A summary of important cases from the Supreme Court of India, the Delhi High Court and the Bombay High Court..Supreme Court of India.For judgment.1. Sachchidanand Gupta ”Sachchey” v. State of U.P Thr Chief Secretary and Ors..[Item IA, Court 7- W.P.(C) No. 872/2015].Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Prafulla C Pant JJ.Case pertaining to appointment of Lok Ayukta in Uttar Pradesh. The court had initially appointed retired judge, Virendra Singh to the post. However, the UP government had agreed to defer the oath taking of Singh after a vacation Bench had heard this petition..Before the Vacation Bench, Senior Advocate TR Andhyarujina, appeared for the Allahabad High Court and submitted that the U.P. government had misled the Supreme Court into believing that Virendra Singh’s name was not objected to by the Allahabad Chief Justice. Advocates Kamini Jaiswal and Prashant Bhushan also submitted the same..The Court, however, said that even if that submission was accepted, the Court is not inclined to vacate its order since the Constitutional functionaries in the State were given adequate time to carry out the order of the court but failed..The Court said that,. “If we find Virendra Singh not to be suitable, we will recall that order. But we are not sending the matter back to be decided by the State functionaries.”.Today in Court- You can read the detailed report here. .1. Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate v. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India and Ors..[Item 301 in court 7 – Writ Petition.(CRL.) 1012/2016].Bench: Ranjan Gogoi J., R.K. Agrawal J., N.V. Ramana J..A fresh public interest litigation petition. Check evening updates..Today in Court- This matter could not be tracked. Any leads/inputs would be appreciated..2. Teesta Atul Setalvad and Anr. State of Gujarat.[Item 302 in court 2 – CRL.A. 338/2015].Bench: Anil R Dave, FML Kalifulla, V Gopala Gowda JJ. .Case pertaining to investigation of activist Teesta Setalvad for allegedly misappropriating funds. The said funds were collected for building a “Museum of Resistance” at Gulbarg Housing Society where over 60 persons were killed during the 2002 riots..Today in Court- The Bench extended interim bail granted to Setalvad and her husband, after directing them to cooperate in the CBI & police probe. The interim bail has been extended till March 18 so the matter is expected to be taken up after that..3. Govind Agarwal v. High Court of Judicature Rajasthan, Jodhpur Bench at Jaipur.[Item 1 in court 1 – S.L.P. (C)… /2016 CC. 1071].Bench: Chief Justice T. S. Thakur J., A.K. Sikri J., R. Banumathi J..Check evening updates..Today in Court- This matter could not be tracked. Any leads/inputs would be appreciated..4. Ratnank Mishra & Ors. v. Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through R.G..[Item 3 in court 1 – SLP(C) 1203/2016].Bench: Chief Justice T. S. Thakur J., A.K. Sikri J., R. Banumathi J..Check evening updates..Today in Court- This matter will be taken up after two weeks.. 5. Rajendra v. Secretary, Law and Judiciary, State of Maharashtra.[Item 4 in court 1 – SLP(C) 1206/2016].Bench: T. S. Thakur J., A.K. Sikri J., R. Banumathi J..Check evening updates..Today in Court- This petition was dismissed.. 6. State Of Kerala v. Wilfred J and Ors..[Item 11 in court 1 – IA 6-7 in CA 8550-8551/2014].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AK Sikri, R Banumathi JJ..A batch of matters pertaining to the construction of Vizhinjam port in Kerala and the environmental impact surrounding the same. While some of the fishermen have challenged the Environmental clearance given to the project, the State government and the Port developers have moved the Supreme Court against the NGT order transferring the case to principle Bench from Southern Bench..The Court had declined interim relief to the petitioners, while posting all related cases, (including appeals by the State government and the Port) for hearing today. .Today in Court- Senior Advocate KK Venugopal appeared for the Petitioner and argued on the importance of the national port to the country’s commerce and economy. The Bench seemed to agree with his submissions when Chief Justice TS Thakur observed that just because the port maybe causing inconvenience to fishermen, that was not reason enough to shut it down and that all concerned parties should come together to work out a solution for the issue..Senior Advocate Raj Panjwani and Prashant Bhushan were making submissions when the Bench rose for the day. The matter will now be heard on Tuesday..Delhi High Court.1. Somnath Bharti Vs Bhim Sain Bassi & Ors..