Supreme Court Observer

🌅 Good Morning! 📳 Today the Constitution Bench led by Justice K.M. Joseph is expected to hear the challenge against WhatsApp’s 2016 and 2021 privacy policies. The petitioners claim that the policy allows WhatsApp to share user information with Facebook and other third-party companies, violating the right to privacy. However, the Union has claimed that the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2022 that is pending before Parliament may make this case infructuous. Read SCO's background of the case. (https://bit.ly/3jds2L0) 💸 A Bench led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud is expected to here the challenge to the Union's 2018 Electoral Bonds scheme. The Association for Democratic Reforms claims that the scheme allows private corporations to anonymously fund political parties and threatens the right to free and fair elections. The Union however, maintains that the scheme is completely transparent. Read SCO's background of the case. (https://bit.ly/3WV2no5) ✍️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! Chief Justice Chandrachud’s courtroom is expected to see developments in key cases today. 🔇 Former Delhi Police Commissioner Rakesh Asthana continues to court controversy as he faces a contempt petition at the SC from Tushar Gandhi. The great-grandson of Mahatma Gandhi claims that the Delhi Police, with Mr. Asthana at the helm, failed to properly investigate hate-speech incidents that occurred in the national capital in December 2021. The SC has taken note of States’ failures to investigate hate-speech incidents in other cases as well and is monitoring their compliance with the SC’s earlier decisions. (https://bit.ly/3DouPI2) 📃 The Bench will also continue hearing the NGO Citizens for Justice and Peace’s petition to strike down anti-conversion laws enacted by a growing list of States including Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and Gujarat. The NGO and a host of other petitioners claim that the provisions making inter-faith marriages more cumbersome and requiring individuals to publicly declare their intention to convert violate the rights to freedom of religion and privacy. (https://bit.ly/40pxI5F) 📰 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 2023. Sign up here! (https://bit.ly/3SMjxml).

☀️ Good Morning! As part of SCO’s *Know Your Court* series, we discuss the rich history behind our Supreme Court: 🏫 *Presidency Town Courts* The earliest ‘Supreme Court’ in India was the Supreme Court of Judicature at Fort William in the then Presidency Town of Calcutta established in 1774. Two more similar Courts would follow in later years in Madras (1800) and Bombay (1823). They were replaced by the High Courts of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay under the India High Courts Act, 1861. These would continue to be the highest Courts for all cases in their respective jurisdictions until the Federal Court of India was created. ⚖️ *The Federal Court of India* The Federal Court was established in 1937 under the Government of India Act, 1935 (the Act). It had the power to settle personal disputes, disputes between the Union and the States, disputes between different States, and hear appeals against the Provincial High Courts. Most importantly, it could settle questions of law concerning the Act. However, the Federal Court was not the ultimate Court of appeal. In certain cases, parties could file appeals against the Federal Court’s decisions before the Privy Council based in London. The Federal Court continued to function until the establishment of the Supreme Court of India in 1950. 🌠 *The Rise of the Constitutional Supreme Court* While the Supreme Court came into existence on January 26th, 1950, with the coming into force of the Indian Constitution, it was formally inaugurated only two days later. Unlike the Courts before it, the SC is the highest Court in the land. Established under the Constitution along with the other governmental bodies, the Supreme Court is an independent body that enjoys several wide constitutional powers. Notably, it can strike down laws made by the Legislature if they do not adhere to constitutional principles, uphold the Fundamental Rights of citizens, and is the primary interpreter of the Constitution. (https://bit.ly/3XFSU5B) 📸 *The ‘Seat’ of the Supreme Court* The Supreme Court, like the Federal Court before it, did not have a separate building out of which it could operate. Until 1958 when the modern Supreme Court building was constructed, it carried out its functions from the Chamber of Princes in the Parliament building. Visit SCObserver on Instagram to see different Court buildings through the ages: (https://bit.ly/3j8mami) 👨‍⚖ The Supreme Court initially had a sanctioned strength of only 8 Judges, compared to sanctioned strength of 34 Judges today. SCO’s Instagram reveals who the first 8 Judges were: (https://bit.ly/3jhkLd4)

