Court Updates

JULY 26, 2011

IN SUPREME COURT

* RTE case continued to be heard today. Here is the latest order

JULY 21, 2011

IN SUPREME COURT

* State of MP vs. Medha Patkar

*Right to Education case

* Kerala Sri Padmanabhaswami temple treasure case

* P.V.Indiresan v. Union of India (Cut-off marks v. Eligibility criteria)

JULY 13, 2011

IN SUPREME COURT
* Amicus Curie v. Prashant Bhushan will be heard by the Special Bench at 2 p.m.at Court No.2. (Conmt.Pet.(Crl) No.10/2009)
Update: Court asked the parties to try an amicable settlement. Next hearing is on September 6. The order is here.

JULY 12, 2011

IN SUPREME COURT
* P.V.Indiresan v. UOI. Item 2 in Court No.3. Update: Adjourned to July 20
* Society of unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. UOI. Item 2 in CJI Court.(RTE CASE)

JULY 11, 2011

IN SUPREME COURT

* WP (Crl) No.D16039/2011 Devender Pal Singh Bhular v. State of NCT of Delhi to be heard as item 6 before Court No.10.

JULY 7, 2011

*Return Noida land to villlagers: SC Check the latest SC order here.

JULY 4, 2011

TODAY IN SUPREME COURT

* Court appoints SIT in black money case.

*Court No.3 (Justice Raveendran and Justice H.L.Gokhale) will hear the P.V.Indiresan matter concerning eligibility criteria/cut-off marks as Item No.69. (See the July 1 entry for details).
It will be taken up along with Item No.13 according to the Supplementary List. (To be heard on July 12 as Item 2)

JULY 1, 2011

TODAY IN SUPREME COURT

* SC to decide on admission norms for OBCs.

The case, P.V.Indiresan vs. Union of India, (I.A.No.4 in SLP(c) 27965/2010) comes before the Vacation Bench. Indu Malhotra is the senior counsel for the Petitioner, while A.Mariarputtam is the senior advocate for the respondent. Sanjay Parikh appears for the impleading party.

The Delhi High Court judgment, which is being appealed against in this case, is here.

OBC MATTER: Vacation Bench posted the matter for hearing on July 4 by the regular Bench. It will now be heard as item 2 in Court No.3 on July 12

JUNE 29, 2011

Tata Motors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., SLP (C) No. 16520-21 of 2011

The petitioners, herein, challenged the Singur Land Rehabilitation and Development Act, 2011 passed by the West Bengal legislature. Through the Act, the government of West Bengal intends to return land to those farmers in Singur who had not consented to the land acquisition and had refused to accept compensation. The prayer for interim stay on the implementation of the Act was rejected by the High Court of Calcutta, but set aside by the Supreme Court in appeal. Staying the implementation of the Act, the apex court has directed the High Court that the matter be heard and decided expeditiously within a period of one month.

JUNE 28, 2011

The Supreme Court on 27th June questioned the Uttar Pradesh government for invoking its special powers under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire agricultural land for building luxury flats. The Court was hearing an appeal from three decisions of the Allahabad High Court which had invalidated acquisition by the state of farm land in Greater Noida.

The decisions of the Allahabad High Court are available here (judgment dt. 12/5/2011), here (judgment dt. 13/5/2011) and here (judgment dt. 30/5/2011).

The appeal has been filed by the state of U.P. and several realtors who had already made bookings in the upcoming projects. A vacation bench of apex court comprising of Justices P Sathasivam and A K Patnaik warned the UP government of the Court’s intervention, as it did not want ‘more Nandigrams’ in other states. The Court directed that the details of the upcoming projects be produced before it. The Court even made comments on the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 stating that the ‘public purpose’ clause in the Act must go and that if the government does not act, it will. The next date of hearing is 5th July, 2011.

Reportedly, the UP government invoked the emergency powers conferred upon it under the Act to acquire land supposedly for industrial purpose but which was later given to builders of high-cost residential flats. Ordinarily, whenever any land is needed, the government is required to make a notification about such proposed acquisition. After the notification, objections in writing may be made by persons interested in the land, and the Collector shall make a report, containing his recommendations, to the government after hearing the objector and making necessary inquiries. The decision of the government shall be final. However, under the emergency powers, a government is empowered to acquire land without any notification and hearing of objections.

