Supreme Court Observer

☀️ Good morning! 📖 Yesterday, CJI D.Y. Chandrachud decided to list the challenge to the marital rape exception under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on May 9th, 2023. The case was mentioned by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising and Advocate Karuna Nandy. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was also present on behalf of the Union government and asked for a week to file their response as the case would have ‘social ramifications’. (https://bit.ly/3Z4curP) 👨🏾‍⚖️ The CJI Chandrachud-led Constitution Bench then began hearing the case to decide if third parties can be included as parties to an arbitration agreement even if they are not signatories. Yesterday, advocate and arbitration law expert Hiroo Advani argued that SAP-Germany had taken over operations from SAP-India to help the travel company, Cox and Kings, create an e-commerce platform. Therefore, they should be made a party to any arbitration that arises from the transaction. Watch the recording of SCO’s livestream to learn more. (https://bit.ly/3n2iynp) 📢 We are hiring Court Reporters! As a Court Reporter, you will act as the eyes and ears of the Supreme Court Observer. We are looking for individuals who are passionate about the Supreme Court’s work and enjoy writing and communicating about it to our dedicated and passionate group of readers. Visit our Careers Page for more details about the eligibility criteria and the application process.(https://bit.ly/3JxQ4er)

🌞 Good Morning! Here are SCO's updates for the day: The CJI D.Y. Chandrachud-led Bench will take up two new cases today. ✍🏽 *1. Selection Process Rules* Can rules for appointment to public posts be changed after the selection process has begun? The Rajasthan High Court held it could after it introduced a 75% cutoff mark after conducting a selection exam for translators. The HC claims that they have the power to do so to maintain high standards for selecting candidates. Read more: (https://bit.ly/3TxlF2M) 📑 *2. Group of Companies Doctrine* Usually, for parties to engage in arbitration proceedings, they must first sign an arbitration agreement stating their wish to do so. The _group of companies doctrine_ adds an extra facet to this. It states that if a company is affiliated with another company that has signed an arbitration agreement, then the former will also be bound by the agreement. In this case, the SC is expected to clarify in what circumstances this doctrine can be invoked. 🗳️ Yesterday, a Bench led by CJI Chandrachud agreed to consider referring petitions challenging the Union’s electoral scheme on April 11th, 2022. The petitions claim that the scheme was wrongly introduced as a Finance Bill to avoid the Rajya Sabha’s scrutiny. Further, the scheme enables unaccounted political donations by corporations. The SC will examine if the scheme negatively affects transparency in elections and decide its validity. Read more about the case here: (http://bit.ly/3LAWWsF)

☕ Good Morning! Last week a Bench led by CJI Chandrachud heard a batch of petitions relating to the Anti-Conversion laws enacted by various States. The Bench directed the States to file their counter-affidavits in three weeks. This case also involves a batch of *transfer petitions* pending before different High Courts. In today’s *Know your Court* series, let's learn more about transfer petitions. (https://bit.ly/3TtR4Ds) ⁉️ *What are Transfer Petitions?* When a party wants to transfer their case from one court to another, a transfer petition is filed before the Court. The SC’s constitutional power to transfer cases comes from Article 139A of the Constitution of India, 1950. 📃 *What should a Transfer Petition include?* A transfer petition begins with a short synopsis of the reasons for a transfer. The main body contains the facts of the case and the grounds for transfer explained in greater detail. It must also mention the court to which the party seeks a transfer. 📁 *What are the different types of Transfer Petitions?* The first kind of transfer is when there are multiple cases involving the same question of law before the SC and one or more HCs. The second kind of transfer is when the SC transfers any proceedings from one HC to another, ‘in the interests of justice’. For more information about Transfer Petitions and other procedural aspects of the SC, visit our website here: (https://bit.ly/3mSrwUb)

