Supreme Court Observer

☕ Good Morning! 📣 Today, the plea for marriage equality of LGBTQIA+ couples will not be heard by the CJI-led Constitution Bench due to the unavailability of Justices S.K. Kaul and S.R. Bhat. 🗣️ Last week however, the Bench began hearing this case which has over 20 petitioners. Sr. Advs. Mukul Rohatgi, A.M. Singhvi, Raju Ramachandran and K.V. Viswanathan argued for the petitioners. They not only presented arguments for marriage equality on constitutional grounds but also countered some of the claims made in the Unions's affidavit against queer marriages. The Union had opposed same-sex and other queer marriages as being urban-elitist ideas that pose a threat to procreation of children amongst other things. (https://bit.ly/3oyKWOS) ⌚ The Bench decided to limit the amount of time granted to the parties for arguments to be made. The petitioners initially asked for 33 hours altogether to argue their side of the case. However, the Bench granted them less than half this time to complete their arguments. Despite this, Sr. Adv. A.M. Singhvi still argued for 4 hours. Sr. Adv. Raju Ramachandran was commended by the Bench for his focused arguments which he completed in 45 minutes despite initially asking for 3 hours. (https://bit.ly/3AnyUdP) 🌍 The petitioners also relied heavily on judgements from foreign jurisdictions that have legalised LGBTQIA+ marriages in support of their stance. Mr. Singhvi for instance relied on a House of Lords case called Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza (2004) to argue that the Court could interpret the Special Marriage Act to legalise LGBTQIA+ marriages in India. Some other cases relied on were Affairs v. Fourie from South Africa, and Obergefell v. Hodges from the USA. (https://bit.ly/41URgPd) 🗯️ During the next hearing, all the advocates representing different interests of the petitioners are expected to conclude their arguments. After this, the Union government will commence its arguments opposing LGBTQIA+ marriages.

🌞 Good Morning! This week, the CJI D.Y. Chandrachud-led Constitution Bench heard arguments by different petitioners seeking marriage equality for queer couples (https://bit.ly/3GhL6zu). What are the arguments so far? 📄 *Confined to Special Marriage Act, 1954* The SC decided to restrict the scope of the case to the Special Marriage Act without touching other religious personal laws. The Bench heard arguments seeking its attention on the day-to-day consequences of depriving the LGBTQIA+ community of the right to marriage. Read more: https://bit.ly/3GZTZ1E 📜 *Fundamental Rights* Sr. Adv. A.M. Singhvi argued traditional values of a majority cannot justify depriving a group of people of their fundamental rights. He claimed that queer persons are discriminated against based on their sexual orientation and identity—factors outside the individual’s control. Denying queer couples the right to marriage deprives them of the fundamental rights to equality, dignity, freedom of expression, and privacy. Read more: https://bit.ly/43HipXo 🚼 *Procreation Not A Ground to Discriminate* Sr. Adv. K.V. Vishwanathan argued that the Union’s reasoning that queer couples can be denied the right to marriage based on the ability to procreate is wrong. He pointed out that heterosexual couples are not denied the right to marriage even after crossing the age of reproductive capacity. Child-free couples are also able to freely marry. Procreation, he argued, is an incidental part of marriage. The Bench will resume hearing the case on Monday (April 24th, 2023).

