Supreme Court Observer

☀️ Good morning! In today’s edition of *Know Your Court*, let’s explore the different types of petitions that are filed before the Supreme Court. 👩‍⚖ *Writ Petition* A writ petition is filed when a person feels that their fundamental rights have been violated. The writ petition seeks a formal order or a ‘writ’ by the Court to enforce their fundamental rights. Petitioners can directly approach the Supreme Court or High Courts seeking the issuance of a writ. (https://bit.ly/3HQ7Ysd) ✉ *Letter Petition* Sometimes, a claimant may be unable to approach the Supreme Court due to social, economic or other reasons. In such a case, the Supreme Court accepts letters from people seeking to enforce their fundamental rights. If the letter conveys a plea on a valid issue, the Court will take up the case without the claimant having to formally file a case. ⚖️ *Suo Moto Petition* In some instances, the Supreme Court, by itself, may recognise that a violation of fundamental rights has occurred. The aggrieved persons in such cases may be unable to approach the Court due to a number of reasons. In cases like these, the Court may issue a writ for the enforcement of fundamental rights without a claimant approaching the Court. In 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the SC _suo moto_ or by it’s own volition took up the issue of overcrowding in prisons and issued directions to contain the pandemic. (https://bit.ly/3hLGjhe) 🪜 *Special Leave Petition* When a party does not agree with a Judgment delivered by a High Court, they can appeal against the High Court’s decision at the Supreme Court. This is usually done after the High Court grants a ‘certificate of fitness’ for appeal. However, High Courts may refuse to grant the certificate in some cases. Here, the dissatisfied party can directly approach the SC seeking ‘Special Leave’, to file the case anyway. Ms. Zakia Jafri’s challenge against the Special Investigation Team report in the Gujarat Riots case was filed as a Special Leave Petition. (https://bit.ly/3WmZVaD) ❓ *Review Petition* The SC is the highest Court in the land. So what happens when you do not agree with an Order or Judgment delivered by the SC? In cases like this, the SC allows parties to such cases to file a Review Petition against its own Judgments or Orders. If the petition is accepted, the SC’s earlier decision can be reversed or modified. A review petition was filed against the SC’s decision to allow women of ‘menstruating age’ to enter the Sabarimala temple in 2018. (https://bit.ly/3GbiM2C) This list contains a few of the many types of petition at the Supreme Court. Read SCO’s Supreme Court Procedure page for more. Write to us and tell us what you would like to read next!

☀️ Good Morning! Today, as a part of our *Know Your Court* series, let’s discuss how cases reach the Supreme Court. (Learn more: https://bit.ly/3FDl2yg) 📄 When a case is first filed, the Supreme Court Registry examines them for procedural and technical defects. This may end in one of two ways. If the registry does not find any defects, the case is registered. However, if some defects are identified the case is identified as ‘unregistered’ and the filing party is given an opportunity to ‘cure’ or fix the defects. 👩🏾‍⚖️ Registered cases enter the ‘admission stage’. On Mondays and Fridays, the SC conducts short hearings to decide whether the cases are worth the Court’s time. The Court examines if there is a substantial question of law that it must look into. (https://bit.ly/3hDvwWq) These hearings typically last for a few minutes. If they decide to ‘admit’ the case after this short hearing, it moves on to the ‘regular’ hearing stage. Pending cases on the Court’s docket are largely a result of cases that are still in the admission stage. Most cases do not make it past the admission stage at the Supreme Court. (https://bit.ly/3YFiuIA) 🗣️ Regular hearings are typically conducted on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. All the parties are heard at length during this stage, and the Bench delivers a final Judgment based on the merits of the arguments and written submissions. Read about how cases are admitted in detail here: https://bit.ly/3HVzWm6 Is there something about the Supreme Court you would like to learn more about? Drop a text and let us know!

☀️ Good morning! Here are SCO’s must-reads for the day, 📄 On December 16th, a Bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar dismissed a plea filed by activist Anjali Bharadwaj, who requested details about a 2018 Collegium meeting under the Right to Information Act, 2005. However, the Bench dismissed the plea stating that the discussions between Collegium members are not required to be disclosed under the RTI Act. The Supreme Court Collegium was only bound to inform the public of their final decisions through resolutions. How has the Court treated RTI applications in recent years and what reasons do they fall back on when they are rejected? (https://bit.ly/3jd5FFj) 📊 This plea was dismissed on the SC’s final working day of 2022 their two-week winter vacation. Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju has criticised the Court for taking long vacations when there is a mounting pending caseload on the SC’s docket. However, former SC Judges have claimed that the vacation period is often critical, as Judges research and write Judgments during this time. Does the data on the number of Judgments delivered after the vacation support this claim? (https://bit.ly/3Way8di) 📰 Have you subscribed to SCO's Desk Briefs yet? Join our 11,000 newsletter subscribers for analysis on the Court’s activities and institutional developments in 2022. Sign up here! (https://bit.ly/3SMjxml).