It may be noted that on 15th April, 2011 the Supreme Court in another case, had quashed certain other land acquisitions in Greater Noida wherein too the UP government had invoked its special powers under Section 17 of the Act. The Court, through a bench of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice A.K. Ganguly had noted that the “acquisition was primarily meant to cater to private interests in the name of industrial development of the district”. It had set aside the acquisition under Section 17 holding the same to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The decision can be accessed here.

*Nishankar Khatua v. State & Ors., 14884/2011 along with Nishankar Khatua v. Union of India, WP(C) 14885/2011On 28th June, 2011 two writ petitions filed in the Orissa High Court pertaining to the POSCO project came up for hearing on the issue of interim stay to the project. The petitions allege that the ongoing POSCO project has resulted in illegal land acquisitions and violation of the Forest Rights Act, 2006. Addressing a bench presided over by the Chief Justice, Senior counsel for the petitioners, Jayant Das asserted that there had been various violations of the Forest Rights Act in according sanction for diversion of forest land to POSCO. He referred to the dubious manner in which Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh ignored the recommendations of various committees to withdraw clearance that had been granted. It was alleged that the area under acquisition is forest land and that there exists unquestionable evidence to demonstrate the dependence of the local tribes on these forests. The Adv. General and the counsels for the Centre and POSCO submitted that the land is degraded and does not actually constitute forest land.

Meanwhile, the bench proposed that the constitution of a Court-monitored Committee consisting of persons of impeccable background to examine all issues connected with the project and make recommendations so that a win-win solution could be reached. The Court made this proposal keeping in view the large-scale investment that has already been made. While the petitioners agreed to such a proposal subject to non-contravention of any rights or laws, the counsel for state sought time to consult the government. The bench clarified that this proposal must not be construed as reluctance on its part to decide the case on merits.

In response to various paper clippings shown by the petitioners’ counsel to the bench, the Chief Justice remarked that that it was closely following the case through media reports. To this, the Advocate General said that the government was not engaging in any unlawful activities and no force was being used to acquire possession of land. The bench noted this as an assurance from the government against using force to takeover any land.

The matter has now been posted for 4th July when arguments on interim stay will be heard.

JUNE 21, 2011

Bombay HC confers judges with discretion when sentencing second-time convicts under NDPS Act
In a recent case, the Bombay High Court has ruled on June 16 that compulsory death sentence provided for under Section 31A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Section 31A provides for mandatory death penalty for certain offences after previous conviction. The petitioners, an NGO called Indian Harm Reduction Network, had challenged the constitutional validity of the said provision. The main thrust of the argument by the petitioners was that provision was arbitrary, disproportionate and excessive. The government’s stand was that provisions far more stringent existed in countries like Bangladesh, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore and Thailand.

The counsel for the centre had argued that whether or not to grant discretion to the judge in sentencing was the prerogative of the legislature. The Court was unimpressed by the government’s arguments and held that taking away this discretion from the judge was violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Instead of striking down the section as being unconstitutional and void ab initio, the court held that the said provision be construed as only being directory. Thus, the expression “shall be punishable with death”, the Court ruled, must be read as “may be punishable with death” and the judge shall be entitled to exercise discretion in sentencing. Similar case in point is Mithu v. State of Punjab, where the apex court ruled that Section 303, IPC providing for mandatory death sentence for murder committed by a life-convict was unconstitutional as being violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The petition is available here and the judgment is available here.

JUNE 20, 2011

*Midnight crackdown: SC notice to Ramdev’s trust

Kanimozhi Bail case in SC

The Bench of JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI and JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN (Court No.3) heard the Kanimozhi bail matter [SLP(Crl.)No.4584-4585/2011 SHARAD KUMAR ETC. vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION] this morning. The Bench denied bail to Kanimozhi and Sharad Kumar, accused persons in the 2G scam being tried by a Special CBI Court. In its order, it noted that the bail had been rightly rejected by the courts below. The Court stated that the petitioners could apply afresh for bail after framing of charges and that Kanimozhi would be entitled to invoke provisions of Section 437, CrPC. The fresh bail applications, the court directed, should be decided without being influenced by these earlier rejections.