☕ Good Morning! Here are SCO’s updates for the day. ✍🏽 Yesterday, on the occasion of Republic Day, the Supreme Court released translations of over 1,000 Judgments in regional languages as a part of its Electronic Supreme Court Reports (eSCR). The eSCR portal currently has 34,000 Judgments available. CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, while announcing the release earlier this week, stated that the SC has commenced translation on all of these Judgments. The move will be a huge step forward in tackling criticism that the Supreme Court is only for English-speaking groups. In comparison, under 50 Judgments were translated in 2021. SCO analysed the Court’s Judgment translations in 2020 and 2021: (http://bit.ly/3JezZKJ) 🌽 On Wednesday, the Supreme Court granted bail to Ashish Mishra, who was accused in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence in October 2021, for 8 weeks on the condition that he cannot reside in Uttar Pradesh or the NCT of Delhi. Four farmers protesting the now-repealed farm laws at Lakhimpur Kheri were killed along with two BJP workers and two others during the incident. The farm laws, an attempt to liberalise the agricultural sector, were widely protested by farmers across the country who claimed that the laws left them at the mercy of private players. SCO recapped the issues involved and the protests: (http://bit.ly/3XSzJFq) 🔊 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 republic day! January 26th marks the birth of the Constitution of India and the establishment of its most important interpreter and guardian, the Supreme Court of India. 👩🏾‍⚖️ The SC was granted a far larger mandate compared to its predecessor. The Federal Court of India was limited to settling personal disputes, disputes between the Union and States, and disputes between different States. It did not have the power to review laws, nor was it the final court of appeal. Parties could appeal decisions of the Federal Court to the Judicial Committe of the Privy Council based in London. (https://bit.ly/3Y02TCe) 📃 In comparison, the Supreme Court of India acts as a check against the possible excesses of the Executive and Legislature. The SC was charged with protecting the fundamental rights of citizens, interpreting the Constitution, and exercising the power judicial review to ensure that laws enacted by the Legislature did not interfere with fundamental rights. 📈 The Supreme Court has seen exponential growth since its establishment. The maximum number of sanctioned judges has increased from 8 to 34 since 1950. Further, Court activity has sharply increased as, in 1950’s, the Court only sat to hear cases for 28 days in a year. In comparison, the current Supreme Court sits for 190 days a year. (https://bit.ly/3JgdkOb) 📖 To learn more about the evolution of the Supreme Court, the history of the building itself, and the various procedures and individuals that make the Court what it is today, visit SCO’s ‘About the SC’ page. (https://bit.ly/3DgefdC)

☕ Good morning! Here are SCO’s must reads for the day. 🏥 Yesterday, a 5-Judge Constitution Bench passed an Order modifying the SC’s 2018 guidelines for terminally ill individuals who wish to exercise their right to die with dignity. The changes were based on a joint proposal submitted by the Indian Society for Critical Care and the Union government. The Bench led by Justice K.M. Joseph removed the requirement of seeking the Judicial Magistrate’s approval before withdrawing treatment and requiring the Collector to constitute a second medical board to review the decision of the primary medical board. Read SCO’s report of the hearing. (https://bit.ly/3XSxYb5) 🔊 Yesterday, Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju spoke against the SC revealing the Union’s concerns about the advocates recommended for HC judgeship, calling it a matter of ‘grave concern’. Specifically, he pointed out the decision to publicise comments in reports submitted by the Investigation Bureau and the Research and Analysis Wing which Mr. Rijiju claims were sensitive and secret. Read more about the resolutions and how the SC responded to the Union’s concern. (https://bit.ly/3wLZb3T) 🏭 Earlier this month, a 5-Judge Constitution Bench reserved Judgment in the Union’s plea to increase the compensation granted to victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. The Union, through a curative petition filed in 2010, claimed that new facts have emerged since the 1989 settlement with Union Carbide and that the damage is far greater than originally anticipated. However, the Bench led by Justice S.K. Kaul appeared hesitant to entertain this request in a curative petition case which greatly restricts the situations where the SC can provide relief. SCO explains the dispute so far and the Bench’s concerns. (https://bit.ly/3WvtN3S)

