Some Interesting Facts about Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court is the apex court in India which came into existence on 26th January, 1950 and is located on Tilak Marg, New Delhi. It is a Constitutional body which is laid down in Part V of the Chapter V of the Constitution of India from  Articles 124 to 147.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>The function of Supreme Court is that it is the custodian of the Constitution and is the uppermost court of appeal which listens to the appeals in opposition to the verdicts of the High Court of the Union Territories and States. It consists of Chief justice of India and 30 other Judges designated by the President of India and the retirement age of Supreme Court Judges is 65 years.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>Some Interesting Facts about Supreme Court of India

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>1. India’s Supreme Court succeeded the Federal Court of India on 28 January, 1950 which was established by the Government of India Act 1935 and the Privy Council, which was the highest judicial body in the country during British era.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>2. The opening ceremony of Supreme Court of India was organized in the Chamber of Princes in the Parliament premises. Do you know that for a period of 12 years i.e. from 1937-1950 the Chamber of Princes was used as the bench of the Judicature of India and also the Supreme Court up to the time when it obtained its current building in 1958.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>3. In its formative years, the apex court met from 10 am to 12 and then from 2 pm to 4 pm for 28 days in a year. But today, it meets for 190 days in a year.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>4. On 29 October, 1954 Dr. Rajendra Prasad the first President of India laid the foundation stone of the Supreme Court building.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>5. It is built on 17 acres of triangular plot land in Hardinge Avenue just opposite to the Hardinge Bridge and designed in an Indo-British architectural style by the chief architect Ganesh Bhikaji Deolalikar, who was the first Indian to head CPWD.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>6. The strange thing is that the building of Supreme Court (SC) is designed and shaped in such a way that it represents the scales of the justice. As, Rajendra Prasad stated that the two pans of the scales of justice have to be held evenly. It is the Central Wing of the SC building that comprises the Chief Justice’s Court and two large courtrooms on either side represents the central beam of the scales of justice.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>7. The Right and left wings of the building represents two scales. The Right Wing consists of the offices of the Attorney General of India and other law officers, the bar-room and the library whereas the Left Wing consists of the offices of the Court.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>8. In 1979 the two wings East and West were added to the structure and the last extension was added in 1994.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>9. Another amazing fact is that in the lawn premises of SC a black bronze sculpture was sculpted on 20 Feb 1980 which was designed by the artist Chintamoni Kar having a height of 210 cms. This statue consists of a lady giving shelter to her child, who is holding an open book in his hands. It portrays Mother India as the lady and the child shown like this symbolises that she is protecting the young Republic of India and book represents the laws of land and the balance shown on the book represents equal justice is given to all.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>10. Do you know that the first woman Judge and the first woman SC Judge of India were from the literate state Kerala? The first one was Ms. Anna Chandy who joined Law School in 1927 and joined Bar in 1929. She became first Grade Zila Munsif in 1937 and the first District Judge in 1948. Also probably she was the second woman in the world to become a Kerala High Court Judge in 1959. Second one was Fatima Beevi.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>11. The first woman judge of SC of India and also in Asia was the Fathima Beevi who was appointed to Supreme Court in 1959.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>12. Supreme Court of India since Feb 2009 has the strength of 31 judges including Chief Justice. Important is that the original constitution had fixed the strength at 8 and left it to parliament to increase the number of judges as when needed. In 1960 it increased to 11, in 1968 to 14, in 1978 to 18, in 1986 to 26 and in 2009 to 31.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>13. The design of the Court’s seal is reproduced from the wheel that appears on the abacus of the Sarnath Lion capital of Ashoka with 24 spokes.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>14. Do you know that how the Judges of Supreme Court are appointed?

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>Judges of the Supreme Court is appointed by the President after consultation with the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts in states according to article 124(2).

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>*Till 1993 the Supreme Court Judges were appointed by the President on the recommendation of CJI but now 5 senior most judges committee recommends the names to the law ministry and after scrutinizing send the paper to the President. Now it depends upon the President to consider the names or return them for reconsideration to the Supreme Court. But if SC sends the same names after reconsideration then President appoints those persons.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>15. Now let us see what is the eligibility of becoming a Supreme Court Judge?

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>- An individual should be a citizen of India.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>– He or she should have served as a Judge of a High Court for a period of 5 years or an advocate of the High Court for at least 10 years or in view of the President a distinct Jurist of the country.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>– According to the judgement of the President, an eminent legal scholar or expert can also be appointed as a Judge of the SC.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>16. Also, what is the tenure of Judges?