🌻 Good morning! 🏳️‍🌈 Yesterday the Supreme Court continued to hear the plea seeking marriage equality for people belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that the SC had an obligation to not pass the buck to the legislature and address the discrimination against non-heterosexual couples. Senior Advocate Dr. A.M Singhvi highlighted how the Special Marriage Act, 1954 must be geared towards marriage equality as a secular law that eschews the limits of sexual orientation. (https://bit.ly/3AbQCAT) 🔃 Yesterday, the Supreme Court Collegium withdrew its recommendation to transfer Orissa High Court Chief Justice Muralidhar to the Madras HC. They noted that the recommendation has been pending confirmation from the Union since September 2022 and no response has been received. Read more about the political underpinnings behind High Court judge transfers. (https://bit.ly/3GSqxuf) 📩 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! 🏳️‍🌈Today, the CJI-led Constitution Bench will continue hearing the batch of petitions seeking the legal recognition of same-sex, and other queer marriages. During the hearing yesterday, the petitioners argued that the right to marry could be extended to LGBTQIA+ couples by interpreting the Special Marriage Act of 1954 in a wider sense. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Union argued that this matter fell under the legislature's powers and therefore the SC could not decide upon it. The Bench viewed that this case must be solved in increments, one step at a time. Therefore, they decided to restrict the scope of the matter to the Special Marriage Act for now and not involve any personal laws. (https://bit.ly/3oiFNKB) ⛓️ Yesterday, a Bench comprising Justices K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna heard the challenge to the Gujarat Govt.'s decision to release the convicts of the Bilkis Bano gang-rape case last year. During the last hearing, the Bench had ordered the Gujarat Govt. as well as the Union to ready the files showing reasons for the release of the convicts. However, yesterday, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju representing the Union and the Gujarat Govt. was reluctant to produce the files in Court. He informed the Bench that the Govt. may file a review petition against the Court's Order seeking the files. The case will be heard next on May 2nd, 2023. (https://bit.ly/3oqgVAy) ✍️Thank you for following our daily updates. We'd love to hear from you on what you would like to cover next on the SC. Write to us at admin@scobserver.in. You can also reach out to us on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and Facebook. We hope to hear from you soon!

🌈 Good morning! Today the Supreme Court will begin hearing the heavily awaited plea to legalise same-sex marriage in India. 🏳️‍🌈 The 5-Judge Bench hearing the case will be led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and also comprise Justices S.K. Kaul, Ravindra Bhat, Hima Kohli and P.S. Narasimha. The host of petitioners claim that the laws governing marriage in India discriminate against same-sex couples by restricting the meaning of marriage to only include unions between men and women. The Union government has opposed the plea, most recently claiming that same-sex marriage is an ‘urban, elitist idea; They also argue that the topic falls in the domain of the Legislature, not the Supreme Court. (https://bit.ly/3MRcgC1) 🗺️ In other countries the Judiciary has often played a crucial role in recognising same-sex marriage. It is almost certain that many of these cases will be brought up at the Supreme Court and will be relied upon in the final verdict delivered by the Court. Many of the Union’s arguments in India are extremely similar to arguments made in these foreign jurisdictions, such as the USA, Canada and South Africa. In the lead up to the hearings, Assistant Professor Diksha Sanyal (Jindal) examines the arguments made by the Union and the responses of foreign courts to these very arguments. (https://bit.ly/3ocOtSG)

☕ Good Morning! 👩‍⚖️👨‍⚖️ Yesterday, a Bench consisting of Justices K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna heard a heated argument over a challenge to a Government Order (GO) passed by the Karnataka Govt. last month. This GO scrapped the 4% OBC reservation for Muslims and reallocated it to the Lingayat and Vokkalinga communities. (https://bit.ly/3MCqabb) 🗣️ *Arguments by the Petitioners:* Sr. Advs. Dushyanth Dave and Kapil Sibal, for the petitioners, asked the Court to pass an interim order staying the GO. They argued that the GO was unlawful as it was issued without proper empirical data to support a change in reservation policy. Mr. Dave accused the Karnataka Govt. of passing the GO with a political agenda on the eve of the upcoming elections in the State. He relied on a report by Justice Chinnappa Reddy (1990) which states that Muslims in the State belonged to socially and economically backward sections of society to justify the need for their reservation. 🗯️ *Arguments by the Respondents:* Sr. Adv Mukul Rohatgi appearing for the Vokkaliga and Lingayat communities argued that these communities would suffer if an interim order is passed by the SC. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for Karnataka Govt. sought time to file a response in the matter. He assured the Court that the Counters would be filed in three days and that no appointment/admission would be made based on the GO before that. 🧾 *Order of the Court* After taking note of the assurance by the Solicitor, the Bench directed the Respondents to file their Counter Affidavits by April 17th, 2023 and listed the case for hearing on April 18th, 2023.