🌞Good Morning! Here are SCO's must reads for the day. 🧾 Today, the 5-Judge Constitution Bench led by Justice K.M Joseph will pass the final Order in the ‘right to die petition’. This petition was filed by the Indian Society for Critical Care and seeks to modify the 2018 SC guidelines on ‘Advance Directives’ (ADs). ADs are attested documents an individual may sign if they wish to refuse treatment when they become terminally ill. During the previous hearing on January 19th 2023, the Bench directed the parties to submit a joint proposal on the modifications they wanted the Court to make to the original guidelines. Read more:(https://bit.ly/3D7ibxh) 👨‍⚖️ Yesterday, CJI D.Y. Chandrachud agreed to consider the request for an urgent listing of the petition against the Hijab Ban in government institutions in the state of Karnataka. During the hearings, the petitioners stated that it was crucial to hear the matter soon, as students had exams commencing from February 6th and the exam centres were government colleges. In October 2022, a 2-Judge Bench comprising Justices Hemant Gupta and Sudhanshu Dhulia delivered a split decision in the case. While Justice Gupta upheld the ban, Justice Dhulia rejected it. Read more: (https://bit.ly/3iUyW7Z) ✍️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! Last week, the Union and the Supreme Court’s tussle over the appointments took a fresh turn. The SC Collegium released detailed Resolutions reiterating 5 recommendations for HC Jidges and berating the Union government for delaying Judge appointments in various High Courts. These delays come in light of several statements made by leaders such as Law Minister Kiren Rijiju and Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticising the Collegium system. 👨‍⚖ *What is the SC Collegium?* The Collegium is a body comprising the Chief Justice of India and the seniormost Judges at the SC. The Collegium considers candidates for elevation as Judges to the HCs or the SC, and recommends the selected names to the Union government for appointment. The body has been heavily criticised as the considerations made by them for recommendations are not made public. Further, as per the current system, the Union government has very limited say in the matter of appointments leading to friction between the SC and Union. Watch SCO’s video explaining the Collegium system: (https://bit.ly/3wmzs1C) ‼️ Until last week, the SC’s response to the Union’s barrage of criticism against the Collegium system has been minimal. However, these 4 Resolutions released by the Collegium strongly reiterated the Union’s duty to ensure High Courts do not suffer from the lack of Judges. The Resolutions categorically rejected the Union’s objections to 5 recommended names and asserted their qualifications. The Resolutions also criticised the Union for undue delay in appointments, some of which have been pending for 5 years. Read more: (https://bit.ly/3ZRE3GE)

☀️ Good Morning! It’s time for a *recap of this week* at the SC. 📄 On Monday, the SC heard a batch of petitions filed against anti-conversion laws across India, which petitioners claim are result of a ‘baseless rhetoric’ known as ‘love-jihad’. With numerous petitions pending before various High Courts, the Bench permitted parties to file transfer petitions to bring those cases to the Supreme Court. (https://bit.ly/3XKgOfB) 💪🏽 Over Tuesday (https://bit.ly/3kyNDy1 ) and Wednesday (https://bit.ly/3XnKXSe ), Solicitor General Mr. Tushar Mehta and Sr. Adv. Dr. A.M. Singhvi completed arguments in the NCT Delhi v Union tussle. The Delhi Government and the Union are jostling for control over civil servants in the Union Territory. Hearings before this 5-Judge bench have since completed, and the Judgement has been reserved. More on the case here (https://bit.ly/3ZVluBd). 🩺 On Wednesday and Thursday, the SC also heard arguments in the Right to Die challenge. In 2019, the Indian Society for Critical Care (ISCC) approached the Court requesting a 5-Judge Bench to modify some guidelines prescribed by the SC in a 2018 Judgment. They argued that the guidelines were too cumbersome, and made access to the right to die with dignity too complex. The Bench is now awaiting a joint proposal from both the ISCC and the Union on mutually agreeable modifications. (https://bit.ly/3Wte718) ✍🏽 On Thursday evening, the SC Collegium published 4 resolutions, reiterating the names of 5 candidates as judges at various HCs. This marked an important time in the ongoing clash between the SC Collegium and the Union Government. In many ways, these resolutions appear to be the SC Collegium’s response to the Union’s publicly made claims against the collegium system’s transparency, and the issues of pendency of cases and vacancies across courts in India. Read about what the SC wrote and why this is crucial in understanding the much contested appointment process. (https://bit.ly/3QWLzfh) ✨ That’s a wrap for the week. Goodbye for now, and see you on Monday!