🌞 Good Morning! Here are SCO’s updates for the day: ⚖️ Yesterday, the SC listed two pending Constitution Bench cases to a Bench led by CJI Chandrachud on March 21st. In the first case, the SC will decide if selection process rules for public post appointments can be changed after the selection process has started (http://bit.ly/42kFz56). 👩‍⚖The second case questions if the ‘group of companies’ doctrine applies to the Arbitration Act, 1956. The doctrine states that a company, not party to an arbitration agreement, can be included in arbitration proceedings involving another company if the two belong to the same _group_ of companies. 🏹 In other Constitution Bench news, the SC reserved Judgement in the dispute between the Eknath Shinde and Uddhav Thackeray factions of the Shiv Sena. The Bench will decide if the Shinde faction must be disqualified for defection or if they represent the real Shiv Sena. The 5-Judge Bench may also choose to refer the matter to a 7-Judge Bench (https://bit.ly/3m6TE5z). 📩 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! 🏳️‍🌈 On March 13th, 2023, the Supreme Court referred the case concerning the recognition of same-sex marriage to a 5-Judge Constitution Bench. The case is listed for hearing on April 18th, 2023. 📰 *Background of the Case* On November 14th, 2022, two same-sex couples- Supriyo Chakraborty and Abhay Dang and Parth Phiroze Merhotra and Uday Raj Anand filed writ petitions in the Supreme Court seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriages in India. (https://bit.ly/3yBZejD) 🏛️ *Journey in Court* On November 25th, 2022, a Bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli passed an Order directing the Union to respond to the petitions. On January 6th, 2023, a 3-Judge Bench led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud transferred 9 pending petitions dealing with similar issues from the Delhi and Kerala High Courts to the SC. On March 12th, 2023, the Union filed their Counter Affidavit. 🗣️ *Main Arguments* The Petitioners argued that Section 4(c) of the Special Marriage Act, 1854, discriminates against same-sex couples by denying them the same matrimonial benefits as heterosexual couples as the Act only recognises marriage between a ‘male’ and a ‘female’ persons. The Union's Counter Affidavit opposed same-sex marriage, stating that all personal laws clearly recognise marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who represented the Union before the CJI led Bench on March 13th, 2023 also argued that the Legislature should take point on this issue, not the SC. (https://bit.ly/3YRnadt) The decision of the SC following the Constitution Bench proceedings next month will determine the extent of the personal and matrimonial rights of members of the LGBTQIA+ community in India. Stay tuned to SCO for more updates.

☕ Good morning! 5-Judge Constitution Bench cases have been a mainstay during the CJI D.Y. Chandrachud era of the Supreme Court. This was immediately on display during the SC’s first two days back from the Holi vacation. 💍 On March 13th, a CJI Chandrachud-led Bench referred the plea to legalise same-sex marriage to a 5-Judge Constitution Bench. The Union government filed a counter affidavit opposing the plea, stating that all relevant laws clearly define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Union government, argued that the Legislature was best positioned to take action in this case, not the Court. (https://bit.ly/3lcr2YL) 🏭 Yesterday, on March 14th, two more Constitution Bench cases took the spotlight. The Bench led by Justice S.K. Kaul rejected the Union’s plea to increase or ‘top-up’ the compensation paid to victims of the 1984 Bhopal Gas Tragedy. The Bench held that the Union’s plea was not based on any legal principles. Further, it succinctly and comprehensively criticised the actions of the Union in the decades since the tragedy and questioned their standing to approach the Court nearly 4 decades after the tragedy. (https://bit.ly/3JFk9bz) ⌚ Today, the Bench will continue to hear concluding arguments in the case concerning the Shiv Sena rift in Maharashtra. This will be the 6th day of substantial hearings since they began on February 21st. This does not include the three days of extensive arguments (from February 14th-16th) on whether the case should be referred to a larger 7-Judge Bench — a question the Bench chose not to answer until they heard the case on merits. This raises concerns of how the Court can manage its time better while allowing lawyers argue efficiently and effectively. (https://bit.ly/3FojXez)