☕ Good morning! 📄 Yesterday, a Bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul heard a batch of petitions claiming that former members of Scheduled Caste communities who converted to different religions should retain their Scheduled Caste status for the purpose of reservation. The petitioners claim that converts still carry the social stigma of their caste. However, the Union claims that there is a lack of empirical data on the subject. The case has been pending for over 19 years and will be heard next in July 2023 following the summer vacation. (https://bit.ly/43GtUP5) 🔊 Down the hall in Courtroom 1, the CJI Chandrachud led Constitution Bench concluded hearings in the case to decide if the ‘Group of Companies Doctrine’ should be recognised in domestic arbitration proceedings. The Doctrine allows companies who did not sign an arbitration agreement to be included as parties in arbitration proceedings if they participated in the disputed actions which resulted in arbitration. Yesterday, multiple senior advocates argued that the Court should apply guardrails to the Doctrine to ensure party autonomy. However, Advocate Hiroo Advani in his closing arguments stated that guardrails would be evolved by arbitral tribunals and the Court should limit their interference. (https://bit.ly/3KXgU07)

🌞 Good Morning! Here are SCO’s updates for the day: 📱 Yesterday, the Justice K.M. Joseph-led Constitution Bench resumed hearing the challenge to WhatsApp’s privacy policy. The Union government informed the Court that the Digital Data Protection Bill, 2022, would be tabled before Parliament during the Monsoon session in July. The Union claims the Bill will address the concerns raised in the case. Previously, the Union had stated that Parliament would table the Bill before April. Read more on yesterday’s hearing here: (http://bit.ly/3my7Kxo) ⛓️ On Monday, the SC advised caution in using preventive detention laws, stating that these colonial provisions have great potential for misuse. The Bench, comprising Justices Krishna Murari and V. Ramasubramanian, also highlighted the importance of procedural rigidity in cases of preventive detention. The SC’s emphasis on civil rights during arrest is not new. In 1996, in a landmark case, the SC laid down 11 guidelines to govern arrest and detention. Read more: (http://bit.ly/3nT0M6v) ✍️Thank you for following our daily updates. We'd love to hear from you on what you would like us to cover next on the SC. Write to us at admin@scobserver.in. You can also reach out to us on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and Facebook. We hope to hear from you soon!

🌞 Good Morning! Here are SCO’s updates for the day: 📳 Today, the Justice K.M. Joseph-led Constitution Bench is will resume hearing the challenges against WhatsApp’s 2016 privacy policy. The plea claims that the policy violates the users’ right to privacy by allowing WhatsApp to access user data without regulation (http://bit.ly/41gIZVq). In the last hearing on February 1st, the Bench paused proceedings after the Union informed them the Digital Data Protection Bill, 2022, would address the concerns raised (http://bit.ly/3zKRuft). 📑 The CJI D.Y. Chandrachud-led Constitution Bench will continue hearing a case that will decide if the _Group of Companies_ doctrine is applicable in India. According to the doctrine, companies that haven’t signed an arbitration agreement can be included in arbitration proceedings if they belong to the same group as signatory companies. Read more: (http://bit.ly/3ZUTo8e) 📩 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: 📊 Today, a Bench led by Justice S.K. Kaul will hear a plea seeking minority status to be granted on a state-level basis and not on a national scale. Mr. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who filed the plea, claims that Hindus are minorities in 6 States and 2 Union Territories, but are unable to avail benefits meant for minorities as the Hindu community is not considered to be a minority. Read more: (http://bit.ly/3zJHYtb) 💉 The SC will also hear a plea seeking to quash the ban placed on transgender and homosexual persons, and women engaged in sex work from donating blood. The National Blood Transfusion Council and the National AIDS Control Organisation currently consider these groups of people to be ‘at risk’ for HIV, Hepatitis B and C infections. The plea claims that a blanket ban violates the rights to life and equality. Read more: (https://bit.ly/3PhAFzL) 🛜 Last week, the SC quashed the broadcast ban imposed on MediaOne TV by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The Ministry, through a ‘sealed cover’, accused the channel of engaging in anti-government activities that threaten the security of the country. The SC lambasted the Union’s use of the sealed cover practice and held that there was no evidence to indicate any wrongdoing by the channel. Read more: (https://bit.ly/43aj5UV)

