Supreme Court Observer

☀️ Good morning! The Supreme Court heard two Constitution Bench cases yesterday. Both cases could have a significant impact o the Union government’s powers. 💸 Yesterday, the Constitution Bench hearings in the challenge to the Union’s 2016 demonetisation scheme were taking place in Justice Nazeer’s courtroom. Senior Advocate. Former Finance Minister P. Chidambaram argued for the entire day, challenging the demonetisation scheme. He argued that the process was incorrectly initiated by the Union government, had drastic consequences, and was done without due application of mind. Read SCO’s background of the case to learn more about the challenge. (https://bit.ly/3AGAxDO) 🗳️ The 5-Judge Bench led by Justice K.M. Joseph conducted the final hearing in the challenge to the current system of appointing Election Commission of India (ECI) members. Currently, the President makes appointments based on the recommendations of the Prime Minister. Advocate Anoop Baranwal filed a Public Interest Litigation in 2015 claiming that this system has degraded the ECI’s independence over time. Read SCO Shorts to learn more about the case and the possible outcomes. (https://bit.ly/3Xyn9eM) 👨🏾‍⚖️ In yesterday’s hearing, the Bench read the files relating to Mr. Arun Goels appointment as Election Commissioner, which took place while the hearings in the case were ongoing. The Bench asked Attorney General R. Venkataramani why there was a ‘tearing’ urgency to make this appointment while the system was under challenge. The AG however, attempted to veer the discussion back to the constitutional questions surrounding the case instead of elaborating on this individual instance, despite the Bench’s insistence. Read SCO’s report of yesterday’s hearing. (https://bit.ly/3U5SBON)

☀️Good Morning! Two Constitution Benches will assemble in the Supreme Court today. 💰 Justice Abdul Nazeer led Constitution Bench will hear the challenges against Union’s 2016 demonetisation scheme which declared all ₹500 and ₹1000 currency notes as invalid tender. The BenchCourt will decide if the demonestisation scheme is constitutionally valid, and if it was applied in a reasonable manner. Read more about the case here (https://bit.ly/3U6QxG1) 👨🏾‍⚖️ Justice KM Joseph led Constitution Bench is expected to conclude challenge to the Executive’s power to appoint members of the Election Commission of India (ECI). The Bench is expected to begin hearing a batch of cases challenging Tamil Nadu laws that protects Jallikattu. The law claims that Jallikattu is a cultural heritage of the State. Read SCO’s list of Constitution Bench cases here (https://bit.ly/3U27SjD) 📺 SCO is now on YouTube! Subscribe for daily video updates on the Supreme Court: (https://bit.ly/3rBIgyn)

☀️Good Morning! Yesterday, Court Room 4 heard the challenge to the Executive’s power to appoint members of the Election Commission of India (ECI). 🗳️ In 2015, Anoop Baranwal filed a PIL arguing that allowing the Executive to make appointments has degraded the ECI’s independence over time. (https://bit.ly/3XoiA6U) 🗣️ In the hearing yesterday, Attorney General Venkataramani argued that the Supreme Court must not intervene in this case—they must respect the separation of powers and refrain from deciding a case concerning the powers of the Executive. He stressed that Article 324 of the Constitution vests the power to make laws on ECI appointments in the Parliament. 👨🏾‍⚖ The 5-Judge Bench led by Justice K.M. Joseph, appeared less than agreeable. They pushed back, stating that Parliament had not fulfilled this duty for over 70 years! Although Article 324 places an expectation on Parliament to draft a law governing ECI appointments, it has not done so till date. In the absence of such a law, the President has been making appointments as per the recommendations of the Prime Minister. 🌏 The Bench also pointed to some of India’s neighbours such as Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan, as well as the UK and USA for reference. These countries, the Bench said, had put some thought into the EC election process and come up with their own rules to govern them. In contrast, India had allowed a legal vacuum on the issue to persist. 📃 Read SCO’s detailed report of the hearing here (https://bit.ly/3TSRd1O). The hearing will continue today. Watch the hearings live on https://www.scobserver.in/!