🌞 Good Morning! Here are SCO’s updates for the day: 🏭 Today, Justice S.K. Kaul-led Constitution Bench will deliver the Judgement on the plea seeking additional compensation from Union Carbide for the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. The Union government claims that Union Carbide must pay more compensation as the actual number of victims was higher than initially believed. Union Carbide, on the other hand, claims that the Union has no scope for enlarging the settlement amount. Read more about the case here: (http://bit.ly/3GWunmU) 🏹 The CJI Chandrachud-led Constitution Bench is expected to conclude hearing the Maharashtra MLA Disqualification Case, In the last hearing, the Shinde faction argued that expressing dissent within the party does not result in defection. They also defended the floor test called by Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari claiming that it was correct and the outcome could not be changed now. Read more: (http://bit.ly/3yBREoU) ✍️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! Today the Supreme Court will begin functioning again as the Holi vacation ends. 🏳️‍🌈 Yesterday, the Union government filed an affidavit opposing the plea for same-sex marriage equality. They claimed that the Legislature in various personal laws clearly intended for marriage to be defined as a union between a man and a woman. Similarly, the Union government claimed that the governance of same-sex marriage should also be left to Parliament and judicial interference may cause ‘havoc’. The case will be heard in the Chief Justices courtroom today. Read more about the plea for marriage equality. (https://bit.ly/3Fmqp5B) 🏹 This week, the SC will continue and likely complete hearings in the case concerning the Shiv Sena rift in Maharashtra. Before the Holi vacation, the Shinde faction of the Shiv Sena argued that the facts of the case clearly showed their majority in the Legislature and the SC could not speculate on the course of events that may have taken place if former Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray was not compelled to retire. The Thackeray faction will respond to these arguments this week. (https://bit.ly/3YGnhIG) 📩 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! Last week, the SC set up a 6-person expert committee to investigate the Adani-Hindenburg controversy and submit a report in a ‘sealed cover’ within 2 months. As part of our *Know Your Court* series, let’s discuss the ‘sealed cover jurisprudence’ of the Court. (https://bit.ly/3mAwB3s) ❔⁉️ *What is Sealed Cover Jurisprudence?* The Supreme Court and lower courts may ask for and accept sensitive and confidential information from government agencies or other persons in ‘sealed covers’. This material can be accessed only by Judges. The contents of sealed covers are inaccessible to the other parties of the case as per Order XIII Rule 7 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The practice of Judges asking for evidence in sealed covers and making decisions based on such evidence is known as sealed cover jurisprudence. (https://bit.ly/3JoKoDe) 🧑‍⚖️ *When has the SC used Sealed Cover Jurisprudence in the past?* In the Bhima-Koregaon case in 2018, a Bench led by former CJI Dipak Misra relied on evidence submitted by the Maharashtra Government in a sealed cover while refusing to stay the arrest of activists involved in the case. In 2019, former CJI Rajan Gogoi directed the coordinator of the NRC to submit information about the registration exercise to the Court in a sealed cover. Sealed covers were also submitted in the Ayodhya Title dispute (2019), and in the Electoral Bonds case (2021). (https://bit.ly/3mFvjnV) 👨‍💻👩‍💻 For more information on each of these cases, visit SCO’s cases page here: (https://bit.ly/3l0CfeN)

☕ Good Morning! The Supreme Court has had a total of 11 women judges in the 73 years since its establishment. The first woman SC Judge, Justice M. Fatima Beevi, was elevated in 1989 and retired in 1992. Justice Indira Banerjee, who retired in September 2022, was the 8th woman judge to complete her tenure at the SC. The SC currently has 3 sitting women judges. Meet the former (https://bit.ly/3ZS2fYx) and sitting (https://bit.ly/3kVHdcD) women judges of the SC on SCO’s Instagram. 👩‍⚖ Women judges have shorter tenures compared to male judges at the SC. Among the currently sitting women judges, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Bela Trivedi will have short tenures of 3 years and 3.75 years. Justice B.V. Nagarathna will have a significantly longer tenure of 6.3 years and is expected to become the first woman Chief Justice of India. However, her CJI tenure will last for only 36 days. Read more: (http://bit.ly/41ToI9n) 📩 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 and happy International Womens Day! Lets celebrate by taking a look at some key stories about women in the Indian Judiciary. 👩🏾‍⚖️ The career of Justice Leila Seth to the Supreme Court carries crucial insight into both the impact of women in the judiciary as well as the unique pressures faced by women Judges. Justice Seth became the first Judge to be appointed to the Delhi High Court in 1978 and in 1991 she became the first woman ever to be appointed as a High Court Chief Justice (Himachal Pradesh). However, she has spoken about how she was forced to walk a fine line under the gaze of the public and her fellow Judges as her actions would reflect on all other women Judges to come. Read SCO’s recounting of Justice Seth’s journey. (https://bit.ly/3F15BAE) 📃 In August 2022, 30 years after Justice Seth retired as a Judge, the SC Collegium published it’s first resolution recommending women for appointment to the Supreme Court. The recommendation of Justices Nagarathna, Kohli and Trivedi launched a discussion about whether gender diversity should be a legitimate consideration in Collegium recommendations. Read more. (https://bit.ly/3Jmhx2s) ✒️ Despite the Collegium recently acknowledging gender diversity as an important criteria in their most recent resolutions for SC appointments, all seven new SC Judges that have been appointed in 2023 are men. This represents a backslide, as the retirement of Justice Indira Banerjee has left the SC with only three women Judges after functioning with four during the tail end of Justice Banerjee’s career (a historic high at the SC). This gives us a snapshot of how there is significant progress to be made to ensure gender representation in the judiciary. Read more. (https://bit.ly/41L3sCG)