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>The Chief justice of India and the other Judges of the SC hold office until they attain the age of 65 years. (High Court Judges at 62 years).

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>17. Have you ever thought that how Supreme Court Judges are removed?

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>Only on the ground of misbehaviour or incapacity the Judge of Supreme Court is removed by the President and the power of investigation is invested in the parliament. In Parliament each house have to pass a resolution which is supported by the 2/3rd of members present and voting and majority of the total membership of the house to remove a judge.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>18. Do you have any idea about the salary of the Judges of the Supreme Court?

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>The salary and the allowances of the Supreme Court judges are:

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>Chief Justice is Rs 1 Lakh and other Judges is Rs 90,000.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>19. What happened when CJI is absent?

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>According to the Article 126, The President appoints any other judge of the Supreme Court as an Acting Chief Justice when CJI is absent.

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>20. After retirement Post retirement jobs are there for Judges or not?

<

p style=”box-sizing:border-box;color:rgba(0,0,0,0.701961);font-size:1.6rem;line-height:2.4rem;margin:2.4rem 0;font-family:Georgia, serif;orphans:2;widows:2;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);”>Retired judges of SC can’t act as a Judge in any court within the territory of India but Government generally uses the retired higher judiciary judges as heads of various commissions.

Advertisements

Supreme Court issues warrant against Calcutta high court judge C S Karnan

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday took a stern view of Calcutta high court judge C S Karnan for defying its direction to present himself in court and, in an unprecedented decision, issued a bailable warrant against the serving judge.



Karnan’s presence is required in the SC as he is facing contempt proceedings for levelling allegations against the SC and his former colleagues in the Madras high court.The court rejected a request from Karnan to meet the Chief Justice and senior judges of the SC, noting that it could not be treated as a response to the notice issued to him. It also saw reports that the judge was passing orders from his house as a “prank”.

A seven-judge bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar decided it had had enough of Karnan’s defiant ways and acted tough as he refused to comply with two SC orders seeking his personal appearance despite a notice being served on him.

<

p style=”orphans:2;widows:2;”>

<

p class=”newheader” style=”border:0;font-size:16.0016px;margin-right:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:proxima-semibold, proxima-extrabold1, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;letter-spacing:normal;”>

<

p style=”border:0;font-size:16.0016px;margin-right:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;”>

GET APP

<

p class=”article_outer” style=”border:0;margin-right:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;transition:all .5s;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:proxima-semibold, proxima-extrabold1, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;letter-spacing:normal;background-image:initial;background-attachment:initial;background-size:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-position:initial;background-repeat:initial;”>

<

p class=”showfull” style=”border:0;margin-right:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;”>

<

p class=”article-txt clearfix article-section” style=”border:0;font-size:1em;margin-right:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;padding:0 20px;vertical-align:baseline;color:rgb(26,26,26);letter-spacing:.03em;box-shadow:none;font-family:proxima-regular1, ‘roboto Regular’, arial, sans-serif;background-image:initial;background-attachment:initial;background-size:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial;background-position:initial;background-repeat:initial;”>

<

p class=”clearfix” style=”border:0;margin-right:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;”>
The court rejected a request from Karnan to meet the Chief Justice and senior judges of the SC, noting that it could not be treated as a response to the notice issued to him. It also saw reports that the judge was passing orders from his house as a “prank”.

A seven-judge bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar decided it had had enough of Karnan’s defiant ways and acted tough as he refused to comply with two SC orders seeking his personal appearance despite a notice being served on him.

The court said it was left with no option but to issue a warrant against him to secure his presence in the court on the next date of hearing on March 31. This is the first time that a sitting judge of the higher judiciary is facing contempt proceedings and the apex court has been forced to issue a warrant against a judge.

Karnan has consistently claimed that he is a victim of caste bias and accused his colleagues of discriminating against him. He has claimed that the proceedings against him are vitiated by the same sentiment.

Attorney general Mukul Rohatgi told the bench, also including Justices Dipak Misra, J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur, P C Ghose and Kurian Joseph, that Karnan had refused to mend his ways and there is no let-up in his contemptuous behaviour as he recently passed an order against the SC order on the “suicide note” of former Arunachal Pradesh chief minister Kalikho Pul in which allegations were levelled against certain judges.

