The Indian judiciary has been grappling with the question of whether to permit foreign lawyers to practice in India for more than two decades. After yesterday’s hearing in the Supreme Court, it doesn’t look like any end is in sight.

A Supreme Court bench comprising of justices Madan B Lokur, Kurian Joseph and AK Sikri finally gave the go-ahead today (14 September), to the inquiry team led by former CBI special director ML Sharma to probe the visitors’ diary of former CBI chief Ranjit Sinha.

The social justice bench of the Supreme Court comprising justices Madan B Lokur and Uday Umesh Lalit heard six cases on Friday, September 11, and made significant interventions in at least two.

A Supreme Court bench comprising of justices MY Eqbal and C Nagappan on Wednesday (9 September) turned its ire in court No 10 on four states for not filing their counter affidavits in the case of Parivartan Kendra vs Union of India dealing with the PIL seeking rehabilitation scheme for acid attack survivors.

In IA 13 of Common Cause vs Union of India , if in the last hearing, the Supreme Court had explored the chances of the Central Vigilance Commissioner probing the Ranjit Sinha visitors diary matter despite Prashant Bhushan’s warning against it, on Monday (7 September), the bench turned full circle, b...

Despite suffering from adjournments and not having been able to close a single case since starting nearly a year ago, as reported last week by SCOI Reports, on Friday (September 4) the social justice bench continued its work with justices Madan B Lokur and UU Lalit hearing six cases in 40 minutes after 2 pm.

Yesterday (September 1) in Court No 8 of the Supreme Court, before justices Ranjan Gogoi and NV Ramana, a case of civil contempt against the Central Government was argued unsuccessfully by the petitioner in the main case of National Federation of the Blind vs Sanjay Kothari, Secy Deptt Of Personnel and Training.

Chief Justice of India HL Dattu and Justice Amitava Roy yesterday (31 August) granted a stay on the Rajasthan high court’s judgment delivered on August 10 criminalising the Jain community’s practice of Santhara – meaning abstinence from food and water by a person, who awaits death – and issued notice to the respondents in the case.

Today (27 August) on the second day of the hearing in the Supreme Court, the bench comprising justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C Pant asked counsel representing the Gujarat Government and the respondent, Islamic Relief Committee Gujarat (IRCG), to come up with answers for two questions, during the next hearing on September 23.

Court No 4 witnessed interesting arguments concerning the scope of India’s secularism before justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C Pant, in the case of The State of Gujarat and others vs Islamic Relief Committee, Gujarat (IRCG) and another.

The Kerala Government’s senior counsel, Kapil Sibal, who resumed his arguments at 10.30 a.m. yesterday (August 25) in Court No.11 of the Supreme Court, completed his arguments at 2.30 p.m. As the justices Vikramajit Sen and Shiva Kirti Singh queried him about the basis of classification of four star and five star hotels for the purpose of grant of licences to the latter, Sibal asked what is so irrational about classification.

Yesterday (August 21) senior advocate Kapil Sibal continued his arguments before the Supreme Court bench hearing the challenges to the Kerala Government’s liquor policy, making it clear that he did not want to whittle down Article 14.

Yesterday (20 August), the petitioners in the ongoing Kerala Bar Hotels Association’s appeal against the Kerala high court’s decision approving the Kerala Government’s controversial liquor policy favouring the five-star hotels, concluded their arguments at Court No.11.

Arguments continued by the appellants in the Kerala liquor ban case Kerala Bar Hotels Association vs State of Kerala for the second day on August 18 in the Supreme Court’s Court No. 11, with senior advocates, Harish Salve and N Venkataraman making a determined attempt to expose the State Government’s “discriminatory” liquor policy.

Ex-Medical Council of India (MCI) president Dr Ketan Desai is facing a Supreme Court probe into all manner of allegations into the future of the profession’s regulator.

Arguments in The Kerala Bar Hotels Association vs State of Kerala began with a lot of excitement on both sides last week before the bench of justices Viramajit Sen and Shiva Kirti Singh.

As the oral submissions in the Union of India vs V Sriharan @ Murugan matter concluded on Wednesday (August 12) in the Supreme Court, it became obvious that the Rajasthan government chose to adopt the submissions of other State Governments who have, by and large, opposed the Union of India’s plea for restricting the state governments’ power under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC ) to remit life sentences.

In Indian National Congress vs UOI, which came up before the Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Bench today, the counsel for the Association for Democratic Reforms, Prashant Bhushan, alleged that both the Congress and the UOI suffer from conflict of interests in the case, in the face of a clear finding by the Delhi high court that both the Congress and the BJP had received crores as funding from foreign sources, and that there is not even an iota of doubt that the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 was violated by both.

In Maru Ram vs Union of India in 1980, the Supreme Court’s five-Judge Constitution Bench heard the first challenge to section 433A Cr.P.C. and upheld its constitutionality.

Now, the issue has turned full circle.

The hearing of this case continued yesterday with Rakesh Dwivedi, counsel for both Tamil Nadu and West Bengal in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, arguing the whole day that state governments should have the power to suspend or remit sentences or exercise mercy by using their own discretion.