that the earlier decision taken to grant aid to 148 schools was approved at the secretary level in 2008 and not the cabinet level. Hence the state government would have to review the decision. He also informed the court that the state would want to scrutinize the authenticity of these claims..The bench asked the state to deposit 50% of the salary grant once the state was satisfied with the re-asessment of these claims, which would be four weeks..In the meantime the state was asked to file an additional affidavit highlighting the progress in the matter. The next hearing will be in 2 weeks..2. Late. SOU. Meenatai Thakare(MASAHEB) Krida v. State of Maharashtra and ors..[Item 21 Court 54 – WP(Civil)/1164/2016].Bench: Naresh H. Patil, AA Sayyed JJ.Today in court: The matter could not be taken up due to paucity of time, it will now come up in two weeks..3. Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika Shikshak Sabha v. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation.[Item 46 Court 54 – WP(O)/1302/2013].Bench: Naresh H. Patil, A.A. Sayyed JJ.The petitioner contends that even though under the Right to Education Act students of municipal and other schools in Mumbai are entitled to Class VIII, no such provision has been made by either the Municipal Corporation or the state government..(Read the previous order of the Bombay High Court).Today in court: The matter did not come up today..4. Aarti Thakur v. State of Maharashtra through Women & Child.[Item 45 Court 43 – WP(Civil)/4267/2014].Bench: V.M. Kanade, Revati Mohite Dere JJ.The petitioner Aarti Thakur is a victim of an acid attack that took place in December of 2012. The petitioner has sought compensation under ‘Manodhairya Scheme’. The Dean of Sir JJ Group of Hospitals was asked to give an estimate of the requisite plastic surgery and lazer therapy to the petitioner. He was also asked to assist the petitioner in taking treatment from either Grant medical hospital or KEM hospital..Today in court: The matter could not be taken up today due to paucity of time.