🌞 Good Morning! Yesterday, the latest chapter in the tussle over judicial appointments between the Union and the Supreme Court unfolded. The Collegium reiterated 5 names for appointment to various High Courts. Most notably, for the first time since October 2019, the resolutions were accompanied by extensive reasons for repeating the same recommendations despite the Union's concerns. (https://bit.ly/3XlX1Dr) 👥 *What is the Collegium?* The Collegium system, set up in 1993, is a body of senior Judges who recommend candidates for the appointment of Judges to the SC and HCs. For HC appointments and transfers, it comprises the Chief Justice and the 2 other seniormost SC Judges. 🗣️ *What is the criticism of the Collegium’s appointment of Judges?* For over 20 years, there was no record of the factors considered by the Collegium in appointing judges. This lack of transparency raised concerns about social diversity and executive interference in the judiciary. (https://bit.ly/3Wl5TrS) 👨🏻‍⚖️ *What was the issue with the recommended names?* On February 16th, 2022, the SC Collegium recommended the name of *Mr. Sundaresan* for appointment as a Judge of the Bombay High Court. However, on November 25th, 2022, the Union wanted the Court to reconsider its recommendation claiming that Mr. Sundaresan was a ‘highly biased opinionated person’. The Union claimed that he has been critical of important policies, initiatives and directions of the Government on social media. Similar objections were also raised against *Mr. R. John Sathyan* for appointment to the Madras HC. The Union also objected to *Mr. Saurab Kirpal’s* recommendation as a Judge of the Delhi HC claiming that he was openly homosexual and his partner was a Swiss national. The last two names, *Mr. Amitesh Banerjee and Mr. Sakya Sen*, have been waiting for the Union’s approval since July 2019. The Union has returned these names 3 times so far despite the Collegium’s repeated reiterations. ⚖️ *What was the Collegium’s reason to reiterate its recommendations?* Considering the objections against Mr. Sunderasan and Mr. Sathyan, the Collegium said that all citizens have the Right to Free Speech and Expression. Thus, expressing views on social media does not disentitle a candidate from holding office as long as he is a person of competence, merit, and integrity. The reiterations asserted that there was no reason to believe either of these candidates were biased. The Collegium also reiterated Mr. Kirpal’s name, since he possesses the required qualifications. The Collegium noted that his recommendation has been pending for 5 years, despite his partner being from a friendly nation and homosexuality having been decriminalised. Notably, while reiterating the names of Mr. Amitesh Banerjee and Mr. Sakya Sen, the Collegium reminded the Department of Justice that they cannot repeatedly return recommendations after they are reiterated. Read more about the SC Collegium here: (https://bit.ly/3IZd99R)

✨Good Morning! Yesterday, the SC continued to hear arguments in the ‘right to die petition’. In 2019, the Indian Society for Critical Care approached the Court requesting a 5-Judge Bench to modify some guidelines prescribed by the SC in a 2018 Judgment. In the hearing, Sr. Adv. Arvind Datar mentioned 3 key areas of modification. 1️⃣ That an ‘Advance Directive’ (AD), be considered when a treatment may be more harmful than beneficial, or for persons who are in a permanent vegetative state. ADs are used to express medical decisions in advance, preempting a situation when a terminally ill' person may not capable of making or communicating such decisions. The Bench appeared unconvinced, citing the possibility of misuse of such a wide use of ADs. 2️⃣ That instead of requiring the Judicial Magistrate to sign the AD, it can simply be attested by a notary public. Though the Bench seemed inclined to the idea, they insisted that copies must be maintained by an authorised person to verify its claims. Mr. Datar recommended the National Digital Health Commission, where patients may upload their ADs which doctors could easily access and verify. 3️⃣ That the requirement for a second medical board for the review of the primary medical board’s decision be done away with. Further, for the sake of efficiency, he suggested limiting the primary board to 3 members: the treating physician, a specialist, and the hospital director. After a long debate, the Bench agreed to mandate a 4-member Board comprising the treating physician and 3 ‘subject-experts’. 🎧 Hearings are expected to continue today. This case may be a critical stage in securing the right to life, and by extension the right to die with dignity, for terminally ill patients in India. Stay tuned to SCO for updates!

