Supreme Court.1. Parivartan Kendra & Anr v. Union of India & Ors..[Item 1 in court 10 – W.P.(C) NO. 867/2013].Bench: MY Eqbal J., C Nagappan J..This petition pertains to acid attack on girls..Today in court: The Court today pulled up five States – Jammu & Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh and Mizoram for failing to file their response in the matter. The Court has issued show cause notice to these five States on why contempt action should not be initiated against them. The matter will now be heard on September 23..2. State of Karnataka v. Common Cause and Ors. Etc..[Review Petition (Civil) 1879-1881/2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) 13/2003, Writ Petition (Civil) 197/2004 and Writ Petition (Civil) 302/2012].Bench: Ranjan Gogoi J., PC Ghose J..This is a review petition filed against the judgment of the Court by which it had laid down that photographs of President, Prime Minister and Chief Justice of India alone can be carried in government ads. The review has been sought by four States – Karnataka, West Bengal, Assam and Tamil Nadu..Today in court: The Court issued notice in the matter and will hear it on Monday next week..Delhi High Court.1. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Vs Union of India.[Item 1, Court 9- WP (C) 5888/2014].Bench: RS Endlaw J..A petition filed by the Delhi Govt challenging an MHA notification issued on May 21 that deprived the Anti-Corruption Bureau of its powers from taking cognizance of offences against officers, employees and functionaries of the Central Government..During the last hearing, senior counsel Dayan Krishnan appearing for the Delhi Govt. had submitted before the Court that Article 239AA of the Constitution had ‘crystallized the law’ so far as the constitutional mandate of Delhi’s CM was concerned..Since he had resumed arguments and the matter was partly-heard, it would be interesting to see as to which Bench hears the matter today..Today in Court: Justice Endlaw took note of the fact that the matter was part-heard by a different Bench and therefore posted it for further arguments before the same Bench of Justice VP Vaish on September 17..2. Sathiyam Media Vision Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. Union of India & Anr..[Item 55, Court 13- WP (C) 8351/2015].Bench: RS Endlaw J. .A petition filed by a TV Channel against the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting for an order passed by the Ministry ‘warning’ the channel for airing political criticism about Prime Minister Narendra Modi..On the last hearing, the Court had issued notice to the I&B Ministry and sought their response over the issue..Today, the channel approached the High Court again over yet another show-cause notice slapped on it by the I&B Ministry regarding similar allegations, on August 26. The channel’s plea primarily centered around staying the ‘warning’ issued by the Ministry on May 12 and this was necessary because the channel stated that if both the orders were operating against it, it was liable to lose its license..Today in Court: The Bench refused to entertain the fresh plea and said that notice had already been issued and the Court was ceased of the matter. After holding that there was no urgency so as to pass an ex-parte order, Justice Endlaw also refused to stay the order of May 12.
Supreme Court.1. Parivartan Kendra & Anr v. Union of India & Ors..[Item 1 in court 10 – W.P.(C) NO. 867/2013].Bench: MY Eqbal J., C Nagappan J..This petition pertains to acid attack on girls..Today in court: The Court today pulled up five States – Jammu & Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh and Mizoram for failing to file their response in the matter. The Court has issued show cause notice to these five States on why contempt action should not be initiated against them. The matter will now be heard on September 23..2. State of Karnataka v. Common Cause and Ors. Etc..[Review Petition (Civil) 1879-1881/2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) 13/2003, Writ Petition (Civil) 197/2004 and Writ Petition (Civil) 302/2012].Bench: Ranjan Gogoi J., PC Ghose J..This is a review petition filed against the judgment of the Court by which it had laid down that photographs of President, Prime Minister and Chief Justice of India alone can be carried in government ads. The review has been sought by four States – Karnataka, West Bengal, Assam and Tamil Nadu..Today in court: The Court issued notice in the matter and will hear it on Monday next week..Delhi High Court.1. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Vs Union of India.[Item 1, Court 9- WP (C) 5888/2014].Bench: RS Endlaw J..A petition filed by the Delhi Govt challenging an MHA notification issued on May 21 that deprived the Anti-Corruption Bureau of its powers from taking cognizance of offences against officers, employees and functionaries of the Central Government..During the last hearing, senior counsel Dayan Krishnan appearing for the Delhi Govt. had submitted before the Court that Article 239AA of the Constitution had ‘crystallized the law’ so far as the constitutional mandate of Delhi’s CM was concerned..Since he had resumed arguments and the matter was partly-heard, it would be interesting to see as to which Bench hears the matter today..Today in Court: Justice Endlaw took note of the fact that the matter was part-heard by a different Bench and therefore posted it for further arguments before the same Bench of Justice VP Vaish on September 17..2. Sathiyam Media Vision Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. Union of India & Anr..[Item 55, Court 13- WP (C) 8351/2015].Bench: RS Endlaw J. .A petition filed by a TV Channel against the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting for an order passed by the Ministry ‘warning’ the channel for airing political criticism about Prime Minister Narendra Modi..On the last hearing, the Court had issued notice to the I&B Ministry and sought their response over the issue..Today, the channel approached the High Court again over yet another show-cause notice slapped on it by the I&B Ministry regarding similar allegations, on August 26. The channel’s plea primarily centered around staying the ‘warning’ issued by the Ministry on May 12 and this was necessary because the channel stated that if both the orders were operating against it, it was liable to lose its license..Today in Court: The Bench refused to entertain the fresh plea and said that notice had already been issued and the Court was ceased of the matter. After holding that there was no urgency so as to pass an ex-parte order, Justice Endlaw also refused to stay the order of May 12.