[Item 18, Court 1- LPA 59/2016].Bench- Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J. . Check evening updates.Today in Court- This petition was dismissed..2. Damini Chawla Vs Union of India & Ors. (Lead matter in a batch of three connected matters).[Item 6-10, Court 1- WP (C) 8749/2014].Bench- Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J. .A batch of petitions seeking directions from the Court to the Central Government on regulating radio taxis in the capital region. Damini, in her petition, has claimed that many radio taxis were violating the Radio taxi Scheme of 2006..This case has seen multiple adjournments from the date of admission.Today in Court- The Bench granted time to all the parties for completion of pleadings and adjourned the matter..3. Court on its own motion (Air Pollution in Delhi) Vs Union of India & Ors. .[Item 5, Court 2- W.P.(C) 1346/2015].Bench- BD Ahmed J., Sanjeev Sachdeva J..This was a petition initiated by the High Court while raising concerns over the dwindling forest cover in Delhi, as a result of rampant encroachment. The Bench had appointed Senior Advocate Kailash Vasdev as amicus curae, and on the last date of hearing, directed the AAP-led Govt to put into place a plan of action for preserving reserved forests in the city..On the last date of hearing, the Court had expressed its displeasure over non-compliance of its orders by the concerned authorities..Today in Court- This matter could not be tracked. Any leads/inputs would be appreciated..4. Action Committee of Unaided Recognized Private Schools Vs Directorate of Education and Forum for Promotion of Quality Education For All Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. .[Item 2 & 3, Court 10- W.P.(C) 448/2016].Bench- Manmohan J..Petitions filed against AAP government’s decision to scrap management and all other quotas, except for economically weaker sections, in the city’s private schools for nursery admissions. On the last date of hearing, the Bench had issued notice..Today in Court- Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar appearing for the Govt argued that absolute and unregulated power cannot be given to private schools. He further submitted that the decision of scrapping management quota and other criteria was justified in order to ensure that private schools adopt a criteria that is ‘fair, just and reasonable.’.He further argued that the intention of the Delhi government was not to take away the autonomy of the private schools, but only to regulate the process when found to be unfair. “The purport of the notification must not be misunderstood. The order does no more than to notify the school authorities if the criteria adopted by them is not transparent.” he added..Bombay High Court.1. The Bombay Environment Action Group v. The State of Maharashtra.[Item 913 Court 43 – NMWST(O)/49/2016].Bench: V.M. Kanade, Revati Mohite Dere JJ..A notice of motion in the original PIL/(O)/87/2006. The PIL is regarding construction activities by CIDCO and JNPT near protected mangrove forests in Airoli..2. Aam Admi Party & 3 ors. v. State of Maharashtra & 20 ors..[Item 914 Court 43 – PIL(O)/23/2014].Bench: V.M. Kanade, Revati Mohite Dere JJ..A petition filed by the Aam Admi Party alleging a trail of kickbacks recieved by former PWD minister, Chhagan Bhujbal. Special Investigation Team(SIT) was appointed by the the High Court which is yet to submit a report; the ACB (Bureau) has registered 3 FIR’s in this matter..Read this report for more details..Today in Court: The petitioner’s lawyer, senior Counsel Gayatri Singh submitted that apart from the 3 FIR’s previously registered the concerned Assistant commissioner of police had failed to register more FIR’s despite allegations. There are 9 different allegations in total..Maharashtra Anti-Corruption Bureau(ACB),today informed the division bench of V.M. Kanade and Revati Mohite Dere JJ that a chargesheet will most likely be filed within 4 weeks. The Enforcement Directorate(ED) informed the court that it had registered 2 Economic Case Information Reports (ECIR) against Bhujbal under Prevention of Moneyy Laundering Act(PMLA) but it could take further action only after ACB filed its chargesheet..The bench asked for a monthly progress report in the ongoing probe. The next hearing is in 4 weeks..3. Shaadab Patel v. The Chairman & 4 Ors..