What made headlines in the Supreme Court of India?
1. The Supreme Court issued notice in an appeal filed by Delhi Police, against the Delhi High Court order granting bail to accused Asif Iqbal Tanha, Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in the Delhi Riots case. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the bench to stay order of the High Court on the pretext that it would serve as a precedent and people would knock the doors of the Judiciary citing the judgement of the High Court. SGI Mehta took Court through the Judgement stating that the High Court had said that the right to protest cannot be termed as a “terrorist act”, but these accused were responsible for killing many people and the right to protest does not allow one to kill people.
Bench: Justices Hemant Gupta and V Ramasubramanian
Case Title: State of NCT Delhi Vs. Devangana Kalita
2. Supreme Court judge, Justice Indira Banerjee has recused from hearing the pleas seeking an SIT/CBI’s probe into the death of 2 BJP Activist(s) Avijit Sarkar & booth worker Haran Adhikari & other large scale incidents of violence unleashed allegedly, at the behest of All India Trinamool Congress supporters. The matter was listed before the vacation bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and MR Shah, however when the same was called out, Justice Banerjee said, “I have some difficulty. I cannot hear this matter”.
Bench: Justices Indira Banerjee & MR Shah
Case Title: Biswajit Sarkar & Anr v. Union of India
3. Two intervention applications have been moved before Supreme Court by rape and assault victims seeking investigation into the incidents of assault and rape, post West Bengal election results. While the minor aged 17 has alleged that she was gangraped solely because of her father's political affiliations & religious beliefs, a 60 year old widow has claimed that she was assaulted & raped in the presence of her 6 year old grandson.
Case Title: Biswajit Sarkar & Anr v. Union of India & Anr
4. Supreme Court judge, Justice MR Shah took strong objection over a Senior Advocate seeking adjournment due to personal difficulty in the matter pertaining to temporary suspension of Asharam Bapu’s sentence on medical grounds. He added that though the adjournment letter had mentioned that the counsel had a personal difficulty, it was later stated that the lawyer was to appear before Calcutta High Court. "Supreme Court must be the 1st priority," he said.
5. The Supreme Court refused to stay demolition of 10000 residential constructions that had come up at Lakkarpur-Khori village in Aravali forest area. Its time to let the forests be rejuvenated, said the Court in the plea which sought for directing the authorities to follow rehabilitation procedure before conducting any demolition drive observed that court’s indulgence was not required in the prayers sought by similarly placed persons.
Bench: Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
Case Title: Municipal Corporation Faridabad Vs. Khori Gaon Residents Welfare Association (Regd.) Thr Its President
6. Supreme Court has asked the petitioner’s counsel to serve the copy of the plea seeking cancellation of Class XIIth State Board exams to the standing counsel of the States (Punjab, Tripura, Assam and Andhra Pradesh) which are yet to cancel the exam. The bench, while taking note of the fact that out of 28 states, 6 states have conducted the exam, 18 states have cancelled the exam and 4 states are yet to cancel the exam have adjourned the matter to June 21, 2021.
Bench: Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
Case Title: Anubha Shrivastava Sahai and Ors v Union of India & Ors.
7. Supreme Court has accepted the decision taken by the CBSE and ICSE with regards to the well defined objective criteria that has been formulated to assess the performance of the class XIIth board candidates.
Bench: Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
Case Title: Mamta Sharma Vs. CBSE & Ors.
What were important developments at High Courts and other courts of India?
1. The Calcutta High Court ordered the chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to constitute a committee to examine complaints by persons displaced by post poll violence in West Bengal as that resulted in human rights violations and loss of lives and property. Court took note of the fact that the state government had been denying all incidents of violence from the beginning, however, the report which has been put forth by the West Bengal Legal Services Authority suggests that violence that there is glaring evidence to suggest that violent incidents did take place after the polls.
2. The Allahabad High Court dismissed a PIL seeking directions to State authorities to dispose of dead bodies lying on the banks of Ganga in Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh."Why should the State do that? If there is a death in a family, is it state's responsibility," the Court questioned the petitioner.
3. The Allahabad High Court recently, directed the Uttar Pradesh government to strictly implement its policy of paying Rs 25,000 in compensation to a person who has been illegally detained, and to initiate disciplinary action against erring officials.
4. The Delhi High Court granted bail to Jamia Milia Islamia student Asif Iqbal Tanha accused under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly playing an active role in the Delhi riots of February 2020.
5. The Delhi High Court granted bail to Natasha Narwal and Devangana Kalita accused under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in the North East Delhi Riots case.
6. The Bombay High court has asked the state and central government to create a need based dynamic mechanism for availability of Amphotericin B, the drug which is used to treat mucormycosis for the State of Maharashtra.
7. The Bombay High Court was informed that the State Government has agreed to open up the CoWIN portal for booking vaccine slots at a fixed time as opposed to registration slots opening up at any time of the day for the residents in Maharashtra.