☀️ Good morning! Here are SCO’s updates for the day. 🗳️ Today, a Justice KM Joseph-led Constitution Bench will hear a plea seeking to reform the selection process for Election Commission of India (ECI) members. The plea was filed in 2015 by Mr. Anoop Baranwal who argues that the current system of appointing members of the ECI is unconstitutional. He argues that the Constitution states that Parliament can enact a law to decide how the members of the ECI are appointed. However, since the Parliament has not made such a law, the power to make appointments rests with the Executive. The Union has defended its current appointment mechanism citing the ‘honest record’ of all the past Chief Election Commissioners. Read more: (http://bit.ly/3GETwT9) 🗞️ A CJI DY Chandrachud-led Bench will hear a petition by Congress leader Jaya Thakur challenging a recent notification allowing a 15 day extension period for the sale of electoral bonds during election years. Challenges have also previously been filed against the Union’s 2018 Electoral Bond scheme, in its totality, claiming that it allows corporates to anonymously make donations to political parties. The scheme was passed as a Money Bill, allowing it to bypass examination by the Rajya Sabha. The Bench will decide if the scheme allows unaccounted political donations by corporations, and if it was justified to pass it as a Money Bill. These challenges will be heard next on December 6th. Read more about the case here: (http://bit.ly/3VjDPVH) 📺 SCO is now on YouTube! Subscribe for daily video updates on the Supreme Court: (https://bit.ly/3rBIgyn)

☕ Good morning! Here are SCO's must-reads for the day. 👨🏾‍⚖️ Today, the Court is expected to hear the challenge to the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. The Act revives provisions which are identical to those struck down by the Supreme Court in July 2021. The Court held that these provisions threaten the independence of the Judiciary as they give the Union additional control over the selection and service conditions of Tribunal members which the Coiurt. In September 2021 a Bench led by CJI Ramana criticised the Union for re-enacting the same provisions and not honouring the Court’s decisions. Read SCO’s background of the case. (https://bit.ly/3Xg3TTk) ⚖️ This dispute is the latest instance of the Union attempting to exercise additional control over tribunals through enactments that are allegedly meant to bypass SC decisions. In 2010 the Supreme Court held that the National Company Law Tribunal and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal would remain unconstitutional until the Union addressed defects in the law relating to service conditions and selection of Tribunal members. Despite this, the Union re-instated the NCLT and NCLAT in 2013 without addressing the defects pointed out by the SC. Read about the history of the disputes over Tribunal control. (https://bit.ly/3URqUu5) 📺 SCO is now on YouTube! Subscribe for daily video updates on the Supreme Court: (https://bit.ly/3rBIgyn)

☀️ Good morning! The SC is set to hear a petition challenging India's blood donation guidelines today. 🏳‍🌈 Santa Khurai, a prominent transgender rights activist from Manipur has filed a PIL challenging the permanent exclusion of transgender persons, men who have sex with men, and female sex workers from being blood donors. ❔ What does the law say? In October 2017, the National Blood Transfusion Council (NBTC) and the National Aids Control Organisation (NACO) issued guidelines on donor selection and best practices in blood transfusion services, titled ‘Guidelines for Blood Donor Selection and Blood Donor Referral’. The general criteria for the donor selection included ‘Risk Behaviour’ (Clause 12) and ‘At risk for HIV Infection’ (Clause 51). These clauses permanently banned transgender persons, men who have sex with men, and female sex workers from donating blood. The guidelines considered this group of persons as ‘at risk’ for HIV, Hepatitis B or C infections. ❓What does the petitioner say? The petitioner contended that the permanent deferment based on gender identity and sexual orientation is violative of Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. The Guidelines denies transgender persons, gay and bisexual men, and female sex workers equal opportunity, the autonomy of equal participation, and the right to access to health. ❔What about the Union? The Union government ministries are yet to file any response in the case. They were directed to do so in March 2021. Access key documents and read more here https://bit.ly/3tKtru4