🌅 Good Morning! 📢 *We are hiring!* ✒️📄 *Court Reporter - Delhi* *Application Deadline: March 21st, 2023.* As a Court Reporter, you will act as the eyes and ears of the Supreme Court. We are looking for individuals who are passionate about the Supreme Court’s work enjoy writing and communicating about it. *Eligibility:* - Undergraduate degree in Law with a strong academic background. - Masters’ degree in either Law or Journalism (Preferred). - 1 to 3 years of experience in legal journalism or publishing. - Enrolment or eligibility to enroll at a State Bar Council. Interested candidates may apply by sending an updated CV, a statement of purpose and 2 writing samples to admin@scobserver.in 📳📲 *Communications Associate - Bangalore* *Application Deadline: March 21st, 2023.* As a Communications Associate, you will manage multimedia production for SCO. Together with the SCO Team, you will create a curated, and interactive social media presence for us. *Eligibility:* - An undergraduate degree in Communications, Mass Media, and Public Relations with a strong academic background. - Masters’ degree in relevant field (Preferred) - 1 to 3 years of experience in journalism, publishing, or marketing. Interested candidates may apply by sending an updated CV, a statement of purpose and samples of your work to admin@scobserver.in For more details on each of these positions, visit our Careers page. (https://bit.ly/3XnYrgc)

🌞 Good Morning! Here are SCO’s updates for the day: 💹 Over the course of the last two months, the Adani-Hindenburg controversy has raised several eyebrows from across the world. Last week, the Supreme Court formed an expert committee to investigate claims of corporate fraud levelled against the Adani Group of companies by Hindenburg Research. Interestingly, the committee will also look into the possibility of regulatory failure in the securities market in India. What are the allegations against the Adani Group of companies? And why does it matter? SCO breaks it down: (http://bit.ly/3FlyLdZ) 🗳️ The SC delivered a second important judgement last week. A 5-Judge Constitution Bench set up a 3-member committee to appoint members of the Election Commission of India (ECI). The committee will comprise the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition, and the Chief Justice of India. Moreover, unlike the previous system, the ECI will no longer need to obtain approval for funds from the Prime Minister, freeing the body from Executive influence. Read more about the decision here: (http://bit.ly/3SPzRny) 📩 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 Constitution Bench led by Justice K.M. Joseph delivered a long awaited Judgment in the plea challenging the current system of appointment for Election Commissioners. The Bench held that a committee comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition and the Chief Justice of India would advise the President on appointments until Parliament enacted a law to govern Election Commissin appointments. (https://bit.ly/41HS8XQ) 🏹 A separate Constitution Bench, led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, continued to hear the case concerning the Shiv Sena rift in Maharashtra. Sr. Adv. Harish Salve, representing the Eknath Shinde faction of the party, argued that the SC must confine themselves to the actual facts of the case. It cannot speculate on what may have happened if former Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray did not resign before a floor test was conducted to determine which faction held a majority in the house. (https://bit.ly/3EQGDDM) 💸 Yesterday, former SC Judge Rohintan Nariman delivered a lecture where he criticised the SC’s July 2022 decision upholding various challenged provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Justice Nariman himself, along with Justice Kaul, delivered a Judgement in 2017 which made it easier to receive bail in money laundering cases. However, much of this work was undone by the 2022 decision which Justice Nariman called ‘very unfortunate’ and suggested that the Judgement made it impossible to receive bail. (https://bit.ly/3EPJgpi)

🌻 Good Morning! Here are SCO’s Must-Reads for the day. ✒️ Before the Constitution Bench proceedings began on February 21st, 2023 CJI D.Y. Chandrachud announced the beginning of a new initiative. All arguments before Constitution Benches would be transcribed and released to the public after being vetted by the lawyers who made the arguments. On a global scale, this marks the latest in a series of technological innovations geared towards increasing the transparency and accessibility of legal systems. (https://bit.ly/3Y3uL88) 👩🏾‍⚖️ The next arguments set to be transcribed will be those of the Shinde faction in the 5-Judge Constitution Bench case concerning the Shiv Sena rift in the Maharashtra Assembly. The Shinde faction claims that they form the ‘real’ Shiv Sena in Maharashtra and that the faction led by former Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray no longer represents the interests of the party. The Election Commission appears to share this belief and granted the Shinde faction the right to use the ‘bow and arrow’ party symbol on February 17th. (https://bit.ly/3IxjM15) 📩 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! Judges of the Supreme Court sit in Benches of different sizes and different types to hear different cases. As a part of SCO’s *Know Your Court Series*, let’s discuss the different Benches of the Supreme Court: 👥 *Division Benches* A Bench of 2-3 Judges nominated by the Chief Justice is called a Division Bench. These Benches hear regular cases involving different causes, appeals or other matters on a daily basis (http://bit.ly/3HQ7Ysd). For example, a 3-Judge Bench decided the challenges to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act: (http://bit.ly/3vlPmsk) 5⃣⬆️ *Constitution Benches* On certain occasions, the SC is required to answer an important question of law or interpret the Constitution. In cases like these, a Constitution Bench of 5 or more Judges called is formed. Only a larger Bench of the SC can review the decision of a smaller Bench. For example, a 5-Judge Constitution Bench decided that women of menstruating age could enter the Sabarimala temple (http://bit.ly/3Ez07wN). The petition to review this decision is pending before a 9-Judge Bench (http://bit.ly/3GbiM2C) 📰 Constitution Bench activity gradually dropped over the years, from 134 Constitution Bench decisions in the 1960s to just 2 in 2021. The SC witnessed a major turning point in this trend last year when former CJI U.U. Lalit revived 25 pending Constitution Bench cases (http://bit.ly/3ZfJQVj). Read more about these cases here: (http://bit.ly/3YVxYrT)

