Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of D.N. Patel, CJ and C. Hari Shankar, J., clarified the earlier order dated 03-11-2019 passed in connection with the recent scuffle that took place at the Tis Hazari Courts Complex between Advocates and Police personals.

In its order dated 03-11-2019, the High Court had directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the Advocates involved in the incident. In the same order, the Court had made certain observations against the Delhi Police and named certain officers responsible for the unfortunate incident.

Two separate applications were filed: one by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India and the other by the Delhi Police. The home ministry sought clarification of the earlier order, to the effect that there is no impediment in taking action against the erring Advocates. The Delhi Police, on the other hand, prayed for modification of the earlier order, to the effect that the observations made against the DelhiPolice be excluded so that they could not be read as conclusive findings against the police officers in question.

On such applications being filed, the High Court clarified its earlier order dated 3-11-2019, to the effect that the direction protecting Advocates against coercive action only relates to the FIRs, filed on 2-11-2019 pertaining to the scuffle that broke out at Tis Hazari Courts, and not against any incident that took place thereafter. Also, in regard to observations made against certain Police officers, the High Court clarified that such observations were only prima facie and tentative in nature; the facts are to be proved on the basis of evidence on record without being influenced by such observations.

Before parting with the order, the High Court noted a sense of anguish over the instant state of affairs. It observed:

“In our view, therefore, it would be advisable, in this case, that a joint meeting, of responsible representatives of the Advocates and the police establishment, be convened, who should make a sincere effort to meet and sort out their differences amicably, on the basis of discussion and deliberations, with the objective of dissolution of their differences, which, in our view, have essentially arisen owing to a communication gap, during the last few days. We are hopeful that, if a sincere attempt is made in this direction, peace and harmony will ultimately prevail.”

The applications were disposed of accordingly. [Tis Hazari Incident, In re (Court on its own Motion v. Union of India), 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10918, decided on 06-11-2019]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for appointment of following four Judicial Officers as Judges of the Orissa High Court:

  1. Shri Satya Narayan Mishra
  2. Shri Bibhu Prasad Routray
  3. Shri Gautam Sharma, and
  4. Shri Biranchi Narayan Mohanty.

AND;

Proposal for appointment of following eight Advocates as Judges of the Orissa High Court:

  1. Shri Gautam Mukherji,
  2. Shri Samir Kumar Mishra,
  3. Shri Prasanna Kumar Parhi,
  4. Ms. Savitri Ratho,
  5. Shri Prafulla Kumar Rath,
  6. Shri Durga Prasad Nanda,
  7. Shri Pravat Kumar Muduli, and
  8. Shri Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi.

On the basis of interaction and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that Shri Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi, Advocate (mentioned at Sl. No. 8 above) is suitable for being appointed as Judge of the Orissa High Court.

As regards Ms. Savitri Ratho, (mentioned at Sl. No. 4 above), consideration of the proposal for her elevation is deferred for the present.

As regards S/Shri (1) Gautam Mukherji, (2) Samir Kumar Mishra, (3) Prasanna Kumar Parhi, (4) Prafulla Kumar Rath, (5) Durga Prasad Nanda, and (6) Pravat Kumar Muduli, Advocates, having regard to the material on record and all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that their cases deserve to be remitted to the High Court. The Collegium resolves to recommend accordingly.

Collegium is of the considered view that Shri Bibhu Prasad Routray, Judicial Officer (mentioned at Sl. No. 2 above) is suitable for being appointed as Judge of the Orissa High Court.

As regards S/Shri (1) Satya Narayan Mishra, (2) Gautam Sharma, and (3) Biranchi Narayan Mohanty, Judicial Officers, having regard to the material on record and all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that their cases deserve to be remitted to the High Court.


Supreme Court of India

[Collegium Resolution dt. 03-10-2019]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for the appointment of following 4 Advocates as Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and 3 Advocates as Judges of the Telangana High Court:

1 Shri R. Raghunandan Rao (A.P.),
2 Shri T. Vinod Kumar (Telangana),
3 Shri Battu Devanand (A.P.),
4 Shri D. Ramesh (A.P.),
5 Shri A. Abhishek Reddy (Telangana),
6 Shri N. Jayasurya (A.P.) and
7 Shri K. Lakshman (Telangana)

On the basis of interaction, material on record and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ. is of the considered view that S/Shri (1) R. Raghunandan Rao, (2) T. Vinod Kumar, (3) Battu Devanand, (4) D. Ramesh, (5) A. Abhishek Reddy, (6) N. Jayasurya and (7) K. Lakshman are suitable for being elevated to the High Court Bench.

