i. Principle of the power to enact constitutional change resides with the State of J & K, emphasized in Article 370 hearings: Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran took the five-judge bench through case law to emphasize the constitutional principle – the power to enact – resides in its ultimate form with the state of J & K i.e. with the people of J &K. This applies whether by application of India’s other constitutional provisions with a “concurrence”, or by modification or abrogation of Article 370 itself with a “recommendation”. [Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 1013 of 2019].

ii. PIL filed in SC to frame guidelines for deciding mercy petitions: A PIL was filed in the Supreme Court by Advocate Shiv Kumar Tripathi, seeking framing of proper procedures, rules and guidelines in disposal of mercy petitions. The petitioner opined that the undue delay in disposal of mercy petitions gives rise to public unrest and creates doubts and suspicions in the minds of the public at large. Further, the delay in disposal of mercy petitions benefitted the convicts to get their death sentences converted into imprisonment for life. [Union of India v Ministry of Law and Justice]

iii. SC dismisses review petitions filed against the Ayodhya Verdict: A number of Muslim parties, including some supported by the All India Muslim Law Board, 40 activists, Hindu Mahasabha and the Nirmohi Akhara were among the parties who filed the review stating that there were “apparent errors” in the judgment. A five-judge bench in the Supreme Court held that the 18 review petitions filed against the Ayodhya Verdict were lacking in merits. The bench also added that those who were not parties to the suit could not be permitted to file review. [M Siddiq v Mahant Suresh Dash, date of order: 12.12.2019]

iv. SC orders judicial enquiry into Hyderabad Encounter, probe to be completed in 6 months: The Supreme Court ordered judicial enquiry into the killings of four men accused of gang-rape and murder of a veterinarian in an alleged encounter with the Hyderabad police. The probe will be headed by Justice V S Sirpurkar and Justice Rekha Baldota and former CBI Director Karthikeyan will be other members of the enquiry panel. The panel must conclude its investigation within 6 months and submit a report. No other court or authority will conduct enquiry into the encounter killing till then. Hence, the proceedings in the Telangana High Court and enquiry by the NHRC on the issue are effectively stayed. [G.S. Mani v Union of India, date of order: 12.12.2019]

v. Indian Union Muslim League Moves SC Challenging Citizenship Amendment Bill: The Indian Union Muslim League moved the Supreme Court challenging the Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2019, as it awaits President’s assent to become an Act. The petition states that while they do not oppose the grant of citizenship for migrants, they are aggrieved by the discrimination and illegal classification based on religion. [Indian Union Muslim League v Union of India]

vi. Unmarried couple staying in a hotel room is not a criminal offence: The High Court of Madras has held that the occupation of a hotel room by an unmarried couple is not a criminal offence. Further, there are no laws or regulations forbearing the unmarried couple. Hence, the extreme step of sealing the premises on the ground that an unmarried couple were occupying the premises, was totally illegal, in the absence of any law prohibiting the same. [My preferred Transformation and Hospitality Private Limited v. The District Collector & Ors., W.P.No.31230 of 2019, date of judgment: 26.11.2019]

vii. Bombay High Court to decide whether IBC can be invoked against Government owned companies: The Bombay High Court stayed proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai in a company petition filed by a retired employee of Hindu Antibiotics, a public sector drug manufacturing company. The Court also issued a notice to the Attorney General of India seeking a response to the specific contention that provisions of IBC are ultra vires to the constitution of India. [Hindu Antibiotics Ltd. v Union of India, Writ Petition No. 11366 of 2019]

viii. Media asked to refrain from making “personal remarks” about lawyers in MJ Akbar defamation case: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate asked the lawyers to refrain from making any “personal remarks” about the lawyers involved in the MJ Akbar defamation case. The oral request was made in pursuance of a complaint moved by Akbar’s counsel Geeta Luthra, who objected to certain parts of the new website’s The Wire’s story on Ghazala Wahab’s cross examination. The journalist was asked to issue an oral clarification and redact the part of the story which the was complained about. (IPA Service)