The AG said he had talked to the registrar general of the Calcutta high court, who confirmed that the order was passed by Karnan at his home but it was not sent to HC.

The bench, however, refused to take note of the incident, saying it might be a “prank”, but decided to lean on the judge. It issued a bailable warrant on a personal bond of Rs 10,000 and asked the West Bengal DGP to serve it to the judge. The CJI said that Karnan had sought a meeting with him and fellow judges to discuss the allegations levelled by him but it could not be accepted as his response to the court’s notice.

“It would be pertinent to mention that the registry of this court received a fax message from Justice C S Karnan, dated March 8, seeking a meeting with the Chief Justice and the judges of this court, so as to discuss certain administrative issues expressed therein, which primarily seem to reflect the allegations levelled by him against certain named judges. The above fax message cannot be considered as a response of Justice Karnan, either to the contempt petition, or to the notice served upon him,” the bench said.

“In view of the above, there is no other alternative but to seek the presence of Justice C S Karnan by issuing bailable warrants. Ordered accordingly. Bailable warrants in the sum of Rs 10,000 in the nature of a personal bond to the satisfaction of the arresting officer be issued to ensure the presence of Justice Karnan in this court on March 31 at 10.30am,” the bench said in its order after holding a brief 15-minute hearing.

The apex court will have no option but to issue a non-bailable warrant against Karnan if he fails to appear on March 31.

Can SC shut citizens’ right to protest against its order?

Right to freedom of speech and expression guarantees individuals the liberty to express themselves, criticise others and comment on issues. All these must necessarily be peaceful. But can any court shut an individual’s right to protest against judgments and orders?



The Supreme Court did just that in the contentious Cauvery water issue. Escalating protests coupled with violence in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu made the SC say , “There cannot be any agitation when it relates to an order passed by the court.”


The SC was right in asking the authorities to clamp down on violence. But the anxiety to see return of normalcy cannot be a ground to convey that even peaceful protests and agitations against SC orders would not be tolerated.




We are witness to public protests against orders of the highest courts world over, including India.On June 2015, the US Supreme Court by a slender five to four majority declared gay marriages con stitutionally valid, mandating all 50 states of the federal republic to recognise same sex unions (Obergefell vs Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health).




The LGBT community celebrated. But the church erupted in protest. Billy Graham Evangelist Association, Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and US Bishops Conference virtually rebelled against the judgment. Some of the churches said they would not conduct same-sex marriages.




In India, too, we witnessed this.An SC judgment closed a small window opened for the LGBT community by the Delhi High Court, which decriminalised Section 377 to exempt consensual relations between adults of the same sex in private from penal consequences.




The rainbow community protested, albeit peacefully, against the SC judgment.

The SC’s decision to limit the height of `dahi handi’ and bar participation of minors in Janmashtami celebrations in Maharashtra saw 500 `dahi handi mandals’ congregate at Shivaji Park on August 22 to protest against the court or der. In May , several hundred Kosovo Albanians protested against a ruling of the Kosovo Constitutional Court for confirming the rights of Serbian Orthodox Visoki Decani monastery to 24 hectares of land.”The constitutional court trespassed on justice,” read the banners with protesters.

A person may militate against a perfectly valid and legitimate court order because in his perception it was an unjust judgment. Can we deny him the right to protest against the court order? Are court orders infallible?
Even the SC cannot claim infallibility. More than 70 years ago, US SC judge Robert H Jackson had said judges, despite being addressed as Lords, shared the human susceptibility to err.




In Brown vs Allen, (1944 US 443 at 540), he had said, “Reversal by a higher court is no proof that justice is thereby better done. There is no doubt that if there were a super-Supreme Court, a substantial proportion of our reversals of state courts would also be reversed. We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.”




True, Indian Constitution under Article 144 mandates “all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India to act in aid of the Supreme Court”. But it does not even remotely suggest that while implementing an SC order, one must wholeheartedly subscribe to it. A five-judge bench of the SC in Bihar Legal Support Society vs Chief Justice of India (1986 SCC (4) 767) had in a short and crisp judgment told judges that they were neither infallible nor their words the last. Legally may be, but not in the perception of a common man.




The society’s petition had protested against a midnight sitting of the SC to grant bail to two industrialists -Lalit Mohan Thapar and Shyam Sundar Lal -and asked the CJI why similar expeditious hearing was not accorded to bail petitions of poor men languishing in jails? This question is ironic and bound to inspire a feeling of deja vu in those who have been following the SC for some time.




