The Week That Was: The Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court of India this week saw a number of adjournments granted in different, high profile cases. In fact, the seeking of adjournments frustrated a bench of JS Khehar and Arun Mishra JJ. so much that they chose to retire to their chambers after the first five matters were adjourned..Still, the show did go on. Highlights from the week follow below..Monday, August 29.Vijay Mallya seeks recall of order to disclose assets.The Supreme Court asked a consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI) to reply to UB Group chairman Vijay Mallya’s plea seeking recall of an order asking him to disclose his assets..Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, representing the banks, told the court that Mallya ought not be heard as he had committed “complete and deliberate breach” of the court’s orders by failing to appear before it..Centre to consider welfare legislation for advocate clerks.Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, who appeared for the petitioner, submitted that two States have responded negatively to the suggestion of welfare measures – Mizoram and Bihar. He also said that Kerala had a robust mechanism in place, while Andhra Pradesh was the first state to frame such a law in this regard..The court then proceeded to direct the Centre to consider a uniform measure in the light of the mechanism already in place in certain states..Azam Khan asked to explain Bulandshahr rape remarks.An explanation was sought from Uttar Pradesh minister Azam Khan for calling the gang rape of a woman and her minor daughter a “political conspiracy”. Senior counsel Fali S Nariman, who has been appointed as amicus curiae, was requested for assistance on some broad questions of law..Tuesday, August 30.“Intra-Court Appeals” irk Division bench.Jasti Chelameswar and AM Sapre JJ expressed their dissatisfaction with the three-judge Bench of Justices JS Khehar, Kurian Joseph and Arun Mishra..The Division Bench’s order goes to the extent of calling it an “intra-court appeal” by the three-judge Bench..This was not the only controversy that Jasti Chelameswar found himself in this week. .Chattisgarh government’s collusion in Maoist violence? .High drama ensued following allegations that the Chattisgarh government was willingly letting perpetrators of Maoist violence slip by. Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for the petitioner-activist Nandini Sundar, submitted a list of individuals involved in the Maoist violence, and the respondents were directed to go through this list and accordingly give instructions to the investigating agency. A report under Section 173 of the IPC is to be filed by the first week of October..Wednesday, August 31.Singur land to be returned to farmers, acquisition is ‘bad in law’.The Apex Court stated that the acquisition of land by then ruling CPM government was not a ‘public purpose acquisition’, and that the entire exercise was done without “application of mind”. It also held that even though the land was to be returned, the compensation already paid would not be recovered from the farmers who had lost their livelihood for a period of ten years..Thursday, September 1.Rahul Gandhi to face trial, refuses to withdraw his words against RSS.In a stunning turn around from his statements made in the last hearing, Rahul Gandhi’s lawyer, senior counsel Kapil Sibal, told the court that,.“I stand by my words; I have always stood by them and I will repeat them… people from RSS killed Mahatma Gandhi.”.Setback for Vedanta, KISMA as dual pricing of iron ore allowed.The Vedanta Group was denied permission to export iron ore mined from Karnataka. At the same time, the National Mineral Development Corporation (NMDC) was allowed to continue with the dual pricing of the minerals..The verdict, delivered by a bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi, stated that NMDC is free to fix the price of minerals and continue with the dual pricing. The court, in doing so, also rejected a plea by Karnataka Iron and Steel Manufacturers’ Association (KISMA) to do away with the NMDC’s policy of dual pricing of the iron ore..Bombay HCs Qureshi judgment in beef ban not referred to larger bench.The Supreme Court refused to refer the Qureshi judgment, which had the effect of allowing consumption of beef brought in from outside Maharashtra, to 7-judge bench..In a batch of petitions from activists, animal welfare organizations and butcher communities, a bench of AK Sikri and DY Chandrachud JJ issued notice to the State of Maharashtra..Friday, September 2.Arguments for prime accused in Nirbhaya case conclude.Manohar Lal Sharma, appearing for the prime accused in the Nirbhaya case, concluded his arguments. The past few hearings have been high on the drama quotient, with Sharma breaking down before the Court on one particular occasion..Of course, microblogging sites had a field day, with some users going so far as to question the way the trial was being made a joke of. Take a look:.SEBI-Sahara dispute continues with SC raising question in income.The Sahara group was told to provide details on the source of Rs 23,000 crore on September 16, by which day it also has to deposit Rs 300 crore with SEBI. The apex court also asked SEBI to look into the Sahara deal on Grosvenor House hotel sale and investigate if anything is amiss..All India Muslim Personal Law Board files reply in triple talaq challenge.The All India Muslim Personal Law Board filed its response in the case challenging the Islamic practices of triple talaq and polygamy. In the counter affidavit settled by Senior Advocates Yusuf Hatim Muchhala and Huzefa A Ahmadi and filed through Advocate Ejaz Maqbool, the AIMPLB had contended that the questions raised in the petition are matters of legislative policy and outside the jurisdiction of the court..Themes of sexual exploitation, extreme poverty run amuck in Vrindavan.The Supreme Court expressed deep concern over the ill-treatment of the destitute women and widows living in the holy city of Vrindavan in Uttar Pradesh. The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation filed by an NGO asking the Court to look into the inhumane conditions of the widows, who were turned out of their homes and living in Vrindavan..“How can girls under 18 be married and discarded by their families if they turn widows?,” the bench asked, genuinely concerned that the widows, some of whom were as young as nine years old, were being sexually exploited.