Supreme Court Constitution Bench to shortly hear petitions challenging the 10% quota for the economically weaker sections (EWS) and an Andhra Pradesh law which grants reservation to Muslims shortly
[The hearing today is for case management directions]
For #EWS case: #SupremeCourt to decide whether grant of 10% reservation violated 50% ceiling cap on quota declared SC & if "economic backwardness" alone could be the sole criterion for granting quota in govt jobs & educational institutions for those who were under general quota
For #Andhra Case: SC to hear appeals against HC decision that 'The Andhra Pradesh Reservation of Seats in the Educational Institutions and of Appointments/Posts in the Public Services under the State to Muslim Community Act, 2005' was violative of Articles 15(4) and 16(4)
CJI UU Lalit: Sorry for being late. There were some traffic restrictions in the morning and that is what held us back.
Hearing begins
[EWS case]
Sr Adv Maninder Singh: States will not be needed in this case. There are impleadment applications, May be notice can be issued to them
CJI: Issuing notice to states will delay the matter. Whoever is here can submit points
SG Tushar Mehta: I am here for Maharashtra
AG KK Venugopal: I have filed a very short written submission for your perusal #EWS
SG: One is EWS and one is religion based reservation. Notice can be issued to states in EWS matter and we can start with the second case
CJI: No we will start with EWS. All counsels appearing will be entitled and can argue. Tell us how much time you will take from Sept 13
Adv Shadan Farasat: the total time requested from all sides is 17.5 hours
CJI: Let us assume 18 hours and that would mean 4 working days
Sr Adv Gopal Sankarnarayanan: Sr Advocates Sanjay Parikh, Meenakshi Arora, MN Rao is here
CJI: So Mr Rao will lead the matter
CJI: What we propose is the questions that will arise will get some time extra for each party and then half a day for rejoinder and then 3 days in the first week and 2 days in the second week. So we begin the matter next Tuesday. You have to keep the sequence in mind #ews
CJI: Please do not repeat submissions, Of course you can say it is a different perspective that is the beauty of being a counsel. But please do not repeat the submissions #EWS
CJI: Since the iron is hot, finalise the questions today itself and refer to it as the base document for the case #EWS
CJI to Sr Adv Gopal Sankaranarayanan: Please formulate on the agreed questions, Give it to us on September 8, we will assemble that day. We will re formulate if need be and then we will refer to only these questions on September 13 for the #EWS case
CJI: Please complete this exercise by Thursday and we will peruse the questions of law then
Sr Adv Mahesh Jethmalani: Let the questions be given to intervening states too
CJI: Some suggested issues prepared by Sr Adv Gopal Sankaranarayanan has been placed before us. In our view let the issued be placed before all the counsels in the EWS case and thereafter the crystallised version be placed before us on Thursday. #EWS
CJI: Mr Farasat and Mr Kanu Agarwal who are nodal advocates submitted that 18 hours will be taken for the matter. Sr Adv Singh appearing for Assam and Mr Jethmalani for MP submits that intervention by states have been preferred and states will also make submissions. #EWS
CJI: The nodal council can consider accommodating such states who preferred intervention applications. Any states seeking to appear will be provided adequate opportunity. #EWS
CJI: Before we begin hearing the main matter, we will again list this matter for directions so the hearing part is conducted smoothly and effectively. List the case again for directions on September 8 #EWS
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Vrinda Grover: Nothing remains in the matter. We only want that our SLP against Allahabad HC order that sought quashing isn't effected. This Court has already transferred the cases to Delhi, and told us move DHC.
Justice Chandrachud: Who's for the State?
Order: Special cell of UP police was intimated of the transfer to the Delhi Police pursuant to our order. In terms of the liberty which has been granted by this Court, petitioner would be at liberty to pursue his rights ...
Order: in respect of the cases against him before the Delhi High Court. In such an event, the plea under 482 shall be entertained on its own merits without being uninfluenced by the Allahabad HC order.
Supreme Court to resume hearing batch of appeals challenging the Karnataka High Court verdict that effectively upheld the ban on wearing hijab in government schools and colleges
Matter where bonded labours were rescued from Jammu and Kashmir #SupremeCourt
Advocate: Petitioner ways victim of sexual offence. No compensation till now even after 10 years.
Justice Hemant Gupta: Have you read the book on Bandhua Multi Morcha.. anyways leave it for now
Justice Hemant Gupta: Detailed response has been filed citing several aspects. The state will take remedial steps if any required under law.
Adv: There are also issues of bonded labourers
Justice Hemant Gupta: Do you know who are bonded labourers. They are not bonded. They take money and come there and are engaged by brick kilns. They come from backward areas. They take money and eat the money and the. Resign. This is a racket !!
#Constitutionbench of #SupremeCourt headed by Justice DY Chandrachud to shortly hear the following cases: 1. Delhi Govt vs LG on control of services 2. Maharashtra Political Crisis 3. Assam NRC Case 4. Validity of extending legislative assembly reservations beyond 10 Years
Senior Advocate AM Singhvi appears in Delhi Govt vs LG on control of services
Singhvi appears for the Delhi government (AAP): I will take about a day
SG Tushar Mehta for the LG: We may take a little more
Justice DY Chandrachud: So it will be over in a week?
SG: Yes. But on September 13 week and September 20 week there are two matters: EWS and the AP law
Justice Chandrachud: Oh. So you want it after that?
SG: After EWS, there is a matter of reservation on the basis of religion and that will be heard then
CJI UU Lalit led bench to hear a plea by PUCL seeking to issue directions to implement Shreya Singhal v Union of India, which declared Section #66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 unconstitutional..The application seeks to prevent unconstitutional arrests
Sr Adv Sanjay Parikh: the shreya singhal judgment struck down 66A. But then we came across cases being registered under it. We had approached SC and directions were passed but even then cases are being passed. AG Venugopal had appeared.notice had gone to union and states
Parikh: The results which have come out from the states is really shocking. Please see reply from states which shows the gravity of the situation. If SC judgment is not implemented then what happens to rule of law