☀️ Good Morning! Yesterday, a 5-Judge Constitution Bench led by Justice K.M. Joseph heard an application to modify a 2018 Judgment of the Court recognising the right of terminally ill patients to die with dignity and refuse further treatment. (https://bit.ly/3XjhBnY) 📄 *What is the case about?* In 2018, the SC held that the right to die with dignity was an extension of the right to life and liberty and upheld the validity of ‘Advance Directives (ADs).’ ADs allow individuals to provide instructions on how to proceed if they become terminally ill and are unable to communicate their wishes. The Court also issued guidelines on the procedure for carrying out ADs. In 2019, the Indian Society for Critical Care Medicine (ISCCM) filed a Miscellaneous Application asking the SC to modify these guidelines. The ISCCM claimed the guidelines were very cumbersome. As a result, very few ADs were accepted and implemented. (https://bit.ly/3XxKE76) ❓ *What were the suggested modifications?* Yesterday, Sr. Adv. Arvind Datar, representing ISCCM, suggested that requiring a Judicial Magistrate to verify that the AD was signed voluntarily was unnecessary. He stated that this requirement caused many delays in the process. Justice Joseph expressed the desire to modify a condition which requires a person to ‘clearly indicate’ the circumstances when medical treatment can be withdrawn. He suggested modifying this requirement for patients who have reached a 'terminal stage' based on the prevailing scientific definition at the time. Other suggestions included modifications to a wide range of topics such as defining 'terminally ill', the ways in which misuse of ADs can be prevented, and the requirement to get approval from two medical boards. (https://bit.ly/3klVLSl) 💬 *What Next?* The Judges asked Mr. Datar to prepare a chart comparing the SC’s 2018 guidelines and the recommended changes. The case will be heard again at 2 PM today.

☀️ Good morning! The 5-Judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud is expected to finish hearing arguments in the dispute between the Union and Delhi governments over the control of administrative services in the NCT of Delhi. (https://bit.ly/3ZFmdXa) 👨🏾‍⚖️ *What is the case about?* In 2018 the SC held that the NCT of Delhi held special status in comparison to other Union Territories. The Lieutenant Governor (LG)—the administrative head appointed by the Union government—is bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers for most matters under the State and Concurrent Lists of the Constitution. (https://bit.ly/3iJ8Swl) In April 2022, the Union government claimed that the Judgment was silent on who controlled civil servants and administrative services in Delhi (https://bit.ly/3CVqtbs). The Delhi government claimed this was a ‘delaying tactic’ and an attempt from the Union to convince the Court to reconsider the 2018 decision (https://bit.ly/3WfiBsa). However, the Bench led by CJI Ramana referred the case to a 5-Judge Bench on May 6th, 2022 (https://bit.ly/3CRVSLV). 🗣️ *What arguments have been made so far?* The Court began hearing arguments in the case on January 10th, 2023. Senior Advocate Dr. A.M. Singhvi, representing the Delhi government, argued that civil servants must answer to the Delhi government in order to be held accountable. Further, the Union cannot usurp these powers from the Delhi government without enacting a Constitutional Amendment. (https://bit.ly/3Xvkt0E) Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, on the other hand, argued that the Delhi government’s concerns were overblown. The LG only interferes in the ‘rarest of rare’ cases and the Union was not attempting to usurp any of the Delhi government’s powers. He suggested that the Union and the LG have administrative control over the territory while the Delhi government retains ‘functional’ control. The Bench however, did not appear convinced by his arguments. (https://bit.ly/3kjMqdG) Mr. Mehta will finish his arguments today and the case is expected to conclude following Dr. Singhvi’s response to the Union’s arguments.

☀️ Good morning! Here are SCO's updates for the day: *Constitutionality of Anti-Conversion Laws* 🛐 Today, a Bench led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud will hear a case challenging the constitutional validity of anti-conversion laws in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand. The challenges to these laws were filed by Citizens for Justice and Peace, a Mumbai-based NGO, and Adv. Vishal Thakre. They claim that these anti-conversion laws violate the rights to life, liberty, privacy and the freedom of religion by restricting their freedom to choose their religion and their marriage partners. Read more: (http://bit.ly/3w79wXu) *Why were the laws challenged?* 📝 The petitioners claim that anti-conversion laws in Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand introduced a very cumbersome process for anyone wishing to change their religion. This entails filing a declaration before the local Magistrate up to 60 days in advance before converting from their original religion. Further, the person performing the conversion is required to prove that register the conversion in advance failing which they can be punished with upto 10 years of imprisonment. Read more: (http://bit.ly/3w5W6LG) ❓ Is there something about the Supreme Court you would like to learn more about? Drop a text and let us know!

