The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala have instructed the Meghalaya High Court to defer the Assam–Meghalaya border pact hearing till the matter remained pending in the Supreme Court.

The Apex Court had earlier put stay on the order of Meghalaya High Court that had put an interim stay on the execution of the Assam-Meghalaya border pact,subsequent to the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 29.03.2022 between the two states.

The MoU from Assam was signed by Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma whereas his CM counterpart from Meghalaya Conrad Sangma signed it for resolve the long standing interstate boundary dispute

As per the MoU Assam was directed to keep18.51 square kilometres of land, and wMeghalaya keeping 18.28 square kilometres of land, for the 36.79 square kilometres of total la

The interim order was passed by Justice H. S. Thangkhiew on a plea moved by Tribal Chiefs, who claimed that the MoU violates provisions of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution which relates to ‘Administration of Tribal Areas’ in NE States.

The counsel respondent requested the bench to substitute the High court order with the status quo order.

The respondent counsel said that the area is a tribal area of Meghalaya since 1960s and thus the status of this place should not be changed. It’s a 55-year-old status, but the he moment it comes to Assam, we cease to be a tribal.

He added that they are recognised under the Sixth Schedule. For 55 years I have had this status. Overnight they cannot change it. The High Court may be directed to hear it. “

CJI DY Chandrachud said that it is an agreement between two Chief Ministers of two different states.

The Supreme Court bench said that the the High Court, acting on a writ petition by a citizen, stays the operation of the agreement and now the Apex Court hears it..

It ordered that the High Court should not hear the matter as we are taking it up noe.There should be a stay on further proceedings before the High Court.

The bench said that the order the special leave petition shall be listed on a non-miscellaneous day in February.

Further, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the High Court was requested to defer the hearing of the writ petition.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta appeared for the State of Meghalaya, which has approached the Supreme Court against the HC order.

The  two Special leave petitions by filed by the fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya were dismissed by the Supreme Court after his lawyer told the bench that they have failed to receive any instructions from their client despite several attempts.

The bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud dismissed the petition by  Mallya  for non-prosecution. The Court has also allowed the application that was filed by the lawyer seeking discharge from the case.

A petition was filed by Mallya against the judgment that the Karnataka High Court delivered on October 5, 2018, that approves the direction issued by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal asking him to deposit Rs.3,101 Crore as a pre-condition for allowing his application for restoration of the appeal filed against the recover steps taken by the State Bank of India.

In another case, the Supreme Court in July 2022 had given Vijay Mallya 4-months imprisonment for contempt of court for violating orders.

The Court also asked the Government authorities for taking steps to secure the presence of Mallya in India.

Mallya’s lawyer was allowed for a  discharge and an amicus curiae was appointed for Mallya did not appear.

At the instance of the Government of India,the known liquor baron and fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya is facing extradition proceedings in UK.

Mallya is yet to appear in India to serve the sentence in the contempt case.

The Gauhati High Court on March 08 disposed of a Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed highlighting the various anomalies 22 irrigation projects undertaken by the Irrigation Department which have not been completed.

The PIL was filed by Long Kumar Bey, who also prayed for a direction to the concerned authority for completion of the projects. There are other prayers as well.

One of the primary objections raised by the respondents is that another PIL was also filed before the High Court in the similar case which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 24.08.2017.

The matter was also taken to the Apex Court where the SLP was dismissed with liberty to move a review petition in the earlier PIL. Thereafter, a review petition was filed which was also dismissed.

Therefore, the principal ground taken by the respondents is that the matter is covered by res judicata and cannot be agitated again.

Also Read: Private detectives: Delhi High Court asks Centre for laws to regulate their conduct, modus operandi

Be that as it may, the counsel for the petitioner argued  that in the present case, the subject matter is 22 projects which were not covered in the earlier PIL.

On this, the reply of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council is that the projects, in any case, have been completed, a fact which is denied by the petitioner.

Therefore, the present controversy is reduced to a finding as to whether the projects have actually been completed or not. As stated earlier, the stand of the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council is that these projects have been completed.

Also Read: Veracity of the allegations not a deciding factor in issuance of summons: Allahabad High Court

While considering the same , the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Soumitra Saikia clarified that in case the petitioner has some reports or evidence before him to suggest that the projects have not been completed, he would always be at liberty to approach the Principal Secretary, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council, who shall verify the matter and pass appropriate orders therein.

With the above observation, the High Court disposed of  the PILs.

