[Senior Designation] Supreme Court is hearing pleas related to conferring of senior designation to lawyers using "arbitrary and discriminatory" secret voting as a norm by some High Courts.
Sr Adv Indira Jaising: All I want to point out is.. Prayer 12.. on the question of cut-off marks, I leave it to the court.
I would just request my lord to reflect on it.
Court: our difficulty is.. these are the very issues which may arise.. apropos those SG has sought time.
Court: We will grant only prayer C, it arises on the text of that judgment.
At this stage, Prayer C has been pressed. In her submission, there may be counsel with 17 or 19 years of practice but going by the judgment both counsel would be..
Court: .. allocated 10 marks. In her submission, one mark each be allotted for practice.. on the other hand, those with more than 20 years of practice regardless of no. of years in excess would still be entitled to only 20 marks.
Court: SG has prayed for sometime to put in the response according to his oral submissions the very concept of allocation of marks and interview may require reconsideration.
Since the issues raised by SG may go to the root of the entire controversy..
Court: We permit response by Monday, 9 May.
Counsel for various parties at liberty to put in their responses to the SG's submissions within two days thereafter.
Court: However, we see no reason to defer Ms. Jaising's plea in prayer C. We therefore, clarify.
Instead of 10 marks to be allotted to a counsel who has put in 10-20 years of practice. The marks be allotted commensurate with the standing of the person at the bar.
Court: This modification shall be effective from the date of this order.
Pawar deposing: In recent times it has been observed that section 124A of IPC is often misused against people. I have explained in my affidavit… it is invoked to suppress their liberty and tend to stifle any voice of dissent raised in a peaceful and democratic way. #SharadPawar
Pawar: I propose to raise this issue at appropriate forum like Parliament being Member of Rajyasabha.
If any political leader address the people and his speech is likely to cause disturbance to the law and order then that leader should be responsible for the consequences.
Supreme Court will soon hear MP Navneet Kaur Rana's plea against the decision of the Bombay High Court cancelling and confiscating her caste certificate.
A Bench of Justices RD Dhanuka and VG Bisht had held that Rana obtained the caste certificate by fabricating records to enable her to contest the parliamentary elections through reserved category candidature.
#SupremeCourt to continue hearing matters of pvt tour operators seeking GST and service tax exemption for Hajj
State to argue today
Sr Advs Arvind Datar and Gopal Sankaranarayan submitted in court yesterday
Bench: One contention is no intelligible differentia between pvt and Hajj Group operators
Adv: Distinction was challenged but court did not interfere as based on policy matters. Ultimately organising travel to Hajj. Threshold requirement in service tax law is
Adv: Service provider, receiver, Provision of service, and backed by a consideration.
A contract driven law, that's why making difference between pilgrim, pilgromage and operator
Bench: Operator as facilitator of religious ceremony?
#SupremeCourt to hear a plea by terror-accused Abu Saleem which seeks for #India’s compliance with the assurances given to #Portugal to not keep him in jail for more than 25 years from the time he was #arrested, that is, in 2002.
Adv for Salem: I will show it from the judgment of the Portugal court to show that the assurance is in place.
Adv for Abu Salem now reads the judgment of the Portugal Court before the Bench of Justices Kaul and Sundresh.