☀️Good Morning! The Supreme Court will wrap up the year today, and begin its two week winter vacation. ⚡️ 2022 has been a significant year at the SC with three Chief Justices, big institutional changes, Constitution Benches and more. 🔟 Stay tuned to Supreme Court Observer for our yearly review! We will be discussing the top 10 judgements of the year, analyse the court in numbers and tell you stories of cases that affected our lives. 📹 Subscribe to our YouTube channel for explainers of the top judgements delivered this year. https://bit.ly/3RkL39u 📰 Join our 11,000 newsletter subscribers for analysis on the Court’s activities and institutional developments in 2022. https://bit.ly/3SMjxml 💻 And of course, Visit scobserver.in for comprehensive case dockets, judge profiles, analysis, Court data and more!

☀️ Good morning! Here are SCO's must-reads for the day. 💸 Today, a Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna is expected to hear the challenges to the Union's 2018 electoral bonds scheme. The Association For Democratic Reforms, one of the petitioners, claims that the scheme facilitates anonymous political donations from corporations, rather than individuals. Read SCO's background of the case. (https://bit.ly/3PxviNg) 👨🏾‍⚖️ On December 12th, the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the names of five Judges for appointment at the SC. All five Judges were directly appointed as High Court Judges and did not serve in the Subordinate Judiciary. This furthers a trend with the Collegium, which has rarely elevated Judges who have served in the Subordinate Judiciary. Only 4.4% of SC Judges since the establishment of the Collegium in 1993 served as Lower Court Judges and currently, only Justice Bela M. Trivedi fits this profile. Read more about the typical SC Judge’s career path. (https://bit.ly/3iXb8jn) ▶️ SCO is on YouTube! Subscribe to receive video updates on the Supreme Court. (https://bit.ly/3LNNiRk)

✨ Good Morning! Justice Dipankar Datta took oath as a Judge at the Supreme Court on December 12th 2022. He is expected to serve close to 8 years at the SC, till his retirement in February 2030. 🖋️ In September 2022, the Collegium led by Former CJI U.U. Lalit recommended Justice Datta’s name to the Union Government. On December 11th, the Union approved the appointment. Yesterday Justice Datta was sworn in. How are SC Judges appointed? Read here (https://bit.ly/3PqYgOM) 📈 Justice Datta’s expected 8 year tenure is significantly higher than the average tenure of Judges. The average tenure of Judges since 1950 is 5.37 years. Earlier this year, Justice Nageswara Rao stated that SC Judge tenures should be at least 7-8 years long. In his retirement speech at the end of a 6 year tenure, he stated that it is critical for an SC judge to serve a long tenure in order to to contribute meaningfully to the Court. Read more about the average tenure of Judges so far (https://bit.ly/3hgRpe5). 🪑 With Justice Datta’s appointment, the SC has 28 sitting Judges, out of a sanctioned strength of 34 Judges. In August 2021, the strength of the Supreme Court increased to an unprecedented 33 judges which is the highest occupancy the Court has ever seen. Why does this matter? With 69,598 cases pending at the SC, it has been more important than ever to have a fully functional court. With 8 retirements coming up in 2023, the Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud-led Collegium has their work cut out for them.

☕ Good morning! Here are SCO's updates for the day. 💉 Today, the SC will hear a petition challenging the validity of the ban on donating blood imposed on transgender persons, men who have sex with men and female sex workers. The challenge claims that imposing a ban purely based on sexual identity and sexual orientation is unscientific, arbitrary and discriminatory. The case was listed on November 18th, 2022, but saw no progress as the Union was yet to appoint an advocate to represent them. Read more about the background of th case here: (https://bit.ly/3PhAFzL) 👨‍⚖ On Saturday, the Union cleared Justice Dipankar Datta’s elevation to the Supreme Court. Justice Datta, previously the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court was recommended for elevation to the SC by the CJI Lalit-led Collegium 2.5 months ago. Recent friction between the Union and the Collegium has once more highlighted the conflict over the Judge appointment process. Read more about the appointment of SC Judges here: (https://bit.ly/3FDZ4vh) 📩 Have you subscribed to SCO Desk Briefs yet? We send discussions on the most important developments at the Supreme Court straight to your inbox. Sign up here! (https://bit.ly/3ruI7fO)