Therefore, in view of the above, the Collegium resolves to recommend that:

(i) S/Shri (1) R. Raghunandan Rao, (2) Battu Devanand, (3) D. Ramesh and (4) N. Jayasurya be appointed as Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the existing practice; and

(ii) S/Shri (1) T. Vinod Kumar, (2) A. Abhishek Reddy and (3) K. Lakshman be appointed as Judges of the Telangana High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the existing practice.


[Collegium Resolution dt. 25-07-2019]

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for appointment of 8 Advocates, as Judges of the Punjab & Haryana High Court:

1. Shri Jasgurpreet Singh Puri,
2. Shri Suvir Sehgal,
3. Shri Girish Agnihotri,
4. Mrs. Alka Sarin,
5. Shri Inder Pal Singh Doabia,
6. Shri Kamal Sehgal,
7. Shri Puneet Bali and
8. Shri Vikas Bahl

On the basis of interaction, material on record and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ. is of the considered view that S/Shri (1) Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, (2) Suvir Sehgal, (3) Girish Agnihotri, (4) Mrs. Alka Sarin, and (5) Kamal Sehgal are suitable for being appointed as Judges of the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

As regards S/Shri (1) Puneet Bali and (2) Vikas Bahl (mentioned at Sl. Nos.7 and 8 above), the Collegium is of the considered view that consideration of the proposal for their elevation deserves to be deferred. Collegium was also of the view that  Shri Inder Pal Singh Doabia deserves to be remitted to the High Court.

Therefore, the Collegium resolves to recommend that S/Shri (1) Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, (2) Suvir Sehgal, (3) Girish Agnihotri, (4) Mrs. Alka Sarin, and (5) Kamal Sehgal, Advocates be appointed as Judges of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. 


[Collegium Resolution dt. 25-07-2019]

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for appointment of following 9 Advocates, as Judges of the Karnataka High Court:

1. Shri Savanur Vishwajith Shetty
2. Shri Singapuram Raghavachar Krishna Kumar
3. Shri Maralur Indrakumar Arun
4. Shri Mohammed Ghouse Shukure Kamal
5. Shri Ashok Subhashchandra Kinagi
6. Shri Govindaraj Suraj
7. Shri Engalaguppe Seetharamaiah Indiresh
8. Shri Sachin Shankar Magadum
9. Smt. Bangalore Vasudevaiah Vidyulatha

As regards Smt. Bangalore Vasudevaiah Vidyulatha (mentioned at Sl. No. 9 above) having regard to all relevant factors and the material placed in the file, the Collegium is of the considered view that the proposal for her elevation deserves to be remitted to the Karnataka High Court. The Collegium resolves to recommend accordingly.

In view of the above, the Collegium resolves to recommend that S/Shri (1) Savanur Vishwajith Shetty, (2) Singapuram Raghavachar Krishna Kumar, (3) Maralur Indrakumar Arun, (4) Mohammed Ghouse Shukure Kamal, (5) Ashok Subhashchandra Kinagi, (6) Govindaraj Suraj, (7) Engalaguppe Seetharamaiah Indiresh, and (8) Sachin Shankar Magadum, Advocates be appointed as Judges of the Karnataka High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the existing practice.

Collegium Resolution

[Dated: 25-03-2019]

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for appointment as Judges of Bombay High Court was made for 10 Advocates, namely:

1. Shri Avinash G. Gharote
2. Shri N.B. Suryawanshi
3. Shri Avinash S. Deshmukh
4. Ms. Manjari Dhanesh Shah
5. Shri J.R. Shah
6. Shri Madhav Jamdar
7. Shri Anil Kilor
8. Shri Abhay Kumar Ahuja
9. Shri Devidas Pangam
10. Shri Milind Narendra Jadhav

On the basis of interaction and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that S/Shri (1) Avinash G. Gharote, (2) N.B. Suryawanshi, (3) Madhav Jamdar, (4) Anil Kilor, and (5) Milind Narendra Jadhav (mentioned at Sl. Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7 and 10 above) are suitable for being appointed as Judges of the Bombay High Court.