[Item 916 Court 43 – PILST(O)/3/2016].Bench: V.M. Kanade, Revati Mohite Dere JJ..A petition in connection with the rising air pollution levels in the city and implementation of odd even rule in Mumbai. The PIL will be heard today along with an earlier petition by Bombay Environment Action Group(BEAG)..Today in court: The division bench of V.M. Kanade and Revati Dere JJ has asked the respondents namely, the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Municipal Corporation and Regional Transport office to file their reply by February 9..The petition mentions the poor quality of air in Mumbai, the emission of carbon monoxide from vehicles as well burning of industrial waste. Petitioner’s lawyer Jayant Bardeskar submitted – “Until the state government tests the odd even rule for a trial period, how will they know whether it was practical.”.The state had earlier said that the formula was not practical for Mumbai..4. Ketan Tirodkar v. Honourable Chief Minister of Maharashtra.[Item 5 Court 13 – CRPIL(Cr)/2/2012].Bench: A.S. Oka, C.V. Bhadang JJ..A PIL against the fraudulent allotment of flats from the CM’s discretionary quota. In its last order, the court had directed the state to submit an action taken report today..Today in court: Report of the committe headed by J.Patil J(retired) was submitted and copies of the report have been made avilable to the petitioners. The petitioners have been asked to file fresh application in case further directions are required..The next hearing is on February 24..5. Zoru Darayus Bathena v. Tree Authority, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.[Item 915 Court 43 – PIL(O)/46/2015].Bench: V.M. Kanade, Revati Mohite Dere JJ..Petitioner Zoru Darayus Bathena contends that around 116 trees in a 2.5 km stretch near Santa Cruz are dead, his lawyer Kainaz Irani also submitted the photographs of these trees. Apparently these trees are infected by mealybugs, an insect that feeds on plant juices and nutrients..Today in court: The Municipal Corporation informed the court that mealybugs can cause considerable damage and they find it difficult to spray insecticides as these trees were in residential areas. They also said that all the damaged trees will be replaced by new saplings by monsoon end..The bench observed a lack of pro active effort in part of the respondents while there was rapid depletion in tree cover in the city..” These is no possibility of growth for newly planted trees as there is concrete all around.” Kanade said, looking at the photos presented by Kainaz Irani, Bathena’s lawyer..The civic body was directed to plant 3 new trees for every dead tree and also to file an additional affidavit detailing concrete steps taken to solve this problem..The matter will now come up in 4 weeks.
A summary of important cases from the Supreme Court of India, the Delhi High Court and the Bombay High Court..Supreme Court of India.For judgment.1. Sachchidanand Gupta ”Sachchey” v. State of U.P Thr Chief Secretary and Ors..[Item IA, Court 7- W.P.(C) No. 872/2015].Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Prafulla C Pant JJ.Case pertaining to appointment of Lok Ayukta in Uttar Pradesh. The court had initially appointed retired judge, Virendra Singh to the post. However, the UP government had agreed to defer the oath taking of Singh after a vacation Bench had heard this petition..Before the Vacation Bench, Senior Advocate TR Andhyarujina, appeared for the Allahabad High Court and submitted that the U.P. government had misled the Supreme Court into believing that Virendra Singh’s name was not objected to by the Allahabad Chief Justice. Advocates Kamini Jaiswal and Prashant Bhushan also submitted the same..The Court, however, said that even if that submission was accepted, the Court is not inclined to vacate its order since the Constitutional functionaries in the State were given adequate time to carry out the order of the court but failed..The Court said that,. “If we find Virendra Singh not to be suitable, we will recall that order. But we are not sending the matter back to be decided by the State functionaries.”.Today in Court- You can read the detailed report here. .1. Manohar Lal Sharma Advocate v. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India and Ors..[Item 301 in court 7 – Writ Petition.(CRL.) 1012/2016].Bench: Ranjan Gogoi J., R.K. Agrawal J., N.V. Ramana J..A fresh public interest litigation petition. Check evening updates..Today in Court- This matter could not be tracked. Any leads/inputs would be appreciated..2. Teesta Atul Setalvad and Anr. State of Gujarat.[Item 302 in court 2 – CRL.A. 338/2015].Bench: Anil R Dave, FML Kalifulla, V Gopala Gowda JJ. .Case pertaining to investigation of activist Teesta Setalvad for allegedly misappropriating funds. The said funds were collected for building a “Museum of Resistance” at Gulbarg Housing Society where over 60 persons were killed during the 2002 riots..Today in Court- The Bench extended interim bail granted to Setalvad and her husband, after directing them to cooperate in the CBI & police probe. The interim bail has been extended till March 18 so the matter is expected to be taken up after that..3. Govind Agarwal v. High Court of Judicature Rajasthan, Jodhpur Bench at Jaipur.