☀️ Good Morning! Here are SCO's updates for the day: ⚖️ Yesterday, a Bench led by CJI Chandrachud heard a batch of petitions challenging the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 (The Act). The Bench listed the matter for final arguments and disposal on July 11th, 2023. The Court will examine if Parliament re-enacted provisions struck down by the SC in 2021 for violating the independence of the judiciary. (https://bit.ly/3KCSRmT) 🕌 Yesterday, the CJI led Bench also heard the Masjid Committee in the Gyanvapi Mosque dispute. The Committee sought urgent listing of the matter owing to Ramzan celebrations. The cases is listed to be heard on April 14th, 2023. Last year, the Varanasi Civil Court ordered a ‘videographic survey’ of the mosque to ascertain the existence and location of Hindu deities on the premises as claimed by the petitioners. (https://bit.ly/40IdALi) ✍️Thank you for following our daily updates. We'd love to hear from you on what you would like to cover next on the SC. Write to us at admin@scobserver.in. You can also reach out to us on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and Facebook. We hope to hear from you soon!)

☕ Good Morning! 📡 Yesterday, a Bench comprising CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli delivered a judgement quashing the telecast ban imposed on Malayalam news channel MediaOne in 2022. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting cited national security concerns to justify the ban. The ban was previously upheld by the Kerala HC based on ‘sealed cover’ evidence provided by the Union. The SC's Judgement concluded that the Kerala HC’s decision was baseless and that a ban could not be imposed based on material provided in a sealed cover. (https://bit.ly/3MmRrOz) 🛂 Yesterday, a Bench comprising the CJI and Justice J.B. Pardiwala refused to entertain a joint petition filed by 14 opposition parties. They alleged the Union was weaponising enforcement agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) by disproportionately probing persons belonging to opposition parties. Sr. Adv. A.M Singhvi asked the SC to issue guidelines for arrests in cases taken up by the CBI/ED. The Bench however stated that it could not issue general guidelines without proper facts. Sensing the reluctance of the Bench to entertain the plea, Mr. Singhvi withdrew the petition. (https://bit.ly/3m33IND) 📩 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! After a brief vacation the Supreme Court returns to full functioning today. 🚨 A Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud is expected to hear a petition filed by 14 opposition parties against the Union government. They claim that the Union has been misusing ostensibly independent agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED). In the last hearing, Sr. Adv. A.M. Singhvi argued that the vast majority of cases lodged by these agencies were against opposition politicians with a view to crush political dissent. 🚔 The Supreme Court is no stranger to hearing allegations of the Union using central agencies as a political tool. A Bench led by Justice B.R. Gavai has been hearing the challenges to the Union’s power to extend CBI/ED director tenures. The petitioners claim that the Union’s power to repeatedly extend tenures compromises the independence of CBI’ED directors and may lead to biased investigations. (https://bit.ly/40YKcjW) 💸 The ED in particular has been a subject of interest at the Court. Through the first half of 2022 a Justice Khanwilkar-led Bench heard challenges to the ED’s wide investigative powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Over 80 petitions were filed, with opposition party leaders making up a large portion of the litigants. They claimed that the ED was abusing its wide investigative powers to do the Union’s bidding. However, in this case thr SC chose not to interfere with the status quo and upheld all of the ED’s powers. (https://bit.ly/3MelhEP)