☀️ Good Morning! Democracy will take the center stage at the Supreme Court today. Today, the SC is scheduled to hear a PIL seeking reforms in how members of the Election Commission of India are appointed. A 5-Judge Constitution Bench, led by Justice K.M Joseph is hearing the case. (https://bit.ly/3AlvAQV) 📜 *Background* In January 2015, Advocate Anoop Baranwal filed a Public Interest Litigation, arguing that the current system for appointing members of the Election Commission of India (ECI) is unconstitutional. Currently, the Executive enjoys the power to make appointments, which the PIL claims has degraded the ECI’s independence over time. Mr. Baranwal has asked the Court to issue directions to create an independent, Collegium-like system for ECI appointments. It claims that the current system of appointments violates Article 324(2) of the Constitution. 📔 *What is Article 324?* Article 324 specifies that the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners will be appointed by the President. However, The Constitution framers believed that the power vested in the President in this instance was excessive. Therefore, the President's power is subject to any laws that the Parliament may make. 🖊️ *What do the Petitioner’s Claim*? Mr. Baranwal argues that although Article 324 places a check on the President’s powers, no such law has been made to give effect to the Article. So, presently, the President makes appointments as per the recommendations of the Prime Minister. 🗣️ *What Does the Union Government Argue?* The Union has defended the current mechanism of appointments, stating that all the past Chief Commissioners have an ‘honest record’. They have urged the Court to not intervene, arguing that the matter falls within the executive domain. ⚖️ *Who are the Judges?* 5 Judges will be hearing this case. Justices K.M. Joseph (https://bit.ly/3UETFdF), Ajay Rastogi (https://bit.ly/3AnHklN), Aniruddha Bose (https://bit.ly/3Oixasr), Hrishikesh Roy (https://bit.ly/3hPdyjH) and C.T. Ravikumar (https://bit.ly/3E759iS) are members of the Constitution Bench. ➡️ *What next?* Since the SC referred the case to a 5-judge Bench in 2018, there have been no hearings. Tomorrow, arguments in the case are expected to begin. What do you think? Who should hold the power to appoint members of the Election Commission of India? Write to us and let us know!

☀️ Good morning! The Constitution Bench led by Justice Abdul Nazeer is expected to hear two exciting cases which will have a large bearing on the conduct of public officials. 💰 Today, the Bench will hear the case against Jharkand Mukti Morcha MLA, Sita Soren, who was arrested in 2012 for accepting a bribe to vote for a specific candidate in the 2012 Rajya Sabha elections. The CBI filed a chargesheet against her and the Jharkhand HC refused to quash the proceedings, leading to an appeal at the SC. Sita Soren claims the Constitution gives MLA’s immunity when it comes to the votes they make in the Legislature. This protection was affirmed by a past Constitution Bench as well in 1998. To figure out the scope of this protection, the SC referred the case to a Constitution Bench in March 2019. Read SCO’s background of the case. (https://bit.ly/3UXHuIA) 🗣️ The same Bench is hearing a separate case that may have ramifications on the freedom of speech of public officials. In 2016, following an incident where a mother and her child were gang-raped on an Uttar Pradesh highway, the then Samajwadi Party leader, Azam Khan, called the incident a ‘political conspiracy' against the UP government ahead of the upcoming elections. The victims approached the SC in August 2016 claiming that Mr. Khans statement compromised the integrity of the ongoing investigation and violated their right to life. The SC referred the case to a Constitution Bench in April 2017 to determine the limits of a public official’s freedom of speech. Read SCO’s background of the case (https://bit.ly/3UY8nfi) 🙏🏾 In other news, a Bench led by CJI Chandrachud briefly heard the challenge to the Places of Worship Act, 1991 filed by ex-BJP spokesperson and lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Court that he would need to consult with higher level government officers to clarify the Union’s stance in this case. The case is likely to come up for hearing next in January 2023. Read SCO’s report of the hearing (https://bit.ly/3Aezv1P)