☀️ Good morning! Here are SCO's updates for the day. 🐂 A Bench led by Justice K.M. Joseph reserved Judgment in the challenges to customary bill fighting on Thursday. 👨🏻‍⚖ Jallikattu is a bull taming sport common in Tamil Nadu. Similar sports are prevalent in other parts of the country as well. In May 2014, a Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, in Animal Welfare Board of India v A. Nagaraja, banned the use of bulls for Jallikattu events in the state, and bullock cart races across the country. The Court found that the sports amount to cruelty against animals. ⏭️On January 7th, 2016, Union issued a notification directing the States to comply with the A. Nagaraja Judgment. However, the notification allowed Jallikattu to be practiced while imposing certain restrictions to accommodate animal rights concerns. Animal rights activists from across the country challenged the notification at the Supreme Court in 2016. ❓ *What do the activists argue?* Animal rights organisations argue that the Union's notification, and subsequent rules framed by various state governments allowing bull sports, violate the SC's Judgement in Nagaraj. ❔ *What do the Union and States say?* The States argue that the Nagaraj decision was incorrect-it did not consider relevant facts about the sports. They argue that bull fighting is an ancient cultural sport, protected by Article 29, which promotes the practice of breeding bulls and ensures their survival. The Court's decision in this case is expected early next year, after the winter vacation. To find out more, visit SCO's case archive. (https://bit.ly/3XUnKYs)

☀️ Good morning! Here are SCO's must-reads for the day. 🐂☀️ Good morning! Here are SCO’s updates for the day. 🐃 A Justice K.M. Joseph-led Constitution Bench reserved Judgment in the challenge to the Jallikattu practice yesterday. In the course of final hearings, animal rights activists and organisations argued that bull racing and fighting sports amount to animal cruelty, violating the creature's right to dignity. The Union and States, on the other hand, argued that Jallikattu is a cultural right, protected by Article 29 of the Constitution. It must be allowed to continue with due precautions. Read more: (https://bit.ly/3XUnKYs) 👨🏻‍⚖ Conflict continues between the Union and the Supreme Court over the Collegium's recommendations for appointments to various High Courts. Yesterday, a Bench led by Justice S.K. Kaul advised the Attorney General to caution government officials to limit criticism of the collegium system. This comment comes close on the heels of Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar's criticism of the Court's decision to reject the NJAC system of appointments in favor of the Collegium system in 2015. A long history of Union-SC tensions surround the Collegium system of appointments. Why is the system controversial? What is NJAC? What forms the current conflict? Watch SCO's explainer to find out. (https://bit.ly/3OLnWFo) 🔊 We're hiring! If you are passionate about producing crisp, accessible journalism on the SC, apply to work with us. (https://bit.ly/3OIsBb4)

☕ Good morning! Here are SCO's updates for the day. 💸 Yesterday, the SC concluded hearing arguments in the Demonetisation Challenges and reserved Judgment. (https://bit.ly/3DKRyNS) *What did the petitioners seek?* 1. A prospective overruling which will prevent the Union from making similar future decisions in what they claim is an unreasonable manner. 2. To allow citizens who possess legitimately earned demonetised currency notes to exchange them for legal tender. *What did the Union and RBI say?* 1. The Union claims that they acted in a valid and reasonable manner. They applied their mind, relied on relevant information, and achieved the objectives sought by demonetisation. 2. The RBI claims it will be difficult to allow everyone to exchange their old notes and to distinguish between genuine and fraudulent cases. However, the RBI is willing to allow the exchange of notes for genuine applicants who approach the Supreme Court seeking relief. ✉ Interestingly, the Union and the RBI have not revealed records of their deliberations leading up to the 2016 Demonetisation notification despite the Court and petitioners insistence. Yesterday, Justice Abdul Nazeer suggested that the Union submit these records in a 'sealed cover' if desired. Any information submitted in this manner will not be revealed to the public or even the opposing parties in the case. What are the concerns surrounding the practice is sealed cover submissions? (https://bit.ly/3VGneMb)

