In the midst of the Supreme Court’s hearing on appeals filed by Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala against the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal’s 2007 Order yesterday (4 January), witnessed witty exchanges between Tamil Nadu’s senior counsel, Shekhar Naphade, and Karnataka’s senior counsel, Fali S. Nariman.

A Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi, together with justices PC Pant and UU Lalit, issued a contempt notice on retired Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju in a review petition in the Soumya murder case to which Gogoi had last month surprisingly invited Katju to argue in.

The Cauvery dispute is the most intractable of all the river water disputes, did you say? Think again.

It was a series of surprises wrapped in an enigma, so to speak. In the end, the King of Surprises, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, pretty much proved to those who assembled in Court 5 of the Supreme Court on 17 October that no one could beat him in the game of springing surprises.

The Hindu newspaper yesterday successfully persuaded the SC to change its mind for the second time in the same case.

A Supreme Court bench of justices JS Khehar and Dipak Misra today disposed of three writ petitions challenging President’s rule in Arunachal Pradesh, which was imposed on 26 January, as infructuous.

The Hindu newspaper yesterday successfully persuaded the Supreme Court bench comprising of justices JS Khehar and Arun Mishra to change its mind in an ongoing litigation over a breach of privilege notice issued to its editor, Mukund Padmanabhan, by the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly.

In the ongoing hearing of appeals by the four convicts in the 2012 Jyoti Singh Delhi rape and murder case in court No 4 in the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon, convict Mukesh’s controversial counsel, ML Sharma, was making submissions on the evidentiary value of DNA

The hearing of the petition seeking right to worship to women at Sabarimala, Kerala, in the Supreme Court has often led to inquisitive questions from the bench about Hinduism, spirituality, and tradition.

A matrimonial dispute before the Supreme Court saw tempers rising between husband and wife, who argued through their counsel before justices Kurian Joseph and Rohinton Nariman but which resulted in a sudden spark of mirth with an apt observation from Justice Joseph.

Justice AM Khanwilkar of the Supreme Court Vacation Bench on Monday (20 June) was pleasantly surprised when senior counsel, Raju Ramachandran, gave certain options to the bench, if it were to reject his prayer for bail for an accused who had been denied bail by the Orissa high court.

The Supreme Court’s vacation bench, comprising justices PC Ghose and Amitava Roy, on 10 June, was surprised to learn that an assistant teacher in the Malda district of West Bengal, had been teaching theology in a Madrasa without receiving salary for nearly a decade.

Justice Amitava Roy of the Supreme Court’s vacation bench asked counsel for the respondent in a motor accident insurance claim case, whether he knew the time of the day. The question left his colleague on the bench, Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose, as well as the counsel, surprised and trying to figure out where he was going.

Senior advocate, Indira Jaising, amicus curiae in the case of Nipun Saxena v Union of India, was elated when Justice JS Khehar and Justice C Nagappan asked her and the UOI counsel on 2 May whether they would have time to attend to the case, if listed during the vacation.

The Supreme Court’s vacation bench comprising justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Ashok Bhushan on Thursday (19 May) heard a matter pertaining to the Rent Act and found to their dismay, that the appellant’s counsel in the case was citing an authority which goes against him.

The Supreme Court on Friday imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on a petitioner in a criminal case for filing an erroneous English translation of a judicial order in Hindi which was wrong on grammar, construction of sentences, usage of words and punctuation.

It was a case of the state government appealing against the acquittal of an accused.

Have to bring matrimonial disputes before the Supreme Court’s vacation bench? Think again, perhaps.

As the Supreme Court’s three-Judge bench comprising justices Anil R Dave, Shiva Kirti Singh and Adarsh Kumar Goel, began hearing the NEET case on 6 May at 2 pm at the packed Court No 2, senior advocates, Vikas Singh and Rajeev Dhavan made brief submissions first.

At Court No 3 before noon today, the going was tough for the special leave petitions (SLPs), in direct proportion to the persistence of the counsel with their pleas.