Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana and his wife Sivamala met newly-appointed President Droupadi Murmu at the Rashtrapati Bhavan on Monday.

The 64-year-old Droupadi Murmu was sworn in as the 15th President of India on July 25 after defeating opposition presidential candidate Yashwant Sinha. President Murmu is the first tribal and the second woman to hold the top constitutional post.

A sessions court in Ahmedabad on Saturday denied bail to activist Teesta Setalvad and former Director General of Police (DGP) R.B. Sreekumar in the 2002 Gujarat riots case.

Both Setlvad and Sreekumar, accused of fabricating documents, were arrested by the Ahmedabad crime branch on the charge of conspiring to falsely implicate innocent persons in connection with the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat.

Additional Principal Judge DD Thakkar was hearing the bail plea of Setalvad and Sreekumar. Earlier, the government had submitted an affidavit opposing their bail in court. The sessions court had heard the arguments of both parties and reserved judgment for July 21.

Setalvad and Sreekumar were arrested on June 25, a day after the Supreme Court had given clean chit to then Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi in the 2002 Gujarat riots, dismissing a petition by Zakia Jafri, wife of slain former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri.

On June 24, the Supreme Court had observed that those responsible for keeping the pot boiling over the past 16 years need to be in the dock and proceeded with in accordance with the law.

Setalvad, Sreekumar and the third co-accused former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, who was arrested earlier this month, were shown as witnesses in Jafri’s 2006 complaint.

The CBI had arrested them under Indian Penal Code Sections 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating) and 194 (giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction for capital offence).

In its affidavit, the SIT has alleged that they were part of a larger conspiracy carried out at the behest of late Congress leader Ahmed Patel to destabilize the then BJP government led by Narendra Modi in Gujarat.

A special court in Jharkhand on Thursday convicted accused Lakhan Verma and Rahul Verma for the murder of Dhanbad Additional District and Sessions judge Uttam Anand. The verdict was pronounced on the first death anniversary of the Uttam Anand murder which fell on Thursday.

Justice Rajini Kant Pathak of the CBI Court announced that August 6 will be the next date for a hearing on the quantum of punishment.

The court convicted Lakhan Kumar Verma and Rahul Kumar Verma for offences under Sections 302 (murder) and 201 (disappearance of evidence) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. Both the accused are in jail in judicial custody since the crime.

On July 28, 2021, Dhanbad Additional District and Sessions judge Uttam Anand was out for a walk in the morning when he was knocked down by an auto rickshaw. He suffered severe injuries and died during treatment.

Initially, it looked like an accident in the visuals but it was later found that the vehicle deliberately rammed into the judge as he was walking along the edge of the road.

After his death, the Jharkhand High Court took suo motu cognizance of the incident. Later, the State government decided to hand over the probe to CBI.

Following an outrage after the incident, the Supreme Court had also registered a suo motu case on safeguarding courts and ensuring the protection and security of judges.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Central government to take a stand on if it wants to control the announcement of pre-poll freebies by political parties ahead of elections.

The bench of Chief Justice NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli also asked why was the Centre hesitating to take a stand on this issue. The bench also issued the directions after considering the suggestions put forth by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal.

The announcement of freebies by political parties in elections needs to be controlled, the court said, adding it was a serious issue. Upon Sibal’s suggestion that the Finance Commission can look into this aspect, the Apex Court asked the Centre to consider whether the suggestions of the Finance Commission can be sought for solutions.

The Supreme Court asked the Central government to find out from the Finance Commission whether there is a way to curb State governments and political parties from promising and distributing irrational freebies to influence voters.

The Finance Commission should allocate funds to the states by taking into consideration the debts of the State and the quantum of freebies granted, Sibal suggested during the hearing in the case.

Now the (party) manifesto is gone, the way freebies are being given, that’s the issue, the CJI Ramana said. The court did not receive a clear-cut answer from Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj on the Centre’s position on freebies, he said.