🌤️ Good Morning! ⚖️ The SC is finally functioning at its full sanctioned strength of 34 judges for the first time since 2019. What does this mean for the Court in terms of diversity and disposal of cases? SCO provides insights into a SC at full strength here: (https://bit.ly/3Sf5uqx) 📄 Yesterday, the SC launched a novel project for live transcription of Constitution Bench arguments. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud announced that this project would be undertaken with the help of Artificial Intelligence. 🖥️ The AI-generated transcript will be seen on the live-streaming screen of Courtroom 1 where a 5-Judge Constitution Bench led by the CJI is currently hearing arguments in the case concerning the Shiv Sena rift in Maharashtra. Read SCO’s Case Background here: (https://bit.ly/3lSEd10) 🗣️ During the hearing yesterday, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for the Uddhav Thackeray faction, gave detailed reasons for why the Eknath Shinde-led rebel MLAs must be disqualified. Mr. Sibal will continue his arguments before the CJI-led Bench today. Read SCO's report of the hearing: (https://bit.ly/3kptbQd)

*Correction* 1. A 5-Judge Constitution Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud will deliver the judgement on whether the case concerning disqualification of Maharashtra MLAs should be transferred to a larger Bench. 2. A 3-Judge Bench led by the CJI will hear the updates on the appointments of judicial vacancies in the states of Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Jharkhand and Jammu and Kashmir.

🌤️ Good Morning! 📄 Today, a 3-Judge Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud will pass the final order on whether the case concerning disqualification of Maharashtra MLAs should be referred to a 7-Judge Bench. During the hearings yesterday, while the Shinde faction of MLAs argued against the transfer to a larger Bench, the Thackeray Faction of MLAs argued for such a referral. Read the full hearing report here: (https://bit.ly/3Iv6OSL) 👨‍⚖️ The CJI-led Bench will also hear updates on the appointments of judicial vacancies in the states of Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Jharkhand and Jammu and Kashmir. During the last hearing on February 9th, 2023, the Bench received updates about the state of Gujarat and issues directions to the State to process delayed peoposals before March 30th, 2023. Read the full hearing report here: (https://bit.ly/40YqKVj) 💰 Finally, the Bench is also expected to hear a batch of petitions seeking a probe into the Hindenburg Research report on the Adani Group. These petitions also enquire the role of institutions like SBI in the matter. Previously, the Bench asked the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to suggest measures to protect Indian investors and strengthen regulatory mechanisms.

🌞 Good Morning! The CJI D.Y. Chandrachud-led Constitution Bench is expected to hear two cases today: ⁉️ *Maharashtra MLA Disqualification* The 5-Judge Bench will continue hearing arguments on the question of a 7-Judge Bench reference. Yesterday, the Eknath Shinde faction argued that a larger Bench was not necessary since former CM Uddhav Thackeray resigned before the rebel MLAs voted. As such, the question of the validity of the Speaker’s removal before the disqualification proceedings against the MLAs did not come up. Read more: (http://bit.ly/3S37TV5) 📃 *Assam’s National Register of Citizens* The Bench is also expected to hear a plea on the validity of Assam’s National Register of Citizens (NRC). The Assam NRC, a list of Indian citizens, is meant to identify illegal immigrants in the state who migrated from Bangladesh after March 24th, 1971. The final list of the NRC, published in 2019, excluded 19 lakh persons creating uncertainties about their citizenship status. Read more about the case here: (http://bit.ly/3RZnc14) 📩 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)