The Court quizzed the CBI counsel as to why the accused had not been interrogated yet to which he replied that the probe was on. Chandhiok, appearing for the CBI, contended that startling facts were being revealed during investigation, and releasing the accused on bail would hamper the trial. He further informed the bench that CBI had not till then recovered the documents relating to the transaction of Rs 200 crore that was allegedly given to the DMK-controlled Kalaignar TV as bribe by a telecom operator company to secure 2G licences. He opposed the bail on the ground that the accused persons could tamper with evidence and could influence the four witnesses in the case against her. To this, Sr Counsel Sushil Kumar, appearing for Kanimozhi, replied stating that he failed to see how Kanimozhi’s mother, her cousin and a financial manager in their company, who are three witnesses out of the total four quizzed by CBI, could be influenced if Kanimozhi was released on bail. Kumar argued that any number of conditions could be imposed on Kanimozhi, and she could be kept under constant surveillance but she should not be denied her son’s company. He further commented that she was in jail as if she were a convict. The bench replied saying that it was the same with other women as well.

Here is an interesting report on the proceedings in the Supreme Court.

JUNE 14, 2011

SC asks whereabouts of Rs. 200 crore in Kani bail plea

In the latest hearing of the bail plea [SLP(Crl.)No.4584-4585/2011] of DMK MP Kanimozhi and Kalaignar TV chief Sharad Kumar, the Supreme Court on June 13 asked the CBI about the physical status of the Rs. 200 crore. The CBI alleged that this amount was transfered to Kalaignar TV as bribe in lieu of the 2G licence granted to the company in 13 circles. Both Kanimmozhi and Sharad Kumar have 20% stake in Kalaignar TV. The vacation bench Justices B.S. Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar quite candidly admitted that the chances of relief to the petitioners were slim and a petition u/s 437 CrPC was Kanimozhi’s only hope left. This section grants discretion to give special consideration in cases where bail is sought by a person who is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm. The matter has now been posted for 20th June. The High Court judgment on her bail plea is here.

AP HC to pronounce decision on reservations in local bodies
Justice G Rohini of the A P High Court has said that on June 14 she would pronounce her verdict on the validity of the the state’s decision to provide for 60 per cent political reservations to weaker sections in the ensuing elections to panchayats and other local bodies. A petition against the said decision was filed by the state sarpanch association. It was contended that the action of the government is contrary to the SC directive in the Mandal Commissions case [1992 supp. (3) SCC 217] wherein it has been held that reservations cannot exceed 50 per cent. The state’s defence is that reservations for wearker sections is nothing new and that for the past 15 years it has been in excess of 50 per cent. Interestingly, the petitioners have merely challenged the said decision of the state and not the statute that provides for such reservation.

On June 14, Justice G Rohini, while dismissing the application for interim stay, reasoned that no such interim order was warranted because of lack of material to show that the political reservation had actually exceeded 50 per cent.

TN govt moves SC for a green signal for removal of Karuna from school coursebooks
A shift in power in Tamil Nadu had prompted the newly crowned Jayalalitha government to amend the Tamil Nadu Uniform System of School Education Act to postpone the new syllabus on the ground that it needed to be vetted by educationists. The government’s reason was that the course books of children from class I to IV were filled with eulogies of Karunanidhi and through the amendment, it sought to free the syllabi of politics. The said amendment was stayed by a June 10 order of the Madras High Corurt. With the schools slated for a 15th June reopening, the government moved the Supreme Court on June 13, and was heard on June 14.

Maha govt moves SC against acquital of two 26/11 accused
The Maharashtra government has appealed against the acquittal of Faheem Ansari and Sabauddin Ahmed , two accused persons in the 26/11 terror attack. Their acquital by the trial court was upheld by the High Court of Bombay.