You take a stand on whether freebies should continue or not, Chief Justice Ramana asked Nataraj.

Upadhyay made a fervent appeal to the Court saying freebies were bankrupting the country’s reserves. “There is a total debt of Rs 6.5 lakh crore. We’re on our way to becoming Sri Lanka,” Upadhyay said.

CJI Ramana replied: “Let the Government of India (GOI) control. GOI issues circulars for the prescribed limits.”

The Apex Court was hearing BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay’s plea seeking a direction to register FIRs against political parties for allegedly inducing voters by offering freebies.

The plea also sought a direction to the Election Commission of India (ECI) to not permit political parties to promise or distribute irrational freebies from the public fund before elections and de-register political parties or seize the election symbols of parties which do so.

The court also asked the Central government to get instructions in the matter till the next hearing, which has been scheduled on August 3.

The Supreme Court on Thursday heard the petition seeking the transfer of conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar and his wife to any other jail from Tihar Jail.

Appearing for Chandrashekhar, Senior Advocate Basant informed the court that it is only a petition to shift Chandrashekhar to any other jail other than Tihar. He then asked for Chandrashekhar to be transferred to a prison in Bengaluru where a majority of the cases against him are being tried.

In response, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju told the Supreme Court that Chandrashekhar can be shifted to Mandoli Jail in Delhi from Tihar. Mandoli is secure because it is guarded by central paramilitary forces. The conman is currently undergoing trial over Enforcement Directorate’s allegations of money laundering, the ASG told the Supreme Court.

To this, Basant objected and argued that Chandrashekar should be shifted to any jail outside of Delhi.

The Apex Court said that Tihar jail authorities are extorting money from him and assaulting him. At this point, ASG Raju informed the court that Chandrashekhar was using jail premises to do illegal activities. He has also telephoned some judges asking them to pass a favourable order, ASG said.

Last week, the Supreme Court had ordered that it would be appropriate to shift Chandrashekar from Tihar Jail. The court had then asked the Centre to file a list of jails where he can be shifted.

The ED has already seized a luxurious sea-facing bungalow in Chennai, Rs 82.5 lakh cash, and over a dozen luxury cars in connection with the money laundering case against him.

In his plea, Chandrashekhar had said that there is a threat to his life at Tihar as many officials of the jail have been arrested for taking bribes from him. It has also been alleged that Chandrashekhar bribed Tihar officials to live comfortably in jail.

The Court has also recorded that ASG’s statement was without prejudice to the Centre’s position on shifting him from Tihar being unwarranted.

On behalf of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had told the Supreme Court that the probe agency has filed an application on this matter.

On the previous hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said in the Supreme Court that models visited Chandrashekar in jail with the help of authorities, however action has been taken against them.
The case has now been posted for further consideration on June 30, 2022.

The Supreme Court will hear the petition seeking transfer of conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar and his wife from Tihar Jail to any other jail from Tuesday, June 21.

On behalf of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court that the probe agency has filed an application on this matter. For which, the hearing is to be held tomorrow while the hearing on Sukesh’s case was to be held today.

The ED is not a party in this case, Mehta said. There is a serious allegation against Sukesh Chandrashekhar in this case, so the ED’s side should also be heard, the SG said.

The Solicitor General said the probe agency has to clarify things in the Supreme Court. Therefore, Mehta asked the court that today’s hearing on Sukesh’s case should be heard tomorrow along with the ED’s petition. Later, the top court agreed to it.

Now the hearing on both the cases will be held on June 21.

The Indian Dispute Resolution Centre (IDRC) on Saturday organized an Arbitrate in India Conclave at India International Centre, New Delhi. The event marks the second anniversary of IDRC.

Former Supreme Court judge Arjan K. Sikri was among the panellists at the event. Additional Solicitor General Balbir Singh, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas partner and arbitrations head Tejas Karia and Khaitan and Co partner Vanita Bhargava were the other panellists of the conclave with former BBC India head Sanjeev Srivastava moderating the conclave. India Legal is a media partner of the event.