🌞 Good Morning! Here are SCO’s updates for the day: 🙅‍♂️ Last week, the Lahore High Court in Pakistan struck down the country’s sedition law for violating the freedom of expression. While the decision is yet to be upheld by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the case will provide a fresh perspective for a similar challenge to sedition law in India (https://bit.ly/3HYbjF2). 📚 What is the debate around the pre-Independence era sedition law in India all about? Challenges to the law claim that the sedition law (S.124A, Indian Penal Code) is arbitrary and is misused to stifle free speech. Last May, the SC Ordered that no new cases should be filed under the provision while the Union completes re-examining the law. SCO’s curated list of Must Reads gives you all the facets of the debate: (http://bit.ly/3lVMl1a) 📩 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 some important cases the SC is expected to hear this month: 🔏 On April 11th, 2023, a 5-Judge Constitution Bench led by Justice K.M. Joseph is expected to pass further directions on the matter concerning WhatsApp's Privacy Policy in India. In February 2023, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta representing the Union, stated that the Digital Data Protection Bill, 2022 would be introduced in Parliament this session and would solve a lot of the privacy concerns expressed by the petitioners in the case. Therefore, the Bench postponed hearing the matter on merits. (https://bit.ly/43ay0P8) 🛂 On April 20th, 2023, a 3-Judge Bench led by Justice B.R. Gavai will hear the Unions's arguments in support of the tenure extensions of CBI/ED Directors. During the last hearing on March 23rd, 2023, the petitioners and Sr. Adv. K.V. Viswanathan- the Amicus Curiae, argued that CBI/ED tenure extensions were unconstitutional and diluted the independence of these autonomous enforcement authorities. (https://bit.ly/3M9IAQ4) 🏳️‍🌈 On April 18th, 2023, a 5-Judge Constitution Bench will begin hearing a batch of petitions seeking the legal recognition of same-sex and other queer marriages in India. The Union has strongly opposed the recognition of queer marriages by law on the ground that they were against the cultural ethos of the country. During the last hearing, Mr. Mehta also stated that the matter fell under the legislature's powers and not the judiciary's. The decision of the SC following the proceedings will determine the extent of personal and matrimonial rights of the LGBTQIA+ community in India. (https://bit.ly/3nGUIhg)

☀️ Good morning! ⛓️ Time and time again the Supreme Court has pushed the adage ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’ in Judgements. However, lower courts still send accused people into custody as a general practice. On Wednesday (March 29th), the Supreme Court was hearing a case regarding the application of their July 2022 bail guidelines. The Bench observed that High Courts should keep an eye on lower courts and withdraw judicial work from Judges who unthinkingly send people to custody. What is being lost in translation between the Supreme Court and lower courts when it comes to responsible bail practices? (https://bit.ly/40KJfM4) 🔇 On Wednesday, the Supreme Court also continued to monitor States’ efforts to curb hate speech. The Bench orally observed that the number of hate speech incidents would fall significantly if politicians stopped invoking and entangling religion and politics. The hearing on Wednesday represents the SC’s latest effort to deal with the increasing number of petitions which point out failures in the state machinery in hate speech incidents. Read SCO’s 2022 Freedom of Speech Review to learn more about hate speech cases at the Supreme Court. (https://bit.ly/3ZrhDdL) 📩 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, a 3-Judge Bench led by CJI Chandrachud heard a case pertaining to the Gyanvapi Mosque dispute in Varanasi. The case arose in August 2021, when five Hindu women filed a petition before the Varanasi Civil Court seeking to worship in the Mosque's premises. They claimed that there were idols of the shiv ling and other Hindu deities there. On April 8th, 2022, the Varanasi Civil Court ordered a ‘videographic survey’ of the mosque to ascertain the existence and location of these deities. The Mosque committee immediately challenged this at the Allahabad HC. According to them, the survey violated Section 4 of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. There are several cases in connection to this controversy in the Courts of Varanasi. The SC Bench agreed to list a plea consolidating all matters in connection to this dispute on April 21st, 2023. (https://bit.ly/40IdALi) 🤝 Yesterday, a 5-Judge Constitution Bench led by the CJI also continued to hear a batch of petitions seeking to clarify if the ‘group of companies’ doctrine can be invoked in Arbitration Cases in India. During the hearing, Sr. Adv. Darius Khambata argued that the Group of Companies Doctrine can only apply when non-signatory party consents to be included in an arbitration. Previously, Sr. Advs. Kapil Sibal and A.M. Singhvi lent their support to the doctrine stating that it gave effect to the ‘collective intent’ of the parties. (https://bit.ly/40o1HtY) 📩 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 a Bench comprising Justices K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna heard the challenge to the Gujarat State Governments’ decision to apply their 1992 remission policy to secure the early release of the 11 Bilkis Bano gangrape convicts. The petitioners claim that the State should have applied the 2014 policy which specifically excludes those convicted of rape from receiving remission benefits. The Gujarat government claims that the 1992 policy should be applied as it was the applicable policy when the 11 people were convicted. The case will be heard next on April 18th, 2023. Watch SCO’s live update for more. (https://bit.ly/3FV6hb0) 🤝🏾 Today, the CJI Chandrachud Constitution Bench will continue hearing submissions on whether the Group of Companies Doctrine should be recognised by Indian arbitration law. While referring the case to a Constitution Bench, CJI N.V. Ramana expressed concerns about the effect of the doctrine on party autonomy. The petitioners claim the doctrine is recognised worldwide and is essential to avoid multiple disputes arising out of the same transaction. (https://bit.ly/3JSyfoY) 📃 A Bench led by Justice S.K. Kaul will hear the plea that seeks to make Fundamental Duties under the Constitution of India enforceable. These are 11 broad norms of conduct that citizens are obligated to abide by, provided under Article 51A of the Constitution. In February, the Bench ordered all States to file a counter-affidavit with details on the steps taken to ensure citizens are aware of their fundamental duties. (https://bit.ly/3JPnKTA)