☀️ Good morning! Here are SCO's must-reads for the day. 🛕 Today, a Bench led by CJI Chandrachud will hear a PIL by Advocate and Politician Ashwini Upadhyay challenging the constitutional validity of Places of Worship Act, 1991. The Act prevents the conversion of places of worship from the religion they were on August 15th, 1947. Read SCO’s case background here (https://bit.ly/3Abh4Lx) 👨🏾‍⚖️ This week, a Constitution Bench led by Justice Abdul Nazeer is likely to hear a case by Kaushal Kishore questioning whether the right to free speech and expression, especially of those in public office, may be curtailed by the right to dignity. Read SCO’s case background here (https://bit.ly/3TtihEx) 📩 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 must-reads for the day. 🛕 A Bench led by CJI Chandrachud extended the protection granted to the shivling allegedly found in the disputed Gyanvapi Mosque site in Varanasi. Read more about the dispute and the protection extended here (https://bit.ly/3O2jmC4) 👨🏻‍⚖ A Bench led by Justice S.K. Kaul, a member of the current SC Collegium, began writing the latest chapter in the struggle for control over judicial appointments between the SC and the Executive yesterday. Justice Kaul directed the Union to explain why 11 names recommended by the Collegium for elevation to various high courts have been left pending for the past 3 months. The Collegium-Executive struggle for power dates back to 1981. Read more here (https://bit.ly/3A6p2Wg) 📩 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 October 26th, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change approved the 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. The conflict reached the Supreme Court. 📄 Activist Aruna Rodrigues, among many others approached the SC seeking directions to the government to be transparent with the results of field trials conducted on GM crops. They also asked the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) of the Ministry to come up with a rigorous biosafety protocol before granting clearance to Genetically Modified Organisms. ☠️ On November 3rd, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for Ms. Rodrigues argued that the committee called Herbicide Tolerant (HT) GM crops unsuitable for India. The herbicide sprayed on HT crops can cause cancer and had recommended the use of alternatives. Mr. Bhushan also cited the committee’s recommendation for a total ban on all HT crops as a precautionary measure. 🚫 The proposal to approve GM mustard had received a veto from the Ministry in 2017. They had assured the SC that no decision had been taken to release GM Mustard in the environment and if any such decisions were taken, it would seek the court’s approval. 🗂️ The challenge is expected to be heard again on November 17th, as the Union Government’s reply to the challenge is submitted to the SC bench. Watch SCO Daily to know more about the developments so far. (https://youtu.be/gZ8NcyFXdvc) 🔍 Today Chief Justice Chandrachud is set to hear the Gyanvapi Mosque Dispute at 3:00PM. Yesterday Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain brought the case to the attention of the Court. He explained that the court’s order protecting the object in the mosque, is expiring on November 11th. The object, found during the court appointed survey and has been claimed to be a ‘Shivling’. Read More (https://bit.ly/3WQEpf8)

☀️ Good morning! Here are SCO’s updates for the day. 👨‍⚖ Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud took the oath of office yesterday. CJI Chandrachud has an extensive background in academia from even before he became a Judge which reflects in the Judgments he has authored. As an SC Judge, he was part of several notable Judgments. In 2018, he was part of the 5-Judge Bench which decriminalised consensual sex between same-sex partners. In the same year, he also upheld the right of women to marry a partner of their choice irrespective of religion. Watch our latest SCO Daily to find out more about the 50th CJI’s background, his notable Judgments and the expectations he faces at the helm of the SC: (https://bit.ly/3UKGIhJ) 💸 Yesterday, a 5-Judge Constitution Bench led by Justice Abdul Nazeer heard challenges against the Union’s 2016 demonetisation scheme which declared all ₹500 and ₹1000 currency notes as invalid tender. However, to the dismay of the Bench and the parties challenging the scheme, the Union sought additional time to file documents. Constitution Benches rarely adjourn in this manner. They are of a larger Bench size due to the relatively greater importance of the cases they hear. As a result, two to three smaller Benches are unable to convene when Constitution Benches hear a case. Read more about yesterday’s hearing here: (http://bit.ly/3DWwCn9) 📰 On November 8th, 2016, the Union government implemented the demonetisation scheme to curb the circulation of black money and to aid the shift to a ‘cashless’ society. Several challenges were filed before the Supreme Court and High Courts challenging the constitutional validity of the scheme and the manner in which it was implemented. The 3-Judge Bench hearing the case transferred all the challenges before the High Courts to the Supreme Court and referred the case to a Constitution Bench. However, the case remains pending 6 years later. Read more about the challenges on SCO’s case page: (https://bit.ly/3DWwCn9)

