Supreme Court .Kishore Samrite v. Union of Inda & Ors. .[Item 9 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Crl) 100/2015].A fresh public interest litigation..Today in court: This petition, seeking a probe into the claims that Dawood Ibrahim wants to return to India but the government does not want to bring him back, was dismissed by the court which observed that it is not for the Supreme Court to interfere in the matter..Ram Nath Sharma v. Union of India & Ors..[Item 10 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Crl) 101/2015].A fresh public interest litigation..This item could not be tracked..Mukesh Singh & Ors. v. Registrat General, Allahabad High Court .[Item 17 in Court 1 – S.L.P.(C)… /2015 CC No. 10779].A fresh Special Leave petition..Today in court: This petition pertains to dismissal of clerks by the Allahabad High Court. Allahabad High Court had appointed around 650 clerks on daily wage basis without any official appointment letters. The clerks, who were issued identity cards, were then allegedly made to toil day and night without adequate holidays or overtime wages. They worked in various courts across Uttar Pradesh. The clerks finally resorted to hunger strike and were, subsequently, informed by the Court not to come for work from the next day. The clerks then gave a representation to High Court on its administrative side which was never considered. This finally led to a writ petition in the High Court which has allegedly been kept pending for long time prompting them to approach the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, however, refused to entertain the case..Dheeraj Mor v. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.[Item 37 in court 1 – SLP (Civil) 14156/2015].A Special Leave petition against a judgment of the Delhi High Court..Today in Court: This is an appeal against a judgment of the Delhi High Court. The High Court itself is the respondent in the case. The case pertains to whether a person in judicial service can be appointed as District judge not by way of promotion but by way of direct recruitment from the Bar, if he fulfils the seven years’ experience at the Bar laid down by Article 233 of the Constitution. Kapil Sibal and Aryama Sundaram appeared for the petitioners while Advocate ADN Rao appeared for the Delhi High Court..The Court posted the matter for hearing on a non-miscellaneous day after August 15..Nagendar Chindam & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. .[Item 44 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 80/2013].This case pertains to NRI voting rights. The Court had allowed the same while directing the Election Commission of India to put forth means to explore alternative options for voting by such overseas electors. The ECI had submitted a report in that regard which is now being studied by the Central government for implementation of the suggestions of the ECI..Today in court: The Centre, through Additional Solicitor General PS Narasimha, informed the court that it is proposing to amend Section 20(6) and 60 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 to enable the Election Commission of India to implement proxy voting and e-ballot voting for NRIs. He submitted that the draft note for the Cabinet containing the proposal for the same was circulated to four ministries and their suggestions were considered. He informed the Court that the note will now be will be placed before the Cabinet shortly for its approval..The Court, therefore, adjourned the matter for two months..Kamlesh Vaswani v. Union of India & Ors..[Item 45 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 177/2013].This is a petition seeking regulation of online pornographic content. The petitioner has prayed for enactment of a new law to curb online pornography. The matter has been pending for quite some time now. When it was last heard on April 24 this year, the Court had directed that “the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon’ble Court on its own turn.”.Today in court: The matter was adjourned to allow parties to complete their pleadings..Amit Sibal v. Arvind Kejriwal & Ors. .[Item 201 in court 1– SLP (Crl) 1306/2014].This is a petition filed by Senior Advocate Amit Sibal praying that the trial court should not consider a plea by the Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to discharge him from defamation case filed by Sibal. The Supreme Court had issued notice in the case in 2014..Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Min of Law & Ors..[Item 1 in Court 5 – Writ Petition (Crl ) 184/2014].This is a batch of cases challenging the Constitutionality of provisions pertaining to defamation in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The provisions include Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC and Section 199(2) of the CrPC. BJP leader Subramanian Swamy had first approached the Court and the Court had issued notice in the case. Subsequently, other politicians including Arvind Kejriwal and Rahul Gandhi had also approached the Court with similar prayers. All these cases are now being heard together..When the matter last heard the Court had granted the respondents 4 weeks’ time to file counter affidavits and the petitioners were allowed four weeks to file rejoinder affidavits to the counter..Today in court: When the matter was taken up in the morning, Justice Dipak Misra posted the case for final hearing at 2 pm. When the matter came up for hearing at 2 pm, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi informed the Court that the case involves an important Constitutional issue and should be heard by a Constitution Bench. The Court was, however, not inclined to entertain this plea but said that it will consider this plea when it hears the case on merits. The case was then adjourned to July 14 to allow time to the Central government to file counter affidavit..Besides these cases, the hearing in the NJAC matter will continue in court room 4..Karnataka High Court.Veerabhadriah v. Union of India & Ors.\.Item 28 in Court No. 1 – Writ Petition 36789/2014 c/w Writ Petition 35106/2014.This case deals with a couple of challenges to 15 Senior Counsel designations in the Karnataka High Court. One of the petitioners, advocate TN Raghupathy had earlier approached the HC arguing that the designations were contrary to the spirit of the Advocates Act. The other petitioner, Veerabhadraiah, has contended that the designations were made before the Karnataka High Court Designation of Senior Advocates Rules 2014 were passed..In December last year, the matter reached the Supreme Court, which directed the high court to hear the challenge on merits..Delhi High Court.Madhav Narayan Kumar Vs. St. Stephen’s College & Ors. .[Item 48, Court 9- WP (C) 6471/2015].The matter pertains to denial of admission to a student under the sports quota by St. Stephen’s college. The student had pleaded before the High Court that he was eligible for admission under three courses after his performance in the sports trials and the college had omitted his name in the final admission list..Today in Court: Court issued notice to the college and posted the matter for further hearing tomorrow at 10.30 am.
