Supreme Court of India .1. Somanth Bharti v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) .[Item 57 in court 1 – SLP (Crl) 8183/ 2015].Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Amitava Roy J..The anticipatory bail plea of Delhi’s former Law Minister, Somnath Bharti. Bharti had surrendered before the police after the Supreme Court said that it will consider his case only after he surrenders. Subsequently, the State had prayed that petition has become infructuous. Bharti had, however, sought for notice to be issued to his wife to explore the possibility of mediation and the Court had obliged. It had, however, refused to give any interim protection to Bharti. The court will be hearing both parties today..Today in court: Somnath Bharti’s wife Lipika Mitra categorically stated in court that she is not agreeable to mediation. The Court recorded the same and disposed of the petition as infructuous. The Court turned down the bail plea of Bharti stating that he could move the trial court for regular bail. It has, however, directed the trial judge that if Bharti moves a bail application, it should be considered on the same day or the next day and disposed of expeditiously..2. Common Cause v. Union of India & Ors..[Item 58 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 463 of 2012].Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Amitava Roy J..A plea by CBI’s ML Sharma who is investigating ex-CBI head Ranjit Sinha’s role in the coal scam. Sharma has requested for the original of the entry register/ log book of Ranjit Sinha’s residence to be handed over to him for the purpose of investigation..The register had been submitted to the court in a sealed cover on a direction by the Bench hearing the cases related to the 2G scam. When the matter was heard on September 30 by the Coal Bench, it directed that the request be placed before the 2G Bench headed by Chief Justice Dattu..Today in court: Senior Advocate Vikas Singh appeared for Ranjit Sinha today and submitted that the Coal Bench did not hear him and directed the matter to be placed before the 2G Bench without giving him an opportunity to present his case. The Bench presided by Chief Justice Dattu remanded the matter back to the Coal bench to be heard on Thursday this week..3. Sujoy Mitra v. State of West Bengal .[Item 67 in court 4 – SLP (Crl) 8157 of 2015].Bench: JS Khehar J., R Banumathi J..This is an appeal challenging the examination of an Irish rape victim through Skype. You can read more about the case here..Today in court: The petitioner today submitted that the examination could be done in the BSNL studio and the technological infrastructure necessary for the same is available in the BSNL studio in Kolkata. The petitioner also submitted that he has no objection to the evidence which has already been recorded by way of Skype but contended that no further evidence should be recorded using Skype and webcams since it is not proper, authentic or acceptable. He further submitted that an officer should be deputed either from India or from the Embassy in Ireland to be present when the victim is being examined in order to ensure that there is no other person present in the room and the victim is not referring to any documents while being examined..The Court issued notice to the State of West Bengal and posted the case for October 12..4. C Krishnan v. The Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary), High Court of Kerala & Anr..[Item 20 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 713/2015].Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Amitava Roy J. .A fresh petition..Today in court: The Court refused to entertain this petition and directed the petitioner to move the High Court..5. Pet Lovers Association v. Union of India and Ors.[Item 54 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 286/2015].Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Amitava Roy J. .A fresh PIL..Today in court: This petition challenging a decision of the Gujarat High Court was withdrawn after the Court said that the petitioner has to approach the Supreme Court by way of appeal and not under Article 32..6. State of Jammu And Kashmir and Ors. v. Parimoksh Seth and etc. .[Item 63 in court 1 – SLP (C) 28451-28452 of 2015].Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Amitava Roy J..Appeal against the judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court banning beef (via 1 Law Street). While the Jammu Bench of the High Court had directed the State to ensure that provisions in the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) banning cow slaughter are strictly implemented, a Division Bench of the High Court at Srinagar had issued notice in a PIL challenging the very same provisions of the RPC..Today in court: The Court today kept in abeyance the order of the Jammu Bench of the High Court directing the State to implement the provisions of RPC. Taking note of the conflict in opinions of the two Benches, the Court directed the Chief Justice of the High Court to constitute a three-judge Bench to decide the case.. 7. Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Kewal Kumar Sharma & Ors..[Item 57 in court 8 – Conmt. Pet. (Civil) 485/2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) 197/2004].Bench: Ranjan Gogoi J., NV Ramana J..A contempt petition filed against Delhi and Tamil Nadu for violating the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court with respect to advertisements by government. The judgment mandates that only images of the President of India, Prime Minister and the Chief Justice of India can be used in such advertisements..Today in court: This case could not be tracked..8. Deepak Kundu & Ors. v. Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana & Ors..[Item 1 in court 8 – SLP(C) NO. 26871/2015].Bench: Ranjan Gogoi J., NV Ramana J..Check evening updates to know more about this case..Today in court: This is an appeal against a decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court whereby it had upheld the Rules framed by the Bar Council of the State dictating terms for elections to various District Bar Associations. Various District Bar Associations have come to the Supreme Court in appeal against the judgment of the High Court including Bar Associations of Panipat, Rohtak, Jajjhar, Kurukhetra, Karnal and Gurgaon. The Court had issued notice in the matter few weeks back. It has summoned the Advocate Generals of the two States and will now hear the matter on Wednesday this week..9. Sonal Gupta v. Registrar General of High Court of Delhi.[Item 10 in court 4 – Writ Petition (Civil) 712/2015].Bench: JS Khehar J, R Banumathi J. .Today in court: The court issued notice in this petition pertaining to Delhi Judicial Service Exam and tagged it along with the case filed by NGO Centre for PIL..Delhi High Court.1. Association of Radio Taxis v. Union of India & Ors..[Item 22 in Court 1- Writ Petition (Civil) 6000/2015].Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J..A plea filed by the association of radio taxi operators seeking the shut down of app-based cabs which were non licensed..On the last date of hearing, the Bench had sought a response from the Delhi Govt as to why were the app-based cab companies violating the ban orders of the Court as well as of the Government..Today in Court: A bunch of similar petitions that had earlier sought revocation of licenses of app-based cab companies on grounds of non-compliance with the Court’s orders, are scheduled to be heard on October 14. The Bench tagged this case with those petitions and will now hear all of them together..2. Ajay Maken v. Union of India & Anr (Lead matter in a batch of 3 connected matters).[Item 15 in Court 1- Writ Petition (Civil) 6702/2015].Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J..A petition filed by Congress leader Ajay Maken against Aam Aadmi Party’s ad campaigns. During the last hearing, the Bench rapped the Center for not filing its affidavit pursuant to the order of July 15 passed by the Court..Today in Court: The matter was adjourned to be heard on October 7..3. Association of Radio Taxis v. Bhavish Aggarwal & ANI Technologies Pvt Ltd. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors .[Item 23 and 20 in Court 8 – Cont. Cas (C) 643/2015, WP (C) 6668/2015].Bench: Manmohan J. .A contempt petition filed by Association of Radio Taxis against OLA Cabs. The genus of the petition was that OLA Cabs were still plying in the city despite a Single Bench order of the Delhi HC and later, a Division Bench that had refused to lift the ban on the cab service imposed by the Delhi Govt..On the last hearing, Senior Counsel P Chidambaram appearing for Aggarwal (CEO of OLA Cabs) had informed the Court that steps were underway to phase out OLA taxis ‘entirely from the diesel platform’..Today in Court: Senior Counsel Nidhesh Gupta appearing for the Association informed the Court that OLA was subverting the Court’s orders by running their diesel vehicles through their wholly owned subsidiary, Taxi For Sure cabs..Highlighting certain technical glitches within the OLA Application, Gupta further informed the Bench that in spite of submissions to the contrary on the last date of hearing, OLA still had around 12000 cabs plying in the city as opposed to a meagre 500 CNG cabs. Senior Counsel Sandeep Sethi who appeared for OLA submitted before the Bench that none of these figures were reflected on record through any affidavit filed before the Court..Taking into account these submissions, the Bench granted time to both the parties for filing the required affidavits and applications before adjourning the matter to be heard next week on October 13.
