Five Constitution Bench cases to be listed in Supreme Court from October 10

The Supreme Court is slated to hear five Constitution Bench cases from October 10. The five cases include the case relating to the statehood of Delhi in the backdrop of Article 239AA, and the case relating to euthanasia and Living Wills..The composition of the Bench/es and the exact date of sitting is not known yet..The following are the matters which will be listed from October 10, 2017:.1. National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pushpa & Ors. [SLP (C) 16735/2014].This case relates to determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The issue which will be considered by the Court pertains to the manner of addition of income for future prospects..In the instant case, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had determined the compensation amount after adding 30% of the income of the deceased towards future prospects by placing reliance on the decision in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Company Limited and others..The insurer had challenged the same contending that the deceased was not a salaried person but a person engaged in business. The High Court had rejected the appeal of the insurer prompting the insurer to approach the Supreme Court..A Bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda had referred the matter to a larger Bench after opining that there is divergence in the views of earlier decisions of the Supreme Court on this issue..2. Common Cause v. Union of India [WP (C) 215/2005].This is the case concerning euthanasia and living wills. The petitioner in this case has sought 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..Also prayed for is a direction to the Centre and States to adopt a 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..On February 25, 2014 a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising then Chief Justice P Sathasivam and Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Shiva Kirti Singh referred to a Constitution Bench the questions arising out of and around the practice of euthanasia and “living wills”. The three-judge Bench did not frame any specific question of law, instead stating,.“We refrain from framing any specific questions for consideration by the Constitution Bench as we invite the Constitution Bench to go into all the aspects of the matter and lay down exhaustive guidelines in this regard.”.Interestingly, the three-judge Bench in its order held that the only judgment that held the field with regard to euthanasia in India was Aruna Ramchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India. The said judgment had upheld the validity of passive euthanasia and laid down an elaborate procedure for executing the same..The three-judge bench had concluded that Aruna Shanbaug rested on the wrong premise that the Constitution Bench in Gian Kaur had upheld passive euthanasia. The Court also held that this particular issue had produced some inconsistent opinions. It, therefore, went on to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench..3. State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. [Civil Appeal 1093/2006].The question that will be considered in this case is:.“Whether this Court can entertain an application for making the award as Rule of the Court, even if it retains seisin over arbitral proceedings?”.The question arose after the Supreme Court had referred a case to an arbitrator. The Court had also directed the arbitrator to conclude the arbitration expeditiously and file the award before the Supreme Court..The arbitrator had passed the award and sent it to the Supreme Court..The appellant before the Supreme Court however, challenged the said award by filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Civil Court. The respondents, on the other hand, filed an affidavit requesting the Supreme Court to pronounce the judgment in terms of the arbitral award..Both the parties referred to judgments which differed on the issue..The Court, in its reference order of September 22, noted that there is a difference of opinion in relation to the maintainability of an application for making the award as Rule of the Court. It therefore proceeded to refer the matter to a larger Bench..4. Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India [WP (c) 558/2012].The Court will be considering the following two questions in the case:.(i) Whether in a litigation filed before this Court either under Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the Court can refer to and place reliance upon the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee? .(ii) Whether such a Report can be looked at for the purpose of reference and, if so, can there be restrictions for the purpose of reference regard being had to the concept of parliamentary privilege and the delicate balance between the constitutional institutions that Articles 105, 121 and 122 of the Constitution conceive?.The reference order was passed on April 5, 2017 by a Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and Rohinton Fali Nariman..The case itself is a Public Interest Litigation, filed by one Kalpana Mehta, which had sought direction to cancel licences of two vaccines, which had been used on tribal women in Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat for treatment of cervical cancer..Mehta had alleged that the vaccines marketed in India by MSD Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd and GlaxoSmithKline Ltd — Gardasil and Cervarix — were unproven and hazardous..A Parliamentary Standing Committee report had, in 2014, concluded that a PATH/Government of AP/Government of Gujarat HPV vaccine experiment constituted “a serious breach of medical ethics (and)… a clear cut violation of the human rights of these girl children and adolescents.”.The petitioner relied upon this report to seek the issuance of a direction from the Court to cancel the licenses of the said vaccines. The Court, in its judgment, noted that it is prima facie of the view that the Parliamentary Standing Committee report may not be tendered as a document to augment the stance on a factual score. However, stating that this is a substantial question of law, it chose to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench..5. Govt of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India [Civil Appeal 2357/2017].Case concerning interpretation of article 239AA of the Constitution of India. Article 239AA provides for Special Provisions with respect to Delhi. The peculiar status of the National Capital Territory and the powers of the Delhi Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor and their interplay will be debated in the case..The case itself has its genesis in a notification issued by the Central government in May, 2015. The said notification stated that.“In accordance with the provisions contained in article 239 and sub-clause (a) of clause (3) of 239AA, the President hereby directs that –.subject to his control and further orders, the Lieutenant Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, shall in respect of matters connected with ‘Public Order’, ‘Police’, ‘Land’ and ‘Services’ as stated hereinabove, exercise the powers and discharge the functions of the Central Government, to the extent delegated to him from time to time by the President..Provided that the Lieutenant Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi may, in his discretion, obtain the views of the Chief Minister of the National Capital Territory of Delhi in regard to the matter of ‘Services’ wherever he deems it appropriate.”.It also stated that the Anti-Corruption Branch Police Station shall not take any cognizance of offences against officers, employees and functionaries of the Central Government. The AAP government claimed that this notification was a gross abuse of power and ultra vires the constitutional scheme. It, therefore, challenged the same in the Delhi High Court..The High Court ruled against the Delhi government, holding that Delhi continues to be a Union Territory, and that the Lt. Governor of Delhi is not bound to act only on the “aid and advice” of the Delhi Legislative Assembly..This led to the appeal in Supreme Court..On February 15, 2017, the Supreme Court noted in its order that,.“…we are of the opinion that these appeals need to be heard by a Constitution Bench as these matters involve substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of Article 239AA of the Constitution.”.Read the notification below.