As regards S/Shri (1) Avinash S. Deshmukh, (2) Ms. Manjari Dhanesh Shah, (3) J.R. Shah, and (4) Devidas Pangam, (mentioned at
Sl. Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 9 above) having regard to all relevant factors and the material placed in the file, the Collegium is of the considered view that the proposal for their elevation deserves to be remitted to the Bombay High Court.

As regards Shri Abhay Kumar Ahuja (mentioned at Sl. No.8 above), consideration of the proposal for his elevation is deferred for being taken up on receipt of certain information from the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court. In view of the above, the Collegium resolves to recommend that S/Shri (1) Avinash G. Gharote, (2) N.B. Suryawanshi, (3) Madhav Jamdar, (4) Anil Kilor, and (5) Milind Narendra Jadhav, Advocates be appointed as Judges of the Bombay High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the existing practice.

Collegium Resolutions

Dated: 25-03-2019

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ., recommends for the appointment of following three Advocates, as Judges of the Kerala High Court:

1.  Conrad Stansilaus Dias
2. Mohammed Nias C.P.
3. Paul K.K.

Collegium stated in regard to the above names stated that,

“For purpose of assessing merit and suitability of the above-named recommendees for elevation to the High Court, we have carefully scrutinized the material placed in the file including the observations made by the Department of Justice therein. Apart from this, we considered it appropriate to have interaction with all the recommendees. On the basis of interaction and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that S/Shri (1) Conrad Stansilaus Dias, (2) Mohammed Nias C.P., and (3) Paul K.K., are suitable for being appointed as Judges of the Kerala High Court.”

In view of the above, the Collegium resolves to recommend that S/Shri (1) Conrad Stansilaus Dias, (2) Mohammed Nias C.P., and (3) Paul K.K., Advocates, be appointed as Judges of the Kerala High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the existing practice.

[Dated 25-03-2019]

Collegium Resolution

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The 3-judge Bench comprising of CJ Dipak Misra and A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ., dismissed the petition filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay seeking ban on legislators practising as advocates.

The petitioner, in his plea, claimed that the parliamentarians and legislators, practising as lawyers, posed a conflict of interest and violated the provisions of the Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India Rules. Furthermore, such legislators take a fee from litigants and salary from the public exchequer, which is professional misconduct.

However, the Supreme Court stated that there is no rule that debars lawmakers from practising in the Courts. Court takes note of stand of Bar Council of India (BCI). Therefore, the Court held that Rule 49 is not applicable to law makers who are not full-time salaried employees.

[Source: https://twitter.com/TheLeaflet_in]

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Dipak Misra, CJ and AM Khanwilkar and Dr. DY Chandrachud, JJ asked chief justices or acting chief justices of all high courts to set up anti-sexual harassment committees in courts across the country within two months in accordance with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by a practising woman advocate who alleged that she had been assaulted by some lawyers observing a strike at the Tis Hazari district court complex. Asking the crime branch of Delhi Police to investigate the cross complaints filed by the lawyers, the Bench asked the woman lawyer and the Bar leaders to amicably settle their disputes and directed that advocates from both sides should not be arrested in connection with the two cross FIRs filed by them against each other.

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 requires every workplace to set up committees to probe sexual harassment complaints.

Source: PTI

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the Entry Tax matter listed before a 9-judge bench of the Court, all the Advocates appearing in these matters are asked to file their respective submissions/compilations to Mr. Harish Salve, Ld. Senior Advocate as well as the Court as per the directions given via the order (2016 SCC OnLine SC 556) dated 11.05.2016 .  The matters will be listed before the bench in the week commencing 18.07.2016.

In the aforementioned order, the bench of T.S. Thakur, CJ and R. Banumati and U.U. Lalit, JJ had refused to entertain the interim applications and had said that the matter should be finally heard in the month of July, 2016. The Court had also made clear that none of the counsel shall be permitted to seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for hearing. The Court had permitted Mr. Harish N. Salve to file a common comprehensive compilation of all submissions on each one of the questions that have been referred for determination by the larger Bench. This would include suggestions which other counsel appearing in the connected matters may have to make including citing the decided cases relied upon by them or any additional facets that they may like to project in support of their cases. [Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. State of Haryana, Civil Appeal No. 3453 of 2002, notice dated 20.06.2016]