Senior counsel TR Andhyarujina passed away early yesterday morning, with his funeral having taken place yesterday afternoon.

The Supreme Court’s five-judge Constitution bench judgment of 13 July, quashing president’s rule in Arunachal Pradesh, was a massive judgment in every way, and not just because it set off a series of dramatic events loaded with suspense.

The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce on Friday its verdict on a batch of petitions including by Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and BJP leader Subramanian Swamy challenging the constitutional validity of sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code providing for criminal defamation.

Three Judges of the Supreme Court, justices Madan B Lokur, Gopal Gowda and Kurian Joseph, attended a book launch function at the Indian Law Institute, New Delhi yesterday (11 April). While Justice Lokur formally released the book, Appointing our judges: Forging independence with accountability edite...

In the ongoing hearing of the Arunachal Pradesh matter before the constitution bench at court no 3, it was the turn of the senior advocate, TR Andhyarujina, to make his submissions today on behalf of the Governor.

Court No 7 of Supreme Court was witness to a suspenseful hearing on 20 January as counsel after counsel told the Bench comprising justices Ranjan Gogoi and Prafulla C Pant that it had been misled by the Uttar Pradesh Government that Justice Virendra Singh, a former judge of the Allahabad high court, whom it appointed as the Lokayukta of Uttar Pradesh under Article 142 of the Constitution, which gives the Court extraordinary powers to do complete justice in a case, was in the list of names being considered by the selection panel.

As the Supreme Court’s five-Judge Constitution Bench presided over by Justice JS Khehar began its hearing on reforming the collegium (the in-house mechanism to recruit Judges to the higher judiciary after its recent revival by the same bench) the bench sought advice from counsel on both sides on how to navigate the plethora of diverse proposals which it received.

The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions including by Congress vice -president Rahul Gandhi, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and BJP leader Subramanian Swamy challenging the constitutional validity of Indian Penal Code’s provisions on criminal defamation. A ben...

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.

SCOI Report, Wednesday 29 July 2015: Yakub Abdul Razak Memon vs State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Home Department, and Others

The Supreme Court will hear on Monday the plea by 1993 Mumbai serial bomb blasts convict Yakub Memon’s plea challenging the death warrant issued against him and for the stay of his execution set for July 30. “I have already assigned the bench. It will come by Monday,” said Chief Justice HL Dattu as ...

The Supreme Court yesterday began hearing former Bharatiya Janata Dal (BJP) party president Subramanian Swamy’s challenge of India’s criminal defamation laws in the Supreme Court yesterday, reported// Outlook and others. Swamy, for whom senior advocates GS Mani and Sushil Kumar Jain appeared in cour...

A Supreme Court bench of justices Ranjan Gogoi and NV Ramana today stayed the 20 March Delhi high court order that restrained generic drug maker Glenmark Pharmaceuticals from manufacturing an anti-diabetes drug over which Merck allegedly held a patent, reported Mint . Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Si...

The Congress’ Maharashtra unit Wednesday moved Bombay high court challenging the constitutional validity of the Devendra Fadnavis-led BJP government and seeking its dismissal. Former minister M Naseem Khan filed a writ petition before the court questioning the constitutional validity of the nearly m...