The Conclave has been organised to bring forth India’s strengths and challenges in becoming an International Arbitration Hub. The Conclave was based on the theme ‘Arbitrate in India – Conclave: Let’s make ‘Resolve in India’ a Reality.

In a short span of time, IDRC has accomplished more than 500+ arbitration proceedings and assisted in numerous International and National Arbitrations presided by retired judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts despite pandemic conditions.

Apart from former judges of Supreme Court and High Courts and senior advocates, the IDRC panel arbitrators, leading law firms, the PSUs and members of the Bar association also attended the conclave.

Arbitration has had its firm roots in Indian culture for ages in the form of village panchayats. The first codification of its modern avatar was the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899. The Act came at the time of India’s economic liberalisation and its latest amendments promise to aid in fulfilling Nation’s aspiration to become a USD 5 Trillion Economy.

The Supreme Court on Thursday has put out the list of Senior Advocates, who applied for empanelment for allotment of lawyers’ chambers following the court’s notices dated on 31.10.2017, 16.05.2018 and 22.11.2018

The apex court has received applications in the prescribed proforma, together with supporting documents from the applicants/advocates whose name appeared in the Draft Panel List.

The top court has granted them a period of 15 days to check and verify their respective details in such Draft List which was released on 31.12.2021.

The full list is given below:

The president of the Supreme Court Advocate-On-Record Association, Manoj K Mishra, along with the newly-elected members of the executive committee met President Ram Nath Kovind on May 7, 2022.

Vice-President of the Association, Advocate Snehasish Mukherjee, Secretary Advocate Devvrat, Joint Secretary Advocate Rashmi Malhotra, Treasurer Advocate Puneet Singh Bindra and Joint Treasurer Advocate Sachin Sharma graced the occasion.

Besides, the Executive Committee members of SCAORA, including Advocates Abhinav Ramakrishna, Vishal Prasad, Meenakshi Chauhan, Divya Jyoti Singh, Anzu K Varkey and Aakarshan Aditya were present.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered that the sedition law will be paused until the Central government completes its proposed review to scrap draconan colonial laws. Those already facing sedition charges can approach courts for bail, the apex court said.

The three-judge bench of Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli passed the historic order.

During the hearing, Solictor General Tushar Mehta, for the Central government, told the Supreme Court that it cannot prevent police from registering a cognizable offence under sedition but said an FIR under Section 124A would be registered only if the area Superintendent of Police (SP) is satisfied that the facts of a case satisfy conditions to book sedition offence.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said pending sedition cases can be reviewed, the pending re-examination of the provision by the Centre, for early grant of bail to those booked under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioners’ counsel Kapil Sibal said that Section 124A has become prima facie unconstitutional and that the Apex Court must stay the application of the sedition provision till the Centre or Supreme Court reviews the provision’s legality.

Countering Kapil Sibal, the bench asked, “What is this argument of striking down the provision? Can it be struck down today?” To this, Sibal replied that prima facie the provision is unconstitutional and its operation should be stayed.

Before reserving the order on the interim arrangement relating to Article 124A, the bench told Sibal that it was only looking for an answer as to what should be done until the government completes re-examination of the sedition provision.

Apart from this, the Supreme Court has put a stay on all ongoing sedition cases in the country saying it will not be appropriate to use this law until further reexamination.

The Supreme Court restrained the Centre and states from registering FIRs, continuing any investigations or taking any coercive measures under Section 124A (sedition) while the colonial provision is under reconsideration.

If any fresh case is listed under Section 124A, the accused can approach the courts concerned for relief, on which courts will provide relief taking into account this order, as well as the stand, was taken by the Union to reconsider the law due to glaring abuse of it.

All appeals and proceedings under Section 124A shall be kept in abeyance. Proceedings under other sections of law would continue.

However, the Centre is at liberty to issue a directive and the directions of SC to be followed until further orders.

The Supreme Court has listed the case in the third week of July.