The 9-judge bench hearing the Sabarimala reference has held that the Supreme Court can refer questions of law to a larger bench while exercising its review jurisdiction after renowned jurist and senior advocate Fali Nariman objected to the manner in which the Supreme Court turned a review of the Sabarimala case into an opportunity to set up a nine-judge Bench and examine whether certain essential religious practices of various faiths, including Islam and Zoroastrianism, should be constitutionally protected.
Underlying the statement that it is a “greater challenge” for women officers to meet the hazards of service “owing to their prolonged absence during pregnancy, motherhood and domestic obligations towards their children and families” is a strong stereotype which assumes that domestic obligations rest solely on women.
The Court said political parties will also have to upload reasons for selecting candidates with pending criminal cases on their website.
A 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran and S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ has upheld the constitutional validity of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018, and said that a court can grant anticipatory bail only in cases where a prima facie case is not made out. In the unanimous verdict, Justice Mishra penned the opinion for himself and Justice Saran whereas Justice Bhat wrote a separate but concurring opinion.
Citizenship (Amendment) Act Row|
The bench of AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ has restored the NCLT order wherein it was held that the lenders of Jaiprakash Associates Limited (JAL) were not the financial creditors of the corporate debtor Jaypee Infratech Limited (JIL) and that the transactions in question were to defraud the lenders of the corporate debtor JIL.
Irked over repeated failures of the Centre and States to file their replies, the bench of N V Ramana, Ajay Rastogi and V Ramasubramanian, JJ came down heavily and imposed cost of Rs. 5 lakh on them for not complying with its directions to file their affidavits on a PIL seeking setting up of community kitchens across the country.
The Court has declined to stay the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the alleged involvement of some PMO officials in the coal scam case against Jindal Steel. The CBI had on January 5 registered another case in the coal block allocation scam, which took place during 1993 and 2005. The case was registered against JSW Ispat Steel Limited, then Nippon Denro Ispat Limited (NDIL), and some unknown public servants.
“A Desk Officer of the Department of Telecommunications has the temerity to pass the order to the effect of issuing a direction to the Accountant General, another Constitutional Authority.”
Nothing in Section 48 of the Arbitration Act would permit an enforcing court to add to or subtract from a foreign award that must either be enforced or rejected by reason of any of the grounds under Section 48 being made out to resist enforcement of such foreign award.
The Court told the petitioners that it was open to them not to join the subordinate services. They could have staked a claim by continuing to be an advocate to the Higher Judicial Service as against the post of District Judge. However, once they chose to be in service, if they had seven years’ experience at Bar before joining the judicial service, they are disentitled to lay a claim to the 25% quota exclusively earmarked for Advocates; having regard to the dichotomy of different streams and separate quota for recruitment.
The State Government is not bound to make reservations. There is no fundamental right which inheres in an individual to claim reservation in promotions. No mandamus can be issued by the Court directing the State Government to provide reservations.
The bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud and Ajay Rastogi, JJ has called for the reconsideration of the division bench verdict in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v Petroleum Coal Labour Union, (2015) 6 SCC 494 [PCLU] and has, hence, referred the matter to a larger bench.
A 3-judge bench of S A Bobde, CJ and BR Gavai and Surya Kant, JJ asked lawyer M L Sharma, who mentioned the matter seeking urgent hearing, to move the Delhi High Court with his plea.
The rights of the child need to be respected as he/she is entitled to the love of both the parents. Even if there is a breakdown of marriage, it does not signify the end of parental responsibility. It is the child who suffers the most in a matrimonial dispute.
The Court noted that most of the States and Union Territories have not filed their response on the plea and asked them to submit their response. The court was informed that only Jharkhand, Nagaland, and Tamil Nadu have filed the reply in the case.
“The courts or the tribunals assessing the compensation in a case of 100% disability, especially where there is mental disability also, should take a liberal view of the matter when awarding compensation.”
A Bench of Arun Mishra and MR Shah, JJ has issued notice to Centre and all the State governments on a petition against the continued deaths of children who fall into borewells and the negligence shown by authorities to prevent such tragedies.