🌄 Good Morning! Two Constitution cases took centre stage this week at the Supreme Court—a plea seeking additional compensation for the victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, and the dispute between the Union and the Delhi Governments over the control of Delhi’s administrative services. 🏭 The Union Government in the *Bhopal Gas Tragedy* challenge approached the Court seeking additional compensation from Union Carbide. In 1989, the Court facilitated the $470 million settlement between Union Carbide and the Union government. In 1991 the Union filed a petition to review the Judgment, claiming that the settlement was invalid. The Court dismissed the case on grounds that the settlement was sound, and did not qualify a review from the Court. 32 years later, the Union came to the Court with similar concerns. They stated that new facts have emerged since the settlement—more victims, new illnesses and environmental damage have been identified. This _curative petition_, filed as a last ditch effort after the _review petition_ was rejected, seeks a whopping ₹7,400 crores. (https://bit.ly/3Zw96HL) The Court heard the case for 3 days and reserved Judgment this week. 💪🏽 Three days of hearings have been completed in the *clash between the Union and Delhi Governments*. Delhi’s Aam Aadmi Party-led government has tussled with the Union for control over the National Capital Territory ever since it first came to power in 2013. In 2018 the SC found that as per Article 239AA, the elected Delhi government had power over all items in the State List except police, land, and public order—these remaining items would be controlled by the Union. In May 2022, the SC referred the limited question of who should control Delhi’s civil services to 5-Judge Bench. (https://bit.ly/3H2aCdq) The case will be heard next on Tuesday, and hearings are expected to continue next week.

☀️ Good morning! Here are the new developments in the Constitution Benches led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice S.K. Kaul. 💸 *Adequacy of Compensation for Bhopal Gas Tragedy Victims* Yesterday, the Constitution Bench headed by Justice Kaul concluded hearings in the Union’s plea to increase the compensation awarded to victims of the bhopal gas tragedy. Adv. Harish Salve, representing Union Carbide, vehemently argued against enhancing the $470 million compensation granted for Bhopal Gas Tragedy Victims. Advocate Karuna Nundy argued that Union Carbide committed fraud by suppressing crucial material when the settlement was being decided. Read SCO's report. (https://bit.ly/3ZyMHd1) 🌇 *Control of the NCT of Delhi's Civil Servants* Yesterday, the Constitution Bench headed by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud continued hearing arguments in the dispute between the Union and Delhi governments over control of civil servants. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta extensively argued about Delhi's significant status compared to other States and Union Territories. He faced tough questions from CJI Chandrachud about Delhi Government's Legislative Powers & Executive Control over services. SG Mehta will continue arguments next week on Tuesday. Read SCO's report. (https://bit.ly/3iGzQEN) ✍️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! Yesterday the 5-Judge Constitution Benches led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice S.K. Kaul continued hearing arguments in the dispute between the Union and Delhi governments over control of civil servants, and the Unions bid to enhance the compensation provided to victims of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy. 💸 *Adequacy of Compensation for Bhopal Gas Tragedy Victims* The Attorney General argued that the SC should interfere in the case on account of the human tragedy involved. However, the Bench stuck to their objections from the day before, they did not see a way to interfere with the settlement agreement while they were restricted by the Court’s limited jurisdiction in curative petitions. Here, the Court can only grant relief when one of their past Orders has caused a ‘gross miscarriage of justice’. The AG attempted to argued that the settlement was agreed to based on erroneous assumptions, resulting in such a miscarriage of justice. However, the Bench repeatedly pointed out that if there was any shortfall in the amount of compensation provided to the victims, the Union has the obligation to pay the amount. The AG concluded his arguments and the Bench is expected to finish hearing the case today. Read SCO’s report of yesterday’s hearing. (https://bit.ly/3IH4qbW) 🌇 *Control of the NCT of Delhi’s Civil Servants* Senior Advocate Dr. A.M Singhvi and Advocate Shadan Farasat argued on behalf of the Delhi government yesterday. Dr. Singhvi argued that the Delhi government should retain control over the appointment and transfer of civil servants alongside the allocation of work. Mr. Farasat argued that the Union did not have any legitimate interest in controlling civil services within the Union Territory and compared the administration of Delhi to that of other national capitals worldwide so show that power over civil services must lie with the local government. Meanwhile, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, argued that there was a mistake in the perception of the law. The Lieutenant Governor, the administrative head of the NCT of Delhi appointed by the President, had a harmonious relationship with the Delhi government and there was no scope for their power to be misused. Read SCO’s report of the hearing. (https://bit.ly/3WjYvwZ)