☀️ Good morning! Here are SCO’s updates for the day. 💸 Today, the Justice Abdul Nazeer-led Constitution Bench is expected to conclude hearing arguments in the Demonetisation Challenge. In the previous hearings, the Bench heard arguments on the effectiveness of the demonetisation policy, if the scheme was carried out in a reasonable manner, and if the RBI and the Union followed due procedure. Read SCO’s case archive for the background of the case and for detailed hearing reports: (https://bit.ly/3DKRyNS) 🐃 A Justice K.M. Joseph-led Constitution Bench will continue hearing arguments in the challenge to the Jallikattu practice today. The Tamil Nadu government claims that Jallikattu must be protected as a cultural right under Article 29. Animal rights activists, however, claim that the practice is harmful to bulls. Read more: (https://bit.ly/3XUnKYs) 📩 Have you subscribed to SCO Desk Briefs yet? We send discussions on the most important developments at the Supreme Court straight to your inbox. Sign up here! (https://bit.ly/3ruI7fO)

☀️ Good morning! Yesterday, the SC pronounced Judgment in a case concerning summoning new accused persons during criminal trials. The 5-Judge Constitution Bench was faced with an interesting question. If at the end of a trial, the Court realises that more persons must be investigated, can the Court make them a part of the already completed trial? 🔏 *Background* On October 31st, 2017, a Trial Court in Punjab delivered a Judgment against 11 persons in a criminal investigation. However, after the Court gave its verdict, it summoned 5 more persons to be investigated in the same case. The challenges against the summons ultimately reached a Constitution Bench in 2019, which was expected to decide how to deal with such cases in the future. (https://bit.ly/3XX6TEx) For a Court to pronounce Judgment for or against a person, it must first lay the accusations against such persons before them and allow them a chance to defend themselves. This ensures that the trial is conducted in a fair manner and innocent persons are not unduly punished. If new persons are summoned for inquiry in an already concluded trial, they will be denied this right. ❓ The Bench was faced with the following questions: 1. Can a Trial Court summon new accused persons after the trial has concluded? 2. When will a trial be considered as concluded and up to which stage can new accused persons be summoned in the trial? 3. If a trial has been split because some accused in a case are absconding and the trial is concluded against the physically present accused, can new persons be summoned for inquiry in the second trial? 📃 *Judgment* The Bench ruled that accused persons can be made a part of a trial only before its conclusion. However, the conclusion of a case depends on the Judgment of the Trial Court. If the accused are acquitted, then the trial will conclude after Judgment is pronounced. However, if the accused are convicted, then the trial will not conclude until the punishment of the convicts is decided. In case a trial has been split against certain absconding accused, new accused may be summoned in one of the separated trials only based on evidence collected in that specific trial. Further, the summons will have to be issued before the conclusion of the trial. (https://bit.ly/3OZLjv4)

☀️ Good morning! Here are SCO's must-reads for the day. A Constitution Bench led by Justice Abdul Nazeer will continue hearing challenges to the validity of the Union Government's 2016 demonetisation scheme today. Here, the Court will decide if the RBI and the Union followed proper procedure and considered all relevant factors before announcing demonetisation. The case will also determine the scope of the Union's power to implement such a drastic scheme. (https://bit.ly/3XEYipI) ❓What have those challenging the scheme argued so far? Last week, Sr. Adv. and former Finance Minister P. Chidambaram argued that Union’s demonetisation policy had false and unachievable objectives and that the Union did not have the power to implement the scheme. Mr. Chidambaram contended that the policy was deeply flawed and had far-reaching and dire consequences on the country. Read more: (http://bit.ly/3VkopAE) Sr. Adv. Shyam Divan argued that it was important to have guard rails to check the government's power to make big financial policy decisions. He further stated that the demonetisation scheme violates the right to equality and dignity. (http://bit.ly/3AKcLqH) ⏭️The Union's defence of the scheme will unfold this week. Stay tuned for more!

