September Law Update 1

INSIDE

  • ML SHARMA HURRIYAT PETITION
  • NIRBHAYA RAPE CASE UPDATE
  • RAJEEV DHAWAN -SUBROTO ROY- SC- FACE OFF
  • DEMOLITION OF ILLEGAL SHRINES
  • MONSANTO UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES

ML SHARMA PIL AGAINST HURRIYAT SECURITY

  1. Well known Public Interest litigator Manohar Lal Sharma filed yet another PIL in the Supreme Court last month, asking that all monies spent on the safety and security of Kashmiri Hurriyat leaders be declared unconstitutional and illegal.

  2. The PIL was filed five days after “official sources” leaked this story Indian Express: Security downgrade to slashing perks, Centre plans to turn heat on separatists

  3.  On Sept. 14, bench ruled that the decision to provide funds was the Executive’s prerogative. It censured Sharma for using the phrase ‘separatist’ and refused to use the word in its judgement.

  4. It is unclear why this matter was taken to the court at all. Or why the plea was admitted. ML Sharma’s own background though is evident to court watchers.

a. Sharma is a well known PIL litigator and the defence attorney for the Nirbhaya Rape Case accused where he arguing that the evidence be thrown out on technical grounds

b. He has filed over 33 PILs, including one against AAP leaders claiming they were funded by the CIA

c. He is known in the media for his flamboyant statements to the press ( M L SHARMA)

Bench: Justice Anil R Dave, L. Nageswara Rao

SUBROTO ROY CASE: SC EXTENDS PAROLE

  1. The Supreme court extended Sahara Chief Subroto Roy’s parole after he deposited Rs 352 crore with SEBI.

  2. You might remember this as the case where four days prior, Senior Advocate Rajiv Dhawan, had made intemperate remarks against the judges and gone to town about it. The judges had almost cancelled the client’s bail as a result of Dhawan’s outburst.

  3. The Subroto case judges have indicated that they have faced a series of harassment including a plea to recuse themselves, suppression of evidence and many delays. Read back story here.

Case: 412 & 413/2012 IN CA 9813 & 9833/2011]
Bench: Chief Justice TS Thakur, Anil R Dave, AK Sikri JJ.

NIRBHAYA CASE

  1. Last hearing Sr Advocates Sanjay Hegde and Raju Ramchandram argue on Evidence and Sentencing
  2. AP Singh Made his submissions

Case: SLP (CRL) NO. 3119-3120/2014
Bench: Justice Dipak Mishra, Banumathi, Ashok Bhushan JJ.

MAX AGE LIMIT FOR LAW EXAM – TO BE OR NOT TO BE?

  1. It seems the profession cannot agree on whether they should have an age limit on when one can write the bar exam.

  2. There used to be an age limit — once. Which some sane and enlightened group of people helped remove and at least two High Courts upheld.

  3. But – The Bar Council of India has an ageism problem. For some reason it believes that for certain degrees, people should NOT be more than 20 or 30 years old.

  4. Matter is now opened up again.

SUNDRY MATTERS:

1. Amit Sibal’s defamation case against Arvind Kejriwal and Ors is bouncing about in various petitions. Kejriwal had said Amit Sibal misused father Kapil Sibal’s ministerial position to represent telecom companies. Sibal is suing him for defamation

2. Demolition of Illegal Shrines

This is an ongoing case. The HC has already passed orders to demolish illegal shrines. The (Society for Fast Justice v/s State of Maharashtra) The society has now asked if the state will demolishing illegal structures on public lands only or private lands also. The state has also been asked to provide numbers on how many shrines have been demolished so far

  1. Safety of Air Space around airports (Saloni Salva v/s Union of India)

Also ongoing case. Bench has passed orders for demolition of such structures.
112 buildings have been found in violation of airspace around airports. Bench refused to stay demolition of few floors of high rise buildings around airports.
Rizwan Merchant appeared for developers in the Delhi high court

  1. Monsanto Unfair trade Practices

Ongoing. The company had tried and failed to stop an investigation into its alleged unfair trade practices in the seed market by the Competition Commission. It has now moved the Delhi High Court to stop the investigation.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s