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to intervene in the Special Leave Petition filed by Assistant Professor C.R. Senthilkumar who was sent on deputation from Annamalai university to Alagappa Chettiar College in 2017 for a 3-year period. 

The bench of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant, however, permitted the petitioner to make a representation to accommodate on vacancies in Annamalai University which arise due to retirement /death and when made, to pass orders in the said representation.

The SLP was filed against the order of the Madras High Court Division Bench which had upheld the order of the single-judge bench. Senthilkumar contended before the High Court that the Annamalai University will have to re-post him in their university as several others including his juniors have already been re-posted there.  

In 2013, the Tamil Nadu government took over the Annamalai University by Act 2013 when there were serious allegations of mismanagement. The Government-appointed administrator found that there were more than 13,000 excess teaching and non-teaching staff. 

Also Read: Supreme Court adjourns hearing on plea seeking extra attempt for Civil Services exam due to Covid-19

Thereupon in 2017, thousands of teachers and non-teaching staff were sent on deputation to various colleges for three years which was extended by another two years by two Government Orders. The High Court refused to entertain the order of deputation passed in 2017. 

The Supreme Court today after hearing arguments of Senior Advocate P. Wilson, appearing for the petitioner, observed that the government has graciously allowed excess staff in permanent jobs and refused to interfere but gave the abovesaid liberty.

After the hearing was over, Wilson with the leave of the bench made an appeal to the bench that virtual courts be continued for miscellaneous days till the constitution of Regional Benches of the Supreme Court. 

Also Read: Delhi Riots 2020: Order on Umar Khalid bail plea adjourned to March 21

Wilson said, “I could see the diversity before your lordship.”

Justice Chandrachud responded, “Yes Yes. It’s pleasure to have you here.”

Case Name- CR Senthikumar Vs The Registrar Annamalai University 

Goa Congress president Girish Chodankar on Wednesday filed a petition in the Supreme Court against Assembly Speaker Rajesh Patnekar for giving recognition to the Congress MLAs, who joined BJP through defection after the 2017 state Assembly elections.

The SLP has been filed by Lawmen & White (L&W), through its partners- Ujjawal Anand Sharma, Prashant Sivarajan and D. Kumanan (AOR).

Also Read: Uttar Pradesh assembly election result 2022 live updates: Election Commission suspends Varanasi officer over SP’s EVM tampering claim

The petitioners said that even if the results of the new Assembly elections came to an erudite majority, there was a possibility of the buying and selling of MLAs. Therefore, the Supreme Court should intervene in the matter and take appropriate steps, so that it does not happen in the coming time, the petitioners urged.

According to the plea, the Bombay High Court gave its verdict, ignoring the arguments made against the Speaker’s decision. In the court, the defection in the Goa Assembly was made a merger of the party. In fact, after the 2017 Goa Assembly elections, the Speaker had filed a petition in the Bombay High Court against the recognition of the defection of Congress MLAs to BJP, terming it a merger of the party.

Also Read: Punjab Election Results 2022 LIVE Updates: BJP, AAP, Congress or SAD?

The petition filed by the Goa Congress comes a day before the results of Goa Assembly elections. However, the term of the MLAs will end with the tenure of the new Legislative Assembly.

The Bombay Milk Producers Association has filed a special leave petition (SLP) against the Bombay High Court order dated December 9, 2019 and January 30, 2020 directing the shifting of all buffaloes, cattle sheds and incidental activities pertaining to milk business from Mumbai and its suburbs to Dapchari, a village approximately 140 km from Mumbai.

The dispute arose in 2005 when a PIL was filed by Janhit Manch, an NGO based in Mumbai, seeking shifting of the milk business from Mumbai and suburbs to Dapchari or any other location.

The Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development, and Fisheries Department of Maharashtra Government, by exercising its powers under Section 10 of Maharashtra Keeping and Movement of Cattle in Urban Areas (Control) Act, 1976 issued a Notification dated July 1, 2006 declaring the “entire area of Mumbai city up to Mahim Creek and Sion and the entire area of Mumbai Suburban District, being the urban area, to be prohibited area for the purposes of the said Act.”