The SC had conceded that it would not be possible for it to right all wrongs because it was not immune from making mistakes. To make judges realise that they did not possess the panacea for all ills, it had said, “The apex court must interfere only in limited class of cases where there is a substantial question of law involved which needs to be finally laid at rest by the apex court for the entire country or where there is grave, blatant and atrocious miscarriage of justice.

“Sometimes, we judges feel that when a case comes before us and we find that injustice has been done, how can we shut our eyes to it. But the answer to this anguished query is that the judges of the apex court may not shut their eyes to injustice but they must equally not keep their eyes too wide open, otherwise the apex court would not be able to perform the high and noble role which it was intended to perform according to the faith of the Constitution makers.”

The 30-year-old judgment needs to be put up in bold big font in the inner chambers of the SC, which has forayed into unimaginably diverse fields from constitutionality of jokes on Sikh community to mushrooming of NGOs.

‘Judicial innovation’ helps SC awarding death penalty


Tattu Lodhi, child rapist and murderer, cheated the noose on Friday because the Supreme Court decided to opt for a “judicial innovation” instead of the death penalty.

This judicial innovation, formalised by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the Rajiv Gandhi killers’ case in December 2015, helps “get rid of death penalty” and addresses the genuine concerns of the society to see justice done, a three-judge Bench led by Justice J. Chelameswar observed in its recent judgment.

No remission
The innovation involves substituting death penalty with a “special category” of life imprisonment without the benefit of release on remission for prolonged periods ranging from 25 to 30 years, if not more.

This innovative approach veering away from capital punishment was formalised after the Supreme Court gave itself the authority to tweak the sentencing laws and evolve a special category of sentence in its judgment in Union of India versus Sriharan alias Murugan last year. The special category is to be limited to a “very few cases”. This special category finds its first mention in the Swami Shraddananda versus State of Karnataka judgment of the Supreme Court in 2008.

The innovation, according to Justice S.K. Singh, who authored the Lodhi judgment for Justice Chelameswar’s Bench, is an endeavour by the apex court to make “no party (convict or the society) a loser”.

So having saved Lodhi from the hangman’s rope, Justice Singh stripped him of his right to apply for release from prison on remission for the next 25 years. Thus, any hope Lodhi might have had for his release after serving the first 14 years was effectively extinguished.

The prolonged period of incarceration with no hope, Justice Singh observed, was justice enough for the rape and murder of a “defenceless child” whose body was found in a gunny bag at Lodhi’s residence in 2011.

Society’s concerns

“The judicial innovation bridges the gap between death sentence on the one extreme and only 14 years of actual imprisonment in the name of life imprisonment on the other… it serves a laudable purpose,” the Supreme Court observed.

Law Commission of India Chairperson, Justice B.S. Chauhan, seconds the judgment’s optimism, saying the Supreme Court may have indeed found an “alternative” to capital punishment .

Quoting both the Sriharan and Shraddananda verdicts, Justice Singh, in his judgment in the Tattu Lodhi case, observed that “the innovative approach, on the one hand, helps the convict get rid of death penalty in appropriate cases. On the other, it takes care of genuine concerns of the victim, including the society…”

Court dismisses Maran’s plea in money laundering case

Special Judge O.P. Saini dismissed their common plea saying it had no merit.

<

p style=”color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:medium;line-height:normal;”>A Delhi court on Saturday dismissed petitions filed by former Telecom Minister Dayanidhi Maran and four others challenging its jurisdiction to hear the money laundering case connected with the Aircel-Maxis deal case.

<

p style=”color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:medium;line-height:normal;”>Special Judge O.P. Saini dismissed their common plea saying it had no merit.

<

p style=”color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:medium;line-height:normal;”>They had challenged the court’s jurisdiction arguing that it was designated only to hear 2G spectrum allocation scam cases.

<

p style=”color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:medium;line-height:normal;”>Mr. Maran, his brother, Kalanidhi Maran and Ms. Kaveri Kalanithi Maran and the two other accused are facing prosecutions in the case.

<

p style=”color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:medium;line-height:normal;”>The Enforcement Directorate has alleged that two firms, South Asia FM Limited (SAFL) and Sun Direct TV Private Ltd. (SDTPL), had received Rs. 742.58 crore as “proceeds of crime” from some Mauritius-based firms and that the two firms was then allegedly controlled by Mr. Kalanidhi Maran.