☀️ Good morning! Today marks the first day of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s 2-year term as the Chief Justice of India. 👨🏾‍⚖️ CJI Chandrachud was elevated to the Supreme Court in May 2016 after serving for over 2-years as the Chief Justice of the Allahabad HC. Before his first run as a Chief Justice, his career was firmly rooted in the Bombay HC. After graduating from Harvard in 1986, he practiced in the Bombay HC for his entire career as an advocate, being designated as a senior advocate in 1998. In March 2000 he became a Judge at the Bombay HC and would spend the next 13-years serving there. Read SCO’s profile to learn more about the new CJI’s career so far. (https://bit.ly/3EgNoij) ✒️ The new CJI has a distinctive approach to Judging and writing Judgments that he has spoken about in public addresses over the years. When speaking about writing decisions, he has often shirked ‘formal’ ways of thinking about the law and emphasised the role of a Judge’s creativity. CJI Chandrachud often makes references to academic and non-academic texts in his Judgments as well, even if they may not be immediately relevant to the legal issue at hand. SCO examined CJI Chandrachud’s style and approach to Judgment writing. (https://bit.ly/3WQiXae) 📄 Along with the responsibilities that come with hearing and deciding cases, CJI Chandrachud will now take upon a host of additional administrative duties. One of these obligations is leading the SC Collegium to appoint new Judges and fill the seven vacancies on the SC’s Bench. However, the former Justice Chandrachud’s method of protesting Collegium meetings, by conducting late hearings and absenting himself, may set a dangerous precendent for his own tenure at the helm of an unusually crowded 6-member SC Collegium. Read more about the possible consequences of his protest here. (https://bit.ly/3zYFPdQ)

☀️ Good morning! The Constitution Bench led by CJI Lalit upheld the validity of EWS Reservations which were introduced in January 2019 through the Constitution (103rd) Amendment Act yesterday. 👨🏾‍⚖️ The 5- Judge Bench upheld the validity of EWS in a 3-2 split verdict. Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi and J.B. Pardiwala upheld the Amendment in its entirety in separate concurring opinions. They stated that the economic criteria for reservations and the exclusion of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes is constitutionally valid. On the other hand, Justice Ravindra Bhat, writing for himself and Chief Justice U.U. Lalit, found the concept of EWS reservation itself permissible, but held that the Amendment and this exclusion is unconstitutional. Read SCO’s Judgment matrix (https://bit.ly/3hmL0xF) ✍🏽 Yesterday was CJI Lalit’s last day in the Supreme Court. He has authored a number of important Judgments in his 8.25 year long tenure in the top court. His criminal law Judgments provide a snapshot of CJI Lalit’s emphasis on safeguards in cases with questions involving the death penalty. Read about Justice Lalit’s notable Judgments (https://bit.ly/3UdWFgT) ⏪ In his tenure of 8.25 years, Justice Lalit had impacted over 1000 cases. A third of his Judgments were criminal law cases, which is a reflection of his background as a criminal lawyer. Read about CJI Lalit’s tenure in numbers (https://bit.ly/3hpzCRK) 🔊 SCO spoke to prominent Senior Advocates on CJI Lalit's 74-day tenure. They shared views on his SC reforms and their experiences in his courtroom. Read accounts from Senior Advocates Dr. A.M.Singhvi, Vikas Singh, Siddharth Luthra, Vibha Makhija & Madhavi Divan here (https://bit.ly/3FRgcz5)

CJI Lalit's last day of hearings at the Supreme Court is set to be a memorable one. A 5-Judge Bench will deliver the EWS Reservations judgment today! ❓A range of questions about reservation in general and reservations on an economic criteria specifically arise in this case. What are the different ways the Court can decide the case? What will the effect of each potential decision be? SCO's pre-Judgment matrix breaks it down. (https://bit.ly/3hhqoa0) 🔊 Many critical gaps exist in the Supreme Court's reservation jurisprudence. Today's Judgment may provide and opportunity for the Court to clarify some of these confusions. What purpose do reservations serve? Is the purpose different in different types of reservations in education, employment and elections? What is a scientific data basis for reservations? Tune in to SCO Explains, our podcast, for more. (https://spoti.fi/3Ust6rs) ⌛ The EWS case offered an insight into how a Constitution Bench can manage it's time efficiently in order to conduct time-bound hearings. Read more about the way the Bench budgeted it's time, and the lessons this offers for the rest of the Court here. (https://bit.ly/3fFoShq)

