The Week That Was: The Supreme Court of India

From summoning retired judges to debates over the meaning of ‘Hindutva’, the Supreme Court of India had a thumb in one too many controversial pies this week. But with the upcoming Diwali vacations resulting in a week-long closure, the apex court surely couldn’t be expected to go out without so much as a sizzle..Read the highlights from the week..Monday, October 17.Katju’s Facebook post results in unprecedented fallout.In an order no one had expected, the Court has summoned one of its former judges, Markandey Katju, before it to “assist it” in ironing out the creases in the Soumya case. However, Article 124(7) Constitution of India prevents a retired Supreme Court judge from “pleading” or “acting” before any court or before any authority within the territory of India..Will this be a statutory hurdle? Wait till November 11, the next date of hearing, to find out..Read the order below..Tuesday, October 18.Seven judge bench debates the meaning of ‘Hindutva’ or do they?.A case that has been written up as an examination of the meaning of “Hindutva” is currently being heard by seven judges of the top court. The legal issue at hand, though, may well be something far more pedantic..Chief Justice T S Thakur and justices M B Lokur, S A Bobde, A K Goel, U U Lalit, D Y Chandrachud and L Nageswara Rao are debating whether canvassing for votes on the basis of religion was a ‘corrupt practice’ within the meaning of Section 123 (3A) of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951..The Bench has been constituted to review a decision passed by a Bench of three of its former brethren, with ex-Chief Justice JS Verma at its helm, which had held that “Hindutva/Hinduism is a way of life of the people in the subcontinent” and is a state of mind” – not a religion – and therefore seeking votes was not illegal under the Representation of the People Act, which outlaws poll campaigning on religious grounds..Wednesday, October 19.Cauvery judgment reserved.A specially constituted Bench of Justices Dipak Misra, Amitava Roy and AM Khanwilkar has reserved its judgment on the Cauvery water dispute after it directed the Karnataka government to release 2,000 cusecs per day to Tamil Nadu till further orders are given..Thursday, October 20.Date for State Bar Council elections extended (again).The date for the completion of the final verification process for lawyers has been extended to January 31, with the last date for submitting applications being November 30. The direction was issued by a Bench of Justices Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Amitava Roy in a batch of petitions challenging the BCI (Certificate of Practice) Rules..Friday, October 21.Construction workers not covered under Factories Act [Read judgment].A.K. Sikri and N.V. Ramana, JJ have held that construction workers are not covered by the Factories Act, 1948 and are, therefore, entitled to the welfare measure specifically provided for such workers under the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (BOCW Act) and Buildings And Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996 (Welfare Cess Act)..The appellants had submitted that Section 2(d) of the BOCW Act which defines ‘building or other construction work’ specifically states that it does not include any building or construction work to which the provision of the Factories Act, 1948 or the Mines Act, 1952 apply. Since the appellants stood registered under the Factories Act, they were not covered by the definition of building or other construction work as contained in Section 2(d) of the Act and, therefore, said Act was not applicable to them..The Court, however, chose to hold that until construction of the project is completed and the manufacturing process starts, ‘factory’ within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the Factories Act does not come into existence so as to be covered by the said Act..Read the judgment below..Court lambasts CPM members for making “baseless charges” against judiciary.The apex court upheld the contempt conviction of four Marxist Communist members for criticizing the Rajasthan High Court over allegedly letting off the suspects in a trade union leader’s murder. The court held that no one could be allowed to “hurl baseless charges against the judiciary” and then be allowed to claim the rights of freedom of speech and expression..Prashant Bhushan appeared for the contemnors, arguing that the comments were not directed at the the judiciary. However, amicus Aishwarya Bhati argued that this was a fit case of contempt, with the High Court examining each of the contentions in great detail before arriving at a punishment of two years imprisonment and Rs.2,000 as fine..In the end though, the apex court set aside the punishment of two years imprisonment while upholding the punishment of a fine of Rs.2,000..Read the judgment below..Major setback for pharma giant Cipla, as Court cracks whip on overcharging.The Supreme Court has upheld a 1995 central government notification fixing the retail price of a drug formulation without first deciding the sale price of a bulk drug used in its manufacture. It also stated that the government was under no obligation to revise the said prices every year..The National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), which regulates drug prices in India under the Drug Price Control Order (DPCO) and assesses market prices at regular intervals, had fined the company in 2003 for overcharging certain drugs. However, the company had challenged the order in High Courts of Bombay, Allahabad and Karnataka, which held that the order had been issued mechanically and without application of mind..The Bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and RK Agrawal also Court cautioned against interfering with the “high stakes” drug industry..Read the judgment below.