[Item 1 in court 1 – S.L.P. (C)… /2016 CC. 1071].Bench: Chief Justice T. S. Thakur J., A.K. Sikri J., R. Banumathi J..Check evening updates..Today in Court- This matter could not be tracked. Any leads/inputs would be appreciated..4. Ratnank Mishra & Ors. v. Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through R.G..[Item 3 in court 1 – SLP(C) 1203/2016].Bench: Chief Justice T. S. Thakur J., A.K. Sikri J., R. Banumathi J..Check evening updates..Today in Court- This matter will be taken up after two weeks.. 5. Rajendra v. Secretary, Law and Judiciary, State of Maharashtra.[Item 4 in court 1 – SLP(C) 1206/2016].Bench: T. S. Thakur J., A.K. Sikri J., R. Banumathi J..Check evening updates..Today in Court- This petition was dismissed.. 6. State Of Kerala v. Wilfred J and Ors..[Item 11 in court 1 – IA 6-7 in CA 8550-8551/2014].Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, AK Sikri, R Banumathi JJ..A batch of matters pertaining to the construction of Vizhinjam port in Kerala and the environmental impact surrounding the same. While some of the fishermen have challenged the Environmental clearance given to the project, the State government and the Port developers have moved the Supreme Court against the NGT order transferring the case to principle Bench from Southern Bench..The Court had declined interim relief to the petitioners, while posting all related cases, (including appeals by the State government and the Port) for hearing today. .Today in Court- Senior Advocate KK Venugopal appeared for the Petitioner and argued on the importance of the national port to the country’s commerce and economy. The Bench seemed to agree with his submissions when Chief Justice TS Thakur observed that just because the port maybe causing inconvenience to fishermen, that was not reason enough to shut it down and that all concerned parties should come together to work out a solution for the issue..Senior Advocate Raj Panjwani and Prashant Bhushan were making submissions when the Bench rose for the day. The matter will now be heard on Tuesday..Delhi High Court.1. Somnath Bharti Vs Bhim Sain Bassi & Ors..[Item 18, Court 1- LPA 59/2016].Bench- Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J. . Check evening updates.Today in Court- This petition was dismissed..2. Damini Chawla Vs Union of India & Ors. (Lead matter in a batch of three connected matters).[Item 6-10, Court 1- WP (C) 8749/2014].Bench- Chief Justice G Rohini, Jayant Nath J. .A batch of petitions seeking directions from the Court to the Central Government on regulating radio taxis in the capital region. Damini, in her petition, has claimed that many radio taxis were violating the Radio taxi Scheme of 2006..This case has seen multiple adjournments from the date of admission.Today in Court- The Bench granted time to all the parties for completion of pleadings and adjourned the matter..3. Court on its own motion (Air Pollution in Delhi) Vs Union of India & Ors. .[Item 5, Court 2- W.P.(C) 1346/2015].Bench- BD Ahmed J., Sanjeev Sachdeva J..This was a petition initiated by the High Court while raising concerns over the dwindling forest cover in Delhi, as a result of rampant encroachment. The Bench had appointed Senior Advocate Kailash Vasdev as amicus curae, and on the last date of hearing, directed the AAP-led Govt to put into place a plan of action for preserving reserved forests in the city..On the last date of hearing, the Court had expressed its displeasure over non-compliance of its orders by the concerned authorities..Today in Court- This matter could not be tracked. Any leads/inputs would be appreciated..4. Action Committee of Unaided Recognized Private Schools Vs Directorate of Education and Forum for Promotion of Quality Education For All Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. .[Item 2 & 3, Court 10- W.P.(C) 448/2016].Bench- Manmohan J..Petitions filed against AAP government’s decision to scrap management and all other quotas, except for economically weaker sections, in the city’s private schools for nursery admissions. On the last date of hearing, the Bench had issued notice..Today in Court- Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar appearing for the Govt argued that absolute and unregulated power cannot be given to private schools. He further submitted that the decision of scrapping management quota and other criteria was justified in order to ensure that private schools adopt a criteria that is ‘fair, just and reasonable.’