☀️ Good morning! Here are SCO’s updates for the day. 🐃 Yesterday, a Justice K.M. Joseph-led Constitution Bench continued hearing arguments in the challenge to the practice of Jallikattu. Sr. Adv. Kapil Sibal, on behalf of the Tamil Nadu government, argued that the 2017 Amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, prevented unnecessary pain and suffering to bulls. He also claimed that the challenges to the practice were unfounded and not based on ground-level investigations. Read more about the arguments here: (https://bit.ly/3XUnKYs) 🌱 The debate over Genetically Modified (GM) mustard also continued at the Supreme Court. Adv. Prashant Bhushan, arguing against the approval for GM mustard, argued that the crop potentially posed serious dangers to the environment. These dangers include increased toxicity in the plant making it harmful for consumption. Further, it could also be harmful for honeybees which are crucial for cross-pollination. Attorney General R. Venktaramani, arguing for the Union, claimed that the challenges were based on a disagreement among scientists and that there was more than one opinion on the topic. Watch SCO Daily to find out more: (https://bit.ly/3EU52rr) 🔊 We're hiring! If you are passionate about producing crisp, accessible journalism on the SC, apply to work with us. (https://bit.ly/3OIsBb4)

✨Good morning! 🐃 Yesterday, a 5-Judge Bench of the SC began hearing the Union and States’ arguments on the constitutionality of Jallikattu. (https://bit.ly/3ujtBsJ) 🩸 Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the State of Tamil Nadu. He argued that the current regime governing Jallikattu ensured that the bull was not subjected to 'unnecessary' pain and suffering. 📖 Mr. Sibal said that the duty owed to an animal not to cause pain and suffering is distinct from the 'right' of an animal to be treated well. Rights have to be granted by the Constitution or an Act. 🧐 He then directed his focus to the legitimacy of the petitioners’ claim. He argued that they have relied on a report submitted by PETA in 2020 which relies on news reports. He argued that they had not conducted any ground research. 📄 More importantly, he argued that the petitioners had not considered the changes brought about by the 2017 Tamil Nadu Amendment to the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The amendment adds several safeguards to ensure the animals are treated ethically. ⏱️ The Bench appears to want to complete hearings in this case at the earliest. Hearings will continue and are expected to conclude on December 6th, 2022 (Tuesday).

☀️ Good morning! The Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments from the Union and State governments on the constitutionality of the bull-taming sport 'Jallikattu' today. 🐂 *What is Jallikattu?* Jallikattu is a bull-taming sport practiced primarily in Tamil Nadu around the time of the Pongal festival. Crowds are formed around bulls and participants attempt to grab the hump on the bull's back and hold on while the bull attempts to buck them off. Forms of the practice can be traced back nearly 2000 years. 👨🏾‍⚖️ *What has the Supreme Court held?* In May 2014 the Supreme Court held that Jallikattu ran afoul of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (PCA Act). According to Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and P.C. Ghose, the practice met the standards for 'cruelty' under Section 11, and resulted in a failure of the duty placed on animal caregivers to prevent unnecessary pain and suffering under Section 3. In 2015, the Court dismissed a petition seeking a review of the 2014 Judgment filed by the Tamil Nadu government. 📄 *Why is the case being heard again?* In January 2016 the Union government issued a notification allowing Jallikattu subject to certain restrictions to account for animal rights concerns. A year later, in January 2017, the Tamil Nadu Legislature enacted an amendment to the PCA Act which framed rules permitting the sport as well. Multiple organisations, including the Animal Welfare Board of India and the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) who were a part of the earlier SC challenge, opposed the amendment and the notification at the SC. 🗣️ *What is the petitioner's stance?* The petitioners claim that the Tamil Nadu amendment is a clear attempt to circumvent the SC's 2014 decision barring Jallikattu. Further, they claim that the State Legislature does not have the power to amend and introduce rules under the PCA Act. 🏢 *What is the Tamil Nadu government's stance?* The Tamil Nadu government claims the Court must recognise that the sport has constitutional protection as a cultural right under Article 29 of the Constitution of India, 1950. Further, they claim that the sport fosters the breeding and rearing certain native species of bull whose survival would be thrown into question if the sport were banned. ⚖️ *What is the current situation?* In February 2018 the Supreme Court referred the case the case to a 5-Judge Constitution Bench to decide if Jallikattu could be protected as a cultural right under Article 29 and if States have the power to amend and enact rules under the PCA Act. The Justice K.M. Joseph-led Constitution Bench began hearing final arguments in the case on Tuesday (November 29th) and finished hearing the petitioners submissions yesterday. Today, the State and the Union government are expected to begin presenting their arguments. Read SCO's background of the case to learn more and to keep up with all the latest developments. (https://bit.ly/3Fg9jXk)