Supreme Court of India .1. Somanth Bharti v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) .[Item 57 in court 1 – SLP (Crl) 8183/ 2015].Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Amitava Roy J..The anticipatory bail plea of Delhi’s former Law Minister, Somnath Bharti. Bharti had surrendered before the police after the Supreme Court said that it will consider his case only after he surrenders. Subsequently, the State had prayed that petition has become infructuous. Bharti had, however, sought for notice to be issued to his wife to explore the possibility of mediation and the Court had obliged. It had, however, refused to give any interim protection to Bharti. The court will be hearing both parties today..Today in court: Somnath Bharti’s wife Lipika Mitra categorically stated in court that she is not agreeable to mediation. The Court recorded the same and disposed of the petition as infructuous. The Court turned down the bail plea of Bharti stating that he could move the trial court for regular bail. It has, however, directed the trial judge that if Bharti moves a bail application, it should be considered on the same day or the next day and disposed of expeditiously..2. Common Cause v. Union of India & Ors..[Item 58 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 463 of 2012].Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Amitava Roy J..A plea by CBI’s ML Sharma who is investigating ex-CBI head Ranjit Sinha’s role in the coal scam. Sharma has requested for the original of the entry register/ log book of Ranjit Sinha’s residence to be handed over to him for the purpose of investigation..The register had been submitted to the court in a sealed cover on a direction by the Bench hearing the cases related to the 2G scam. When the matter was heard on September 30 by the Coal Bench, it directed that the request be placed before the 2G Bench headed by Chief Justice Dattu..Today in court: Senior Advocate Vikas Singh appeared for Ranjit Sinha today and submitted that the Coal Bench did not hear him and directed the matter to be placed before the 2G Bench without giving him an opportunity to present his case. The Bench presided by Chief Justice Dattu remanded the matter back to the Coal bench to be heard on Thursday this week..3. Sujoy Mitra v. State of West Bengal .[Item 67 in court 4 – SLP (Crl) 8157 of 2015].Bench: JS Khehar J., R Banumathi J..This is an appeal challenging the examination of an Irish rape victim through Skype. You can read more about the case here..Today in court: The petitioner today submitted that the examination could be done in the BSNL studio and the technological infrastructure necessary for the same is available in the BSNL studio in Kolkata. The petitioner also submitted that he has no objection to the evidence which has already been recorded by way of Skype but contended that no further evidence should be recorded using Skype and webcams since it is not proper, authentic or acceptable. He further submitted that an officer should be deputed either from India or from the Embassy in Ireland to be present when the victim is being examined in order to ensure that there is no other person present in the room and the victim is not referring to any documents while being examined..The Court issued notice to the State of West Bengal and posted the case for October 12..4. C Krishnan v. The Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary), High Court of Kerala & Anr..[Item 20 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 713/2015].Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Amitava Roy J. .A fresh petition..Today in court: The Court refused to entertain this petition and directed the petitioner to move the High Court..5. Pet Lovers Association v. Union of India and Ors.[Item 54 in court 1 – Writ Petition (Civil) 286/2015].Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Amitava Roy J. .A fresh PIL..Today in court: This petition challenging a decision of the Gujarat High Court was withdrawn after the Court said that the petitioner has to approach the Supreme Court by way of appeal and not under Article 32..6. State of Jammu And Kashmir and Ors. v. Parimoksh Seth and etc. .[Item 63 in court 1 – SLP (C) 28451-28452 of 2015].Bench: Chief Justice HL Dattu, Amitava Roy J..Appeal against the judgment of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court banning beef (via 1 Law Street). While the Jammu Bench of the High Court had directed the State to ensure that provisions in the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) banning cow slaughter are strictly implemented, a Division Bench of the High Court at Srinagar had issued notice in a PIL challenging the very same provisions of the RPC..Today in court: The Court today kept in abeyance the order of the Jammu Bench of the High Court directing the State to implement the provisions of RPC. Taking note of the conflict in opinions of the two Benches, the Court directed the Chief Justice of the High Court to constitute a three-judge Bench to decide the case.. 7. Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Kewal Kumar Sharma & Ors..[Item 57 in court 8 – Conmt. Pet. (Civil) 485/2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) 197/2004].Bench: Ranjan Gogoi J., NV Ramana J..A contempt petition filed against Delhi and Tamil Nadu for violating the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court with respect to advertisements by government. The judgment mandates that only images of the President of India, Prime Minister and the Chief Justice of India can be used in such advertisements..Today in court: This case could not be tracked..8. Deepak Kundu & Ors. v. Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana & Ors..[Item 1 in court 8 – SLP(C) NO. 26871/2015].Bench: Ranjan Gogoi J., NV Ramana J..Check evening updates to know more about this case..Today in court: This is an appeal against a decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court whereby it had upheld the Rules framed by the Bar Council of the State dictating terms for elections to various District Bar Associations. Various District Bar Associations have come to the Supreme Court in appeal against the judgment of the High Court including Bar Associations of Panipat, Rohtak, Jajjhar, Kurukhetra, Karnal and Gurgaon. The Court had issued notice in the matter few weeks back. It has summoned the Advocate Generals of the two States and will now hear the matter on Wednesday this week..9. Sonal Gupta v. Registrar General of High Court of Delhi.[Item 10 in court 4 – Writ Petition (Civil) 712/2015].Bench: JS Khehar J, R Banumathi J. .Today in court: The court issued notice in this petition pertaining to Delhi Judicial Service Exam and tagged it along with the case filed by NGO Centre for PIL..Delhi High Court.1. Association of Radio Taxis v. Union of India & Ors..[Item 22 in Court 1- Writ Petition (Civil) 6000/2015].Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J..A plea filed by the association of radio taxi operators seeking the shut down of app-based cabs which were non licensed..On the last date of hearing, the Bench had sought a response from the Delhi Govt as to why were the app-based cab companies violating the ban orders of the Court as well as of the Government..Today in Court: A bunch of similar petitions that had earlier sought revocation of licenses of app-based cab companies on grounds of non-compliance with the Court’s orders, are scheduled to be heard on October 14. The Bench tagged this case with those petitions and will now hear all of them together..2. Ajay Maken v. Union of India & Anr (Lead matter in a batch of 3 connected matters).[Item 15 in Court 1- Writ Petition (Civil) 6702/2015].Bench: Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J..A petition filed by Congress leader Ajay Maken against Aam Aadmi Party’s ad campaigns. During the last hearing, the Bench rapped the Center for not filing its affidavit pursuant to the order of July 15 passed by the Court..Today in Court: The matter was adjourned to be heard on October 7..3. Association of Radio Taxis v. Bhavish Aggarwal & ANI Technologies Pvt Ltd. v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors .[Item 23 and 20 in Court 8 – Cont. Cas (C) 643/2015, WP (C) 6668/2015].Bench: Manmohan J. .A contempt petition filed by Association of Radio Taxis against OLA Cabs. The genus of the petition was that OLA Cabs were still plying in the city despite a Single Bench order of the Delhi HC and later, a Division Bench that had refused to lift the ban on the cab service imposed by the Delhi Govt..On the last hearing, Senior Counsel P Chidambaram appearing for Aggarwal (CEO of OLA Cabs) had informed the Court that steps were underway to phase out OLA taxis ‘entirely from the diesel platform’..Today in Court: Senior Counsel Nidhesh Gupta appearing for the Association informed the Court that OLA was subverting the Court’s orders by running their diesel vehicles through their wholly owned subsidiary, Taxi For Sure cabs..Highlighting certain technical glitches within the OLA Application, Gupta further informed the Bench that in spite of submissions to the contrary on the last date of hearing, OLA still had around 12000 cabs plying in the city as opposed to a meagre 500 CNG cabs. Senior Counsel Sandeep Sethi who appeared for OLA submitted before the Bench that none of these figures were reflected on record through any affidavit filed before the Court..Taking into account these submissions, the Bench granted time to both the parties for filing the required affidavits and applications before adjourning the matter to be heard next week on October 13.