☕ Good morning! Today, 5-Judge Constitution Benches led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice S.K. Kaul will resume hearing arguments over the adequacy of the compensation provided to Bhopal Gas Tragedy Victims and the control of Delhi’s Civil Servants. Here is a recap of yesterday’s hearings: 🚨 *1. Adequacy of Compensation for Bhopal Gas Tragedy Victims* Sr. Adv. Harish Salve, for Union Carbide, objected to the Union’s claim for additional reparations for victims by arguing that there was no law to reopen compensation claims after a settlement was reached. As such, Union Carbide was not willing to reopen a compensation claim at this juncture. He also pointed out that ₹50 crores remained with the welfare commission for victims of the tragedy to be paid from the settlement amount. Attorney General R. Venkataramani, for the Union government, pointed out that the settlement provided to Bhopal Gas Tragedy victims was inadequate as there were far more victims than initially anticipated. He argued that the 1989 settlement reached before the SC left the door open for future claims. He further stated that the Union did not wish to set aside the 1989 settlement, but instead wished to present fresh data to justify the additional payment. Read more about the case here: (https://bit.ly/3GWunmU) 🛂 *2. Control of the NCT of Delhi’s Civil Servants* Sr. Adv. A.M. Singhvi, for the Delhi government, argued that core issue behind the control of Delhi’s civil servants was the accountability of the NCT’s administrative officials. He pointed out that civil servants should be accountable to the NCT of Delhi’s council of ministers who in turn answer to its legislature. Since the legislature is accountable to the people who voted them to power, this creates a chain of accountability. He pointed out that if Delhi’s civil servants answer to the Union government instead, this chain of accountability will be broken. For a government to fulfil the will of its people, Mr. Singhvi highlighted that it must have a mechanism to do so. A government performs its functions by formulating policies which are implemented through civil servants. If the Delhi government cannot control its civil servants, its very purpose as a government will be negated. He argued that allowing the Union government, and not the NCT of Delhi government, to control Delhi’s civil servants will lead to ‘complete insubordination and chaos’. Read more about the case here: (https://bit.ly/3k4MY7g)

☕ Good morning! Two 5-Judge Constitution Benches are set to convene today. 👨🏾‍⚖️ The Constitution Bench led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud is expected to finalise the schedule for hearing three of the four cases that were listed before it when the Bench was first created on September 6th, 2022, by CJI U.U. Lalit. The cases are as follows: 1) Deciding how the 10th Schedule of the Constitution applies to the Shiv Sena party split in Maharashtra. (https://bit.ly/3IB9VJk) 2) The dispute between the Union and Delhi government over the control of civil services in the Union Territory. (https://bit.ly/3GrMbor) 3) The challenge to Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955 which enables the creation of a ‘National Register of Citizens’ in Assam. (https://bit.ly/3QpgOPI) 💸 Another Constitution Bench, led by Justice S.K. Kaul, will begin hearing the Union government’s plea to increase the compensation awarded to victims of the 1984 Bhopal Gas Tragedy. In 1989 the Supreme Court awarded the victims $470 million. In 2010 the Union government filed a petition seeking further compensation of ₹7400 crores. The case remained unheard until September 20th, 2022 when it was placed before the Constitution Bench led by Justice Kaul. Read more about the history of the claim for compensation. (https://bit.ly/3CAfGTH)

☀️ Good morning! Here are SCO's must reads for the day. 📣Today, a 2-Judge Bench of Justices K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna will continue hearing activist Gautam Navlakha's house arrest plea. Gautam Navlakha, a 73-year old activist, was arrested in the Elgar Parishad Case. He was accused of inciting violence and criminal conspiracy under the UAPA and the IPC. On November 11th, 2022, the SC ordered him to placed under house arrest for 1 month. His period of house arrest was later extended upto the second-week of January. Read more: (https://bit.ly/3GOwNDR) 🔢 Last year, the Supreme Court recorded an average of 2,911 cases disposed of per month, a major improvement compared to the COVID years of 2020 and 2021. Notably, this increase in disposal figures also coincides with the revival of Constitution Benches under former Chief Justice U.U. Lalit. SCO analysed the Supreme Court's disposal trends in 2022. Read More: (https://bit.ly/3VQMw9H) ✍️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!