.He further argued that the intention of the Delhi government was not to take away the autonomy of the private schools, but only to regulate the process when found to be unfair. “The purport of the notification must not be misunderstood. The order does no more than to notify the school authorities if the criteria adopted by them is not transparent.” he added..Bombay High Court.1. The Bombay Environment Action Group v. The State of Maharashtra.[Item 913 Court 43 – NMWST(O)/49/2016].Bench: V.M. Kanade, Revati Mohite Dere JJ..A notice of motion in the original PIL/(O)/87/2006. The PIL is regarding construction activities by CIDCO and JNPT near protected mangrove forests in Airoli..2. Aam Admi Party & 3 ors. v. State of Maharashtra & 20 ors..[Item 914 Court 43 – PIL(O)/23/2014].Bench: V.M. Kanade, Revati Mohite Dere JJ..A petition filed by the Aam Admi Party alleging a trail of kickbacks recieved by former PWD minister, Chhagan Bhujbal. Special Investigation Team(SIT) was appointed by the the High Court which is yet to submit a report; the ACB (Bureau) has registered 3 FIR’s in this matter..Read this report for more details..Today in Court: The petitioner’s lawyer, senior Counsel Gayatri Singh submitted that apart from the 3 FIR’s previously registered the concerned Assistant commissioner of police had failed to register more FIR’s despite allegations. There are 9 different allegations in total..Maharashtra Anti-Corruption Bureau(ACB),today informed the division bench of V.M. Kanade and Revati Mohite Dere JJ that a chargesheet will most likely be filed within 4 weeks. The Enforcement Directorate(ED) informed the court that it had registered 2 Economic Case Information Reports (ECIR) against Bhujbal under Prevention of Moneyy Laundering Act(PMLA) but it could take further action only after ACB filed its chargesheet..The bench asked for a monthly progress report in the ongoing probe. The next hearing is in 4 weeks..3. Shaadab Patel v. The Chairman & 4 Ors..[Item 916 Court 43 – PILST(O)/3/2016].Bench: V.M. Kanade, Revati Mohite Dere JJ..A petition in connection with the rising air pollution levels in the city and implementation of odd even rule in Mumbai. The PIL will be heard today along with an earlier petition by Bombay Environment Action Group(BEAG)..Today in court: The division bench of V.M. Kanade and Revati Dere JJ has asked the respondents namely, the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Municipal Corporation and Regional Transport office to file their reply by February 9..The petition mentions the poor quality of air in Mumbai, the emission of carbon monoxide from vehicles as well burning of industrial waste. Petitioner’s lawyer Jayant Bardeskar submitted – “Until the state government tests the odd even rule for a trial period, how will they know whether it was practical.”.The state had earlier said that the formula was not practical for Mumbai..4. Ketan Tirodkar v. Honourable Chief Minister of Maharashtra.[Item 5 Court 13 – CRPIL(Cr)/2/2012].Bench: A.S. Oka, C.V. Bhadang JJ..A PIL against the fraudulent allotment of flats from the CM’s discretionary quota. In its last order, the court had directed the state to submit an action taken report today..Today in court: Report of the committe headed by J.Patil J(retired) was submitted and copies of the report have been made avilable to the petitioners. The petitioners have been asked to file fresh application in case further directions are required..The next hearing is on February 24..5. Zoru Darayus Bathena v. Tree Authority, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.[Item 915 Court 43 – PIL(O)/46/2015].Bench: V.M. Kanade, Revati Mohite Dere JJ..Petitioner Zoru Darayus Bathena contends that around 116 trees in a 2.5 km stretch near Santa Cruz are dead, his lawyer Kainaz Irani also submitted the photographs of these trees. Apparently these trees are infected by mealybugs, an insect that feeds on plant juices and nutrients..Today in court: The Municipal Corporation informed the court that mealybugs can cause considerable damage and they find it difficult to spray insecticides as these trees were in residential areas. They also said that all the damaged trees will be replaced by new saplings by monsoon end..The bench observed a lack of pro active effort in part of the respondents while there was rapid depletion in tree cover in the city..” These is no possibility of growth for newly planted trees as there is concrete all around.” Kanade said, looking at the photos presented by Kainaz Irani, Bathena’s lawyer..The civic body was directed to plant 3 new trees for every dead tree and also to file an additional affidavit detailing concrete steps taken to solve this problem..The matter will now come up in 4 weeks.