☕️ Good Morning! On 3rd November, the Supreme Court reserved Judgment in an important freedom of speech case. At the core of the challenge was one question—can the government ban a news channel citing ‘national security concerns’ without disclosing what those concerns are? 📺 *Background of the Case* Kerala-based MediaOneTV is a Malayalam news channel backed by the Jamat-e-Islami-Hind. In January 2022, the Information and Broadcasting Ministry (I&B Ministry) refused to renew MediaOne’s broadcasting licence, effectively banning its operations. The I&B Ministry said that the Ministry of Home Affairs found national security issues in MediaOne’s programming. However, the I&B Ministry did not clarify its concerns in its notice to MediaOne. 🧑🏻‍⚖️ *Journey in Court* First, MediaOneTV went to the Kerala High Court. They requested that the Ministry should tell them WHY the ban was imposed. The Ministry agreed to explain—not to the parties or the public, but to the High Court alone, in a secretive sealed cover. Based on the contents of this sealed cover, the High Court upheld the Ban. Immediately, an army of advocates filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. 🗣️ *Main Arguments* *MediaOneTV* argued that a sealed cover created a bias in the minds of Judges, which the opposing party could not defend. Even the Bench appeared concerned. Justice Chandrachud remarked that forcing a party to argue their defence without access to the evidence against them is like tying their hands behind their back. Further, this licensing ban violates their right to free speech, which may be restricted only in the interest of public order. In this case it was unclear how the channel had disrupted public order to attract the ban. *The Union* responded that certain details concerning national security were sensitive and could not be shared with the channel management. Watch SCO’s video to know more about the arguments made (https://youtu.be/5NNFi7hCnj8) ✉️ *Is this the first time sealed covers have been used?* Sealed covers have been used in some high profile cases in the past few years. Here’s a list: - Rafale Fighter Jet Deal case (2018) (https://bit.ly/3NxdnVT) - National Register of Citizens case in Assam (2019) (https://bit.ly/3Wu1qUR) - Ayodhya Title dispute (2019) (https://bit.ly/3WycLTM) - Narendra Modi’s Biopic Release case (2019) (https://bit.ly/3WvIqW9) - Sexual harassment case against Gogoi CJI (2019) (https://bit.ly/3FOmI9R) - Electoral Bonds case (2021) (https://bit.ly/3t51tsF) Keep an eye on SCO on twitter to know what the Court holds.

☀️Good morning! Here are SCO’s updates for the day. 💸 On Wednesday, the SC reserved Judgment in a case concerning immunity from arrest for public officials. Dr. R.R. Kishore, the Chief Medical Officer in the Government of Delhi, was arrested in 2004 by the CBI on bribery charges. He claimed protection under S.6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, which bars corruption inquiries against high ranking government officials without the Union Government’s permission. However, S.6A was struck down in 2014 in a different case, leaving the SC to decide if Dr. Kishore can still claim protection under the now defunct law. Read more on SCO’s case page: (http://bit.ly/3sWKR6A) 🗳️ On the same day, the SC continued hearing arguments against promises of freebies by political parties during elections. Former BJP spokesperson and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay argued that practice of promising freebies was akin to bribery and unduly influencing voters. He insisted that the SC form a committee to create a standard electoral manifesto. However, CJI Lalit remained unconvinced and referred the case to a 3-Judge Bench. Read more: (http://bit.ly/3fASbBB) 📩 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! The Constitution Bench led by CJI Lalit is expected to deliver the Judgment in the challenge to reservations ‘Economically Weaker Sections’ before his retirement on November 8th. 🪙 EWS Reservations were introduced in January 2019 through the Constitution (103rd) Amendment Act. Unlike other reservations, this Amendment allowed States to identify beneficiaries solely based on economic criteria. States can provide up to 10% reservations in public employment and educational institutions for identified individuals. These reservations were challenged shortly after they were introduced and the case was referred to a 5-Judge Constitution Bench in August 2020. Watch SCO’s daily update to learn more about the issues in the case. (https://bit.ly/3h86E8t) 👨🏾‍⚖️ The Bench heard arguments over seven days in September 2022. Those challenging EWS reservations argued that the Amendment introducing them discriminated against Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward classes by specifically excluding them. The Union argued that the reservations were necessary to address the overwhelming poverty faced by those who were not already benefitting from reservation schemes. Read SCO’s Matrix detailing the arguments made by both sides. (https://bit.ly/3Ud3BKM) 📃 The SC’s Judgment is expected to clarify certain fundamental questions about reservations and the SC’s affirmative action jurispudence. What is the purpose of reservations? What should be considered when deciding who should benefit from reservations and how should they be identified? In what circumstances can the 50% ceiling on reservations be breached? SCO presents the possible outcomes of the challenge to EWS reservations in our Pre-Judgment Matrix. (https://bit.ly/3t37OVT)

