i. SC ordered the reopening of Sterlite plant set aside – The Supreme Court set aside the National Green Tribunal order, which had permitted the reopening of the Sterlite plant at Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu. The plant had not complied with conditions prescribed by the Tamil Nadu State Pollution Control Board so the Forests and Environment Department of the state government directed that the plant be shut down. The Court observed that the NGT had gone beyond its jurisdiction in giving the decision, even taking up matters which were still pending in lower courts, against specific procedure under the Act. The NGT could not have claimed that the doctrine of necessity would apply if an appellate authority under the Act was not properly constituted so that no appeal can then be preferred to it. [Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board v Sterlite Industries, Civil Appeal Nos. 4763-4764 of 2013, date of order: 18.02.2019]

ii. Anil Ambani held guilty of contempt – The Supreme Court has found Anil Ambani guilty of defaulting on his payments to Ericsson in clear violation of the Supreme Court order. Apart from Ambani, the chairman of Reliance Communications, the Court also held RCom, Reliance Telecom and Reliance InfraTel guilty. The Court has given them the last opportunity to pay ₹453 Cr to Ericsson within 4 weeks, failing which Anil Ambani will be sent to jail for 3 months. Ericsson is owed a total of ₹530 Cr. Reliance was supposed to pay this amount in instalments and it missed the instalments dated 30 September and 15 December leading to the filing of the complaints. [Reliance Communication Limited v State Bank of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 845 of 2018, date of order: 20.02.2019]

iii. Petition against Nageshwar Rao’s appointment dismissed – Supreme Court refused to interfere with the appointment of Nageshwar Rao as the interim chief of the CBI, noting that a full time director of the CBI had already been appointed. The Court also did not answer the petition to pass directions to make the process more transparent. The petition claimed that the appointment of Nageshwar Rao was against an earlier order of the Supreme Court. [Common Cause v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 54 of 2019, date of order: 19.02.2019]


iv. Ex-CMs not entitled to government bungalows – The Patna High Court struck down a provision to the Bihar Special Security Group Act, 2000, which allowed allotment of government premises to ex-CMs. The High Court noted that the provision could not find any basis in the Constitution – elected representatives cannot claim a privilege after they have demitted their office. The Court also criticised the heavy security provided to the ex-CMs, pointing out the heavy cost borne by the tax payers. The Court quashed all the allotments made under the Act and asked the allottees to vacate the premises unless they were entitled to them under some other law. [In Re Life Time Allotment of Bungalows to Former Chief Ministers of the State of Bihar with Unlimited Financial Maintenance Facilities,Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.690 of 2019, date of order: 19.02.2019]

v. Accused of making derogatory remarks about the Prophet, man granted bail – The Madras High Court while granting bail to a man accused of making derogatory remarks against Prophet Mohammed, observed that freedom of speech and religion would always be at odds. The Court held that the article only reflected the accused’s understanding of history of Mohammed and did not contain any derogatory remarks. While the prosecution claimed that the remarks could incite disharmony, the Court explained that there is a difference between making reckless remarks and commenting on the historical characters revered as gods after looking into their history and express an opinion. Not every expression can qualify as derogatory. The Court relied on an earlier judgment of the Madras High Court, which laid down guidelines to be followed in such cases and reiterated that the law cannot clamp down on the freedom of artists and nor can non-state entities declare what is permissible or not. The State should ensure proper protection to such artists. [R. Kalyanaraman v State, CR No. 490 of 2018, date of order: 21.02.2019]

vi. Anand Teltumbde’s bail extended till February 27 – The Bombay High Court has extended Anand Teltumbde’s interim bail till February 27. The court was to hear his petition for anticipatory bail, but the matter was adjourned causing the court to extend his protection. Pune Police had earlier arrested him against specific orders of the Supreme Court. [Anand Teltumbde v State of Maharashtra, Anticipatory Bail Application No. 314 of 2019, dated 22.02.2019]

vii. Manipur student leader not to be sent to police custody – The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal refused to remand Veenom Thokchom, the Manipur activist who had criticised the Citizenship Amendment Bill in a Facebook post, to police custody in the sedition case filed against him. The CJM also allowed the bail application. The post had criticised the non-availability of internet for five days, when the Citizenship Amendment Bill was to be discussed in the Rajya Sabha. He was arrested from Delhi, where he is studying. The judge held that the contents of the post did not excite disaffection towards the government. He had further claimed that during his arrest, the police did not follow DK Basu guidelines as they did not identify themselves. [State of Manipur v Thokchom Veenom, FIR Case No. 13(02)2019 LLI-PS, date of order:19.02.2019] (IPA Service)