☀️Good Morning! Here are SCO’s updates for the day. 🌿 Today, a Supreme Court Bench led by Justice Dinesh Maheshwari will hear applications by activist Aruna Rodrigues challenging the the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change’s approval for commercial cultivation of Genetically Modified (GM) Mustard. This was the first GM crop to receive approval in nearly 20 years. However, experts and environmental activists claimed that the approval was granted without a thorough assessment of the biosafety hazards posed by GM Mustard. Watch SCO Daily to know more about the developments so far. (https://youtu.be/gZ8NcyFXdvc) 👨🏾‍⚖️ On November 24th, Justice KM Joseph led Constitution Bench concluded hearing the challenge to the Executive’s power to appoint members of the Election Commission of India (ECI). The Court took issue with Mr. Arun Goel's appointment as the Election Commissioner while the hearings is the case were still being conducted. Read SCO’s detailed report of the hearing here (https://bit.ly/3FdKSdn) 🔊 We're hiring! If you are passionate about producing crisp, accessible journalism on the SC, apply to work with us. (https://bit.ly/3OIsBb4)

☀️ Good morning! Here are SCO's must-reads for the day. 🐂 A Constitution Bench led by Justice K.M. Joseph will begin final hearings in challenges to Tamil Nadu's bull taming sport, Jallikattu. The Court will decide if the sport is a cultural right and hence protected from government and judicial interference under Article 29 of the Constitution. (https://bit.ly/3AOGmPB) 👨🏻‍⚖ Conflict continues between the Union and the Supreme Court over the Collegium's recommendations for appointments to various High Courts. Yesterday, Justice S.K. Kaul came down heavily against Law Minister Kiren Rijiju's comments criticising the Court for asking the Union to clear recommended names in a timely fashion. A long history of Union-SC tensions surround the Collegium system of appointments. Why is the system controversial? What forms the current conflict? Watch SCO's explainer to find out. (https://bit.ly/3OLnWFo) 🔊 We're hiring! If you are passionate about producing crisp, accessible journalism on the SC, apply to work with us. (https://bit.ly/3OIsBb4)

☀️Good Morning and happy Monday! Three Constitution Bench cases are expected to be heard this week, here is SCO’s list and case summary for each! 💪🏽 Chief Justice Chandrachud’s Bench will begin hearing a case that arose from the Maharashtra political crisis that unfurled in June this year. The battle for control between the two Shiv Sena factions ultimately raised key questions on how defection law would apply to intra-party splits. Read more here (https://bit.ly/3APkbJp) 🪑 22 years ago, Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain challenged Article 334 of the Constitution at the SC, which grants reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and the Anglo-Indian Community in the Lok Sabha and State Legislatures. Originally, the reservations were only meant to be provided for 10 years. The Article has been amended seven times since 1969 and reservations for these groups were extended by 10 more years each time, except for the last instance in January 2020 when reservations for Anglo-Indians were discontinued. Mr. Jain challenged the fifth extension enacted in 2000 arguing that it infringes on the democratic right to freely choose who to vote for in elections. Chief Justice Chandrachud’s Bench will hear this case as well. (https://bit.ly/3u5cFWR) 🐃 Since the 2006 ban of the bull-taming sport of Jallikattu from Tamil Nadu by the Madras HC, the case has raised questions on how the Court must balance the right to life of animals with the cultural rights of a community. A 5-Judge Bench led by Justice K.M. Joseph is set to hear the case. Visit scobserver.in for more updates on the Supreme Court!

☀️ Good morning! Here are SCO’s updates for the day. 💸 Yesterday, a Justice Abdul Nazeer-led Constitution Bench continued hearing the arguments in the challenges to the Union’s 2016 Demonetisation Scheme. In the morning session, Sr. Adv. Shyam Divan argued on behalf of an NRI petitioner. He addressed the importance of having guardrails for major policy decisions and argued that the demonetisation scheme violated the rights to equality and dignity. Read more about the hearings here: (http://bit.ly/3AKcLqH) 📃 On Thursday, Sr. Adv. and former Finance Minister P. Chidambaram argued that Union’s demonetisation policy had false and unachievable objectives and that the Union did not have the power to implement the scheme. The Union claims that demonetisation was carried out to eliminate black money and fake currency, and to curb terrorism and drug related activities. Mr. Chidambaram contended that the policy was deeply flawed and had far-reaching and dire consequences on the country. Read more: (http://bit.ly/3VkopAE) 📩 Have you subscribed to SCO Desk Briefs yet? We send discussions on the most important developments at the Supreme Court straight to your inbox. Sign up here! (https://bit.ly/3ruI7fO)