☀️ Good morning! After a three week break from Constitution Bench cases, two will be heard today by Benches led by Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and S.K. Kaul. 🪓 The Bench led by Justice Chandrachud will hear the case relating to the split in the Shiv Sena at the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. The Uddhav Thakeray faction claims that the MLAs led by Eknath Shinde defected from the party and initiated disqualification proceedings against them. The Shinde faction claims they have the majority in the party and represent the ‘real’ Shiv Sena. The Court must decide how the 10th Schedule of the Constitution, which governs political defections, applies to this case as the provisions governing ‘splits’ in parties were repealed in 2003. Read SCO’s background of the case. (https://bit.ly/3DJZQqy) 🚔 The Bench led by Justice Kaul will hear a case filed by Dr. R.R. Kishore who was arrested for accepting a bribe under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act in 2004. Dr. Kishore claims that the CBI did not obtain approval from the Union government to revoke his immunity from arrest before arresting him, which was required under Section 6A of the Act. However, the SC repealed this provision in 2014, but did not specify if it would continue to apply in cases filed before the repeal. In 2016, Dr. Kishore’s case was referred to a 5-Judge Constitution Bench to determine if Section 6A applies to cases that arose before it was repealed. Read more about this case and the others that will be heard by the Justice Kaul-led Bench. (https://bit.ly/3fnBaee) 👩🏾‍⚖️ So far, only 1 out of the 25 Constitution Bench cases that were listed in late August 2022 have been decided. While six Constitution Benches have been created since these cases were listed, that may not be enough to restore the SC’s role as a Constitutional Court. What are the issues affecting Constitution Benches that the Court must address in order to dispose more important pending cases? (https://bit.ly/3FA7p4v0

☀️ Good morning! Here are SCO's must-reads for the day. 🗃️ Chief Justice U. U. Lalit promised a grand Constitution Bench revival while assuming office. A week remains in his 74 day tenure and hearings in 21 out of the 25 Constitution Bench cases listed are yet to be concluded. The formation of Constitution Benches may not be enough to restore the SC’s role as a Constitutional Court. How the Judges run Constitution Benches is just as pertinent. What challenges do the length of submissions and written arguments present for the SC's pendency problem? What fixes are Judges contemplating? What lessons can we learn from Supreme Courts in other parts of the world? ( https://bit.ly/3gVluiG) 🔇 Today, a Bench led by CJI Lalit will hear challenges to the criminalising of sedition. This will be the first hearing since CJI Ramana ordered the Union and States to pause all pending cases of Sedition and refrain from filing new ones while the Union considers repealing the law. Access key documents in the case and courtside reports of the hearings so far in SCO's case archive. (https://bit.ly/3SLtUX3) 👨🏻‍⚖ The Court will also hear challenges to the controversial 2019 Citizenship Amendment Act today. The petitioners argue that the Act discriminates against certain religious groups. These petitions have remained pending without final hearings since 2019. (https://bit.ly/3SReNM3)