Phrase ‘contract to the contrary’ does not mean that the parties are free to contract out of the express provisions of the law: SC [Read Judgment]

The phrase ‘contract to the contrary’ in Section 106 of the Act cannot be read to mean that the parties are free to contract out of the express provisions of the law, thereby defeating its very intent, the Bench said.

The Supreme Court in M/S PARK STREET PROPERTIES (PVT) LTD.  VS. DIPAK KUMAR SINGH & ANR has held that the phrase ‘contract to the contrary’ in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act means a ‘valid contract’ and it cannot be read to mean that the parties are free to contract out of the express provisions of the law, thereby defeating its very intent.
Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices V. Gopala Gowda and Adarsh Kumar Goel restored the Judgment of Trial Court which had decreed the suit of Landlords for recovery and Khas possession.
As per the agreement, the landlord was entitled to terminate the tenancy only in case there was a breach of the terms of the agreement or in case of non-payment of rent for three consecutive months and the tenants failed to remedy the same within a period of thirty days of the receipt of the notice. The notice issued by Landlord requiring it to vacate the premises was contested by the Tenants terming it as illegal. This contention, though initially rejected by the Trial Court, was accepted by the High Court which had remanded back the case to Trial Court. The Landlords challenged the High Court judgment before the Apex Court.
Setting aside the Judgment of High Court which had remanded back the matter to Trial Court, the Bench said: “The above said clause of the agreement is clearly contrary to the   provisions of Section 106 of the Act. While Section 106 of the Act does contain the phrase ‘in the absence of a contract to the contrary’, it is a well settled position of law, as pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the same must be a valid contract.”
The Court also said that contract between the parties must be in relation to a valid contract for the statutory right under Section 106 of the Act available to a lessor to terminate the tenancy at a notice of 15 days to not be applicable. The Bench further observed: “If the argument advanced on behalf of the respondents is taken to its logical conclusion, this lease can never be terminated, save in cases of breach by the tenant. Accepting this argument would mean that in a situation where the tenant does not default on rent payment for three consecutive months, or does not commit a breach of the terms of the lease, it is not open to the lessor to terminate the lease even after giving a notice. This interpretation of the clause 6 of the agreement cannot be permitted as the same is wholly contrary to the express provisions of the law. The phrase ‘contract to the contrary’ in Section 106 of the Act cannot be read to mean that the parties are free to contract out of the express provisions of the law, thereby defeating its very intent. As is evident from the cases relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, the relevant portions of which have been extracted supra, the contract between the parties must be in relation to a valid contract for the statutory right under Section 106 of the Act available to a lessor to terminate the tenancy at a notice of 15 days to not be applicable.”

Challenge against Maharashtra LAW CET: SC issues notice to State and BCI

A Division bench comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and RK Agrawal Today has issued notices to the Maharashtra Government and the Bar Council of India in a Special Leave Petition filed against the Bombay High Court judgment dismissing the writ petitions challenging the introduction of CET for undergraduate courses in law.

It is argued that the counseling is yet to be held because approximately 40 colleges don’t have the recognition from BCI and admissions are likely to be delayed till October first week. According to the Petitioners “Very few students have managed to obtain more than 35% score in CET, thus in order to fill in the seats cut off has been reduced to 0%’.In these circumstances, it is prayed before the Court to allow the admissions to be made on class 12th marks by individual colleges for the year 2016-17.

The Bombay High Court while dismissing the petitions had expressed its dissatisfaction with regards to the mode and manner of the conduct of the CET stating that-

“True it is that it would have been ideal if the Rules were made promptly and the requirement of the Statute fulfilled. True it is that even the Notifications ought to be promulgated and issued much prior to the examinations. True it is that even this Court would have been happy to note that the syllabus was made and notified to the students well in advance.However, merely because all this has not been done in the manner suggested by the petitioners does not mean that the exercise as undertaken by the State is unlawful or unconstitutional.”
The court also expressed dissatisfaction at the fact that the Bar Council of India, the national regulator for legal education, was not consulted in the entire process. As was also the case with the state bar council, and the Law and Judiciary department.
“The involvement of the Bar Council may have improved the standards. Those teaching the theory of law and those actually practicing it, if consulted, could have brought about a blend which the State ought to welcome. It is no use consulting some teachers and Principals and then finalizing the process, that too hurriedly.”

Advocates Pradnya Talekar, and Atul Dakh appeared for the petitioners.