🌞 Good Morning! Here are SCO’s updates for the day: A very interesting case is expected to be heard this week. The SC will hear a plea seeking to enforce Fundamental Duties on citizens. What is the case about? Let’s find out! 📖 *Enforcement of Fundamental Duties* The petition before the SC seeks to balance civil rights and civil obligations by making Fundamental Duties enforceable. The petition argues that Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Duties are co-extensive. While Fundamental Rights grant inalienable rights to citizens, Fundamental Duties lay down basic norms of conduct that aid in upholding these rights. Read more: (http://bit.ly/3JNKdAh) ❓ *What are Fundamental Duties?* The Fundamental Duties are 11 duties that citizens are obligated to perform under the Consitution. These duties range from protecting the sovereignty and integrity of India to developing a scientific temper, humanism, and spirit of inquiry and reform. Article 51A which lays down the Fundamental Duties was not initially part of the Consitution. It was added by Parliament in 1976. Click on the link to find out more: (http://bit.ly/40DEKCV) 🚨 In other news, last week the SC heard the challenge against repeated tenure extensions granted to Mr Sanjay Kumar Mishra, the director of the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Mr. K.V. Vishwananathan, who was appointed to assist the Court, stated that tenure extensions for directors of the ED and the CBI were illegal and opposed to law. Petitioners in the case also pointed out that repeated tenure extensions like Mr. Mishra’s would compromise the independence of directors and be detrimental to the independence of enforcement authorities. (http://bit.ly/3JUfjGG)

🌅 Good Morning! 🤝Yesterday, the 5-Judge Constitution Bench led by CJI Chandrachud continued to hear the petitions seeking clarity on the 'group of companies doctrine' in arbitration cases. Sr. Adv. Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the doctrine was important as it gave effect to the collective intent of the parties and helped prevent fragmentation of a dispute. Sr. Adv. Kapil Sibal also lent his support to the doctrine stating that there was a legal relationship between a company and its affiliate. The Bench is expected hear arguments from the Union next week. (https://bit.ly/3JGByiT) ✒️Yesterday, a 3-Judge Bench led by Justice B.R. Gavai heard a batch of petitions challenging the Central Vigilance Commission (Amendment) Ordinance, 2021 and the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Ordinance, 2021, which allow the Union to extend CBI/ED Director Tenures. The petitioners argued that these Ordinances were illegal as they violated a direct Mandamus by the SC not to extend tenures. The Amicus for the case, Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, also opined that the extension orders as well as the Ordinances that followed were detrimental to the rule of law. The Bench will hear the Union's arguments from April 20th, 2023 (https://bit.ly/3LKiD9y) 🎤 We provide daily updates from the SC through live chats on Facebook and Instagram. Tune in to our pages at 5:00 p.m. everyday for all the latest updates. Facebook: (https://bit.ly/3LKkhIg) Instagram: (https://bit.ly/3JCf3Mk)