Supreme Court .Kishore Samrite v. Union of Inda & Ors. .[Item 9 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Crl) 100/2015].A fresh public interest litigation..Today in court: This petition, seeking a probe into the claims that Dawood Ibrahim wants to return to India but the government does not want to bring him back, was dismissed by the court which observed that it is not for the Supreme Court to interfere in the matter..Ram Nath Sharma v. Union of India & Ors..[Item 10 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Crl) 101/2015].A fresh public interest litigation..This item could not be tracked..Mukesh Singh & Ors. v. Registrat General, Allahabad High Court .[Item 17 in Court 1 – S.L.P.(C)… /2015 CC No. 10779].A fresh Special Leave petition..Today in court: This petition pertains to dismissal of clerks by the Allahabad High Court. Allahabad High Court had appointed around 650 clerks on daily wage basis without any official appointment letters. The clerks, who were issued identity cards, were then allegedly made to toil day and night without adequate holidays or overtime wages. They worked in various courts across Uttar Pradesh. The clerks finally resorted to hunger strike and were, subsequently, informed by the Court not to come for work from the next day. The clerks then gave a representation to High Court on its administrative side which was never considered. This finally led to a writ petition in the High Court which has allegedly been kept pending for long time prompting them to approach the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, however, refused to entertain the case..Dheeraj Mor v. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.[Item 37 in court 1 – SLP (Civil) 14156/2015].A Special Leave petition against a judgment of the Delhi High Court..Today in Court: This is an appeal against a judgment of the Delhi High Court. The High Court itself is the respondent in the case. The case pertains to whether a person in judicial service can be appointed as District judge not by way of promotion but by way of direct recruitment from the Bar, if he fulfils the seven years’ experience at the Bar laid down by Article 233 of the Constitution. Kapil Sibal and Aryama Sundaram appeared for the petitioners while Advocate ADN Rao appeared for the Delhi High Court..The Court posted the matter for hearing on a non-miscellaneous day after August 15..Nagendar Chindam & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. .[Item 44 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 80/2013].This case pertains to NRI voting rights. The Court had allowed the same while directing the Election Commission of India to put forth means to explore alternative options for voting by such overseas electors. The ECI had submitted a report in that regard which is now being studied by the Central government for implementation of the suggestions of the ECI..Today in court: The Centre, through Additional Solicitor General PS Narasimha, informed the court that it is proposing to amend Section 20(6) and 60 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 to enable the Election Commission of India to implement proxy voting and e-ballot voting for NRIs. He submitted that the draft note for the Cabinet containing the proposal for the same was circulated to four ministries and their suggestions were considered. He informed the Court that the note will now be will be placed before the Cabinet shortly for its approval..The Court, therefore, adjourned the matter for two months..Kamlesh Vaswani v. Union of India & Ors..[Item 45 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 177/2013].This is a petition seeking regulation of online pornographic content. The petitioner has prayed for enactment of a new law to curb online pornography. The matter has been pending for quite some time now. When it was last heard on April 24 this year, the Court had directed that “the matter shall be processed for listing before the Hon’ble Court on its own turn.”.Today in court: The matter was adjourned to allow parties to complete their pleadings..Amit Sibal v. Arvind Kejriwal & Ors. .[Item 201 in court 1– SLP (Crl) 1306/2014].This is a petition filed by Senior Advocate Amit Sibal praying that the trial court should not consider a plea by the Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to discharge him from defamation case filed by Sibal. The Supreme Court had issued notice in the case in 2014..Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, Min of Law & Ors..[Item 1 in Court 5 – Writ Petition (Crl ) 184/2014].This is a batch of cases challenging the Constitutionality of provisions pertaining to defamation in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The provisions include Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC and Section 199(2) of the CrPC. BJP leader Subramanian Swamy had first approached the Court and the Court had issued notice in the case. Subsequently, other politicians including Arvind Kejriwal and Rahul Gandhi had also approached the Court with similar prayers. All these cases are now being heard together..When the matter last heard the Court had granted the respondents 4 weeks’ time to file counter affidavits and the petitioners were allowed four weeks to file rejoinder affidavits to the counter..Today in court: When the matter was taken up in the morning, Justice Dipak Misra posted the case for final hearing at 2 pm. When the matter came up for hearing at 2 pm, Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi informed the Court that the case involves an important Constitutional issue and should be heard by a Constitution Bench. The Court was, however, not inclined to entertain this plea but said that it will consider this plea when it hears the case on merits. The case was then adjourned to July 14 to allow time to the Central government to file counter affidavit..Besides these cases, the hearing in the NJAC matter will continue in court room 4..Karnataka High Court.Veerabhadriah v. Union of India & Ors.\.Item 28 in Court No. 1 – Writ Petition 36789/2014 c/w Writ Petition 35106/2014.This case deals with a couple of challenges to 15 Senior Counsel designations in the Karnataka High Court. One of the petitioners, advocate TN Raghupathy had earlier approached the HC arguing that the designations were contrary to the spirit of the Advocates Act. The other petitioner, Veerabhadraiah, has contended that the designations were made before the Karnataka High Court Designation of Senior Advocates Rules 2014 were passed..In December last year, the matter reached the Supreme Court, which directed the high court to hear the challenge on merits..Delhi High Court.Madhav Narayan Kumar Vs. St. Stephen’s College & Ors. .[Item 48, Court 9- WP (C) 6471/2015].The matter pertains to denial of admission to a student under the sports quota by St. Stephen’s college. The student had pleaded before the High Court that he was eligible for admission under three courses after his performance in the sports trials and the college had omitted his name in the final admission list..Today in Court: Court issued notice to the college and posted the matter for further hearing tomorrow at 10.30 am.