The said notification, subsequent letters and circulars issued by Cattle Controller Office, Goregaon and Mumbai Mahanagar Palika were subsequently challenged by Bombay Milk Producers Association in 2007. The association also came to know that suitable land is available at Aarey Milk Colony for shifting the cattle, cattle sheds and other infrastructure to Aarey Milk Colony. The Petitioners filed a Notice of Motion before Bombay High Court, which subsequently got dismissed on 03.03.2010. The said order was challenged before the Supreme Court by the association. The Supreme Court after perusing the affidavit of both, the petitioner and State, disposed of the SLP on 10.12.2012, by observing :
“we feel that it will be expedient if the High Court is requested to look into the issues raised in this petition, as the High Court would be in a better position to appreciate the ground realities at the site in question. We order accordingly”…

One of the main concern of the petitioner association before High Court and Supreme Court was that the state has failed to answer how milk would be transported from Dapchari to Mumbai city. The minimum time required for a one-way trip (either to or from Dapchari) is about three-and-a-half hours because of traffic and the condition of roads at various places on the way. The members of the petitioner association being suppliers of fresh milk need to ensure the milk reaches the end user within 3 hours of its extraction.

Consequently, a status quo order was passed by High Court on 01.06.2016. The Petitioner Association also made a statement before High Court, on 20.01.2017 that it has decided not to press some of the prayers including the setting aside of notification dated 01.07.2006 and subsequent letters and circulars.

However, based upon a ‘purported consent’ of the petitioner’s lawyer, the High Court directed the shifting of cattle and cattle shed to Dapchari on 09.12.2019. The High Court also ordered vacation of stay w.e.f. 21.01.2020. On 30.01.2020, High Court approved the phase wise shifting of milk business from Mumbai to Dapchari and fixed 12.06.2020 as the next date of hearing.

Also Read: Koo or No Koo: Personal Data Protection Bill is the answer

The instant SLP seeks to challenge the High Court order passed on the basis of “purported consent” of the Counsel and direction to the effect that milk business to be shifted to Dapchari and not to Aarey Milk Colony despite the fact that required infrastructure is available there.

The petition is drawn by Advocate Shariq Ahmed and settled by Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija. The matter has been listed for hearing on Friday (February 19).

The Supreme Court on Tuesday disposed the Special Leave Petition filed by the Jharkhand Assembly Speaker as the Jharkhand High Court is set to hear the matter tomorrow.

The bench of Chief Justice S.A. Bobde and Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian heard the special leave petition of Jharkhand Assembly Speaker challenging the Jharkhand HC order staying the disqualification notice issued by the Speaker to Babulal Mirandi for alleged defection.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable against a Speaker’s notice. Later, the respondent submitted that the High Court is hearing the matter tomorrow. High Court requested to consider all issues including the objection to maintainability of the writ.

Three people including Babulal Marandi, Bandhu Tirkey and Pradeep Yadav were elected as Jharkhand Vikas Morcha MLAs in the Jharkhand Assembly elections in November 2019. After the election, Marandi merged his JVM faction with the BJP, while MLAs Bandhu Tirkey and Pradeep Yadav merged the same party with the Congress. Though the Election Commission has approved the merger of BJP with JVM, Jharkhand Speaker Ravindra Nath Mahato has not yet given the status of the Leader of Opposition to Marandi.

Also Read: Supreme Court stays implementation of farm laws, names four members committee to hold talks

The Speaker considered the merger of the party as a case of defection and therefore allotted a separate seat for Marandi from BJP MLAs in the assembly. On the other hand, the BJP said the person whom its MLAs have chosen as their leader, should get the status of Leader of the Opposition in the Assembly.

A special leave petition has been filed in the Supreme Court against the refusal of the Bombay High Court to grant interim stay on the burial of dead  bodies of the deceased persons who were infected with COVID 19 in three Muslim Cemetries in Mumbai.

The petition has been filed by a resident of Mumbai, Pradeep Gandhy seeking who has submitted that the Konkani Muslim Cemetery, Khoja Sunnat Jamat Kabrastan Bandra West and KhojaIsna Ashari Jammat Kabrastan Bandra West are interconnected and are immediately next to Petitioners residence. The cemeteries are surrounded by residential colonies and falls in the heart of Bandra West.   

The petitioner has further submitted that “the State Government had originally issued a Circular dated 30.03.2020 directing that all Covid-19 infected deceased should be cremated and not buried, to avoid the risk of spreading of infection. However, due to undisclosed reasons, the State government modified this Circular, and issued the impugned Circular dated 9.04.2020, permitting burial to take place in 20 notified cemeteries, which included the subject cemeteries.”

The Petitioner has further expressed fear of the spread of the Covid-19 virus through the soil to the nearby populace, if the infected bodies are buried in the subject cemeteries and has submitted that “the present unprecedented health situation ought to take precedence over the religious rights of the deceased’s family members seeking to bury the deceased at the subject cemeteries.”

-India Legal Bureau