i. Issue of minority status of AMU referred to a larger bench – The Supreme Court referred the issue of the minority status of the Aligarh Muslim University to a bench of 7 justices. The bench will essentially define the parameters of a minority institution. An earlier judgment had held that AMU could not be a minority institution as it was a central institution. To override the effect of the judgment, AMU (amendment) Act, 1981 was brought about, which was further struck down by the Allahabad High Court. The UPA government and the University had filed an appeal against the same, but the present government told the court that it would withdraw the said appeal. [Aligarh Muslim University v Naresh Agarwal, Civil Appeal No. 2286 of 2006, date of order: 12.02.2019]

ii. Court monitoring of probe into Saradha scam denied – The Supreme Court denied monitoring of the probe into the Saradha Chit Fund scam. The Counsel for the petitioners drew attention of the court to a order by then CJI T.S. Thakur, which had transferred the matter to CBI and had not decided the issue of constituting a monitoring committee into the matter. The counsel also pointed out the short comings in the investigation that CBI had been conducting till date, requesting a court monitoring of the investigation. The bench observed that it was not inclined to pass any orders on the matter. The Counsel though took permission from the court to approach the competent High Court with a similar prayer. [Subrata Chattoraj v Union of India, Miscellaneous Application No.297 of 2019 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.401of 2013, date of order: 11.02.2019]

iii. Nageshwar Rao found guilty of contempt of court – The Supreme Court found CBI Additional Director M Nageswara Rao guilty of contempt of court for transferring the investigating officer heading the probe in Muzaffarpur shelter home case in violation of the earlier order of the Court. The Court had specifically ordered that the investigating team would not be changed, but Rao went ahead and did the same anyway, while being cognizant of the order. S Bhasu Ram, in-charge Director of Prosecution CBI, who provided legal advice in the issue to CBI has also been found in contempt. Rao had given an unqualified apology for defying court orders but looking at the brazen nature of the action, he was sentenced till rising of the court and fined ₹1 Lakh. [Nivedita Jha v State of Bihar, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 24978 of 2018, date of order: 12.02.2019]

iv. Judgment on contempt petition against Anil Ambani reserved – The Supreme Court reserved its judgment on the contempt petition filed by Ericsson against Anil Ambani and other officials of Reliance Communications Ltd. Ambani came to the court itself for the proceedings of the case. The petition had been filed because the company violated the undertaking it gave the court of paying off ₹550 Cr. This comes after the Court gave Reliance the last opportunity to clear its debts. During the proceedings, tampering with records came to the attention of the court where the words of the order by the court were deliberately changed to dispense with personal appearance of Anil Ambani even though the order pronounced in the court was clear in requiring the presence of Ambani. The CJI, in exercise of his power as the administrative head of the court has sacked two clerks who allegedly tampered with the documents [Reliance Communication Limited v State Bank of India, Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s). 845 of 2018, date of order: 13.02.2019]

v. Property cannot be attached under PMLA during the IBC process – The Mumbai Bench of NCLT has allowed the lifting of the provisional attachment order against Sterling SEZ and Infrastructure passed by the Enforcement Directorate in light of allegations of money laundering more than ₹4000 Cr against it. The order though was passed after the insolvency petition under Section 7 IBC was admitted in the NCLT. The Resolution Professional then filed a petition in the NCLT praying that the order be lifted in the light of Section 238 (IBC) which provides for its overriding effect over other enactments and Section 14 which places a moratorium on any proceedings against the corporate debtor. The ED had argued that the proceedings under the PMLA were criminal in nature and were not hit by Section 14. The NCLT agreed with the Professional and lifted the attachment order holding that the PMLA court cannot attach assets of a company undergoing Corporate Insolvency process. [SREI Infrastructure Finance Limited v Sterling SEZ and Infrastructure Limited, Miscellaneous Application 1280 of 2018 in Company Petition 405 of 2018, date of order:12.02.2019]

vi. Anand Teltumbde granted interim bail – The Bombay High Court extended the interim protection that had been granted to activist Anand Teltumbde in relation with the Bhima Koregaon case, till February 22. In the event of arrest, he would be released on bail upon providing a bond of Rs 1 lakh. He was ordered to appear before the Investigating officer on February 14 and 18. This comes in the light of the illegal arrest carried out by Pune Police earlier this month, against the protection granted by the Supreme Court. [Anand Teltumbde v State of Maharashtra]

vii. Centre denied any Aadhaar data breach – The Central government has denied any loss of Aadhaar data in the petition filed by Professor Shamnad Basheer. In his petition he alleged a violation of his fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 because of the negligence of the government and other named respondents because of which Aadhaar data has been regularly compromised. He specifically relies on Section 43A of the IT Act, which pins responsibility on body corporate which cause data loss by their negligence. He has also brought to the Court’s attention various reports which provide details of such data breaches and he cites wilful negligence on the part of the UIDAI to observe basic security measures as the reason. The counter affidavit filed by the government further claims that the information relating to the Aadhaar scheme has been "grossly misreported and interpolated" and argues that the Aadhaar scheme has been especially beneficial for providing basic amenities to citizens. In his demands he has asked for the publication of a privacy policy and an information security policy to govern the operations of the UIDAI. [Shamnad Basheer v UIDAI, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5405 of 2018, Counter Affidavir dated 12.02.2019]

viii. Safety issues of the Indian Railways to be looked into – The Supreme Court will soon be looking into the safety issues with the Indian Railways, but has sought the views of the Central Government on the issue. The case dealt with the death of one Dashrath Yadav after his head collided with a post by the side of the railway track. Apart from dealing with the issue of compensation payable, the Court also appointed an amicus to help it look into the issues of safety with the Railways and looked at different reports on the issue. The Court asked the Railways to consider the matter seriously. [Union of India v Radha Yadav, Civil Appeal No. 1265-1266 of 2019, dated 29.01.2019] (IPA Service)