The Supreme Court has stayed the NGT’s directive and challenged its authority in the Waris Chemicals case, raising questions about the intersection of environmental regulations and money laundering laws. Justices observed that the NGT lacks jurisdiction to invoke the PMLA in environmental cases, setting the stage for future legal interpretations and tribunal jurisdiction clarifications.
Today (8th May): The Supreme Court reserved judgment on West Bengal’s suit alleging misuse of the CBI by the Centre. The State contends that withdrawing consent for CBI investigations prevents probes in West Bengal. Arguments presented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta focused on the suit’s maintainability, administrative control, and relief sought, with the Court reserving its verdict.
Today (6th May): The Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Chandrachud, has halted land clearance for the proposed Silchar Greenfield Airport. The Court found that authorities violated the 2006 EIA notification by conducting extensive clearance without proper environmental clearance. The NGT was criticized for dismissing the plea without verification, and the Court directed no further action until an EIA report is available.
![[Breaking] CBI is Not the Control of Centre, in West Bengal Govt's Suit: SC](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/MicrosoftTeams-image-37.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Solicitor General clarified that the CBI operates independently and is not controlled by the Union government, countering West Bengal’s lawsuit. The Supreme Court plans to hear the case and emphasized the urgency of concluding arguments before the summer recess. The outcome will set a crucial precedent for the CBI’s authority in such matters.
NEW DELHI: Today (23rd April): The Delhi High Court has issued a restraining order against the Lokpal of India, halting any actions until May 10 regarding a CBI report investigating two properties allegedly linked to JMM party president Shibu Soren. The court’s order came in response to a petition filed by the JMM challenging the ombudsman’s decision.
NEW DELHI: Today (9th April): The Delhi High Court rejected Arvind Kejriwal’s plea challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate in a liquor case, deeming it valid. The court found sufficient evidence of hawala transactions and statements, dismissing his claims of political motivation. The decision sets a precedent for accountability of public officials.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed a PIL by Daman Liquor Merchants Association seeking to halt Gujarat police action against its members under prohibition laws, ruling it as misconceived. The court affirmed the legality of the police action within their jurisdiction, stating the petitioners should seek remedies through legal process rather than court interference.
Today (20th March): The Allahabad High Court has requested responses from major political parties to a plea seeking to ban caste-based rallies. The PIL, filed in 2013, aims to enforce a total prohibition on such rallies and remove political entities involved from official listings. The Election Commission expressed its inability to enforce a ban during non-election periods. The next hearing is scheduled for April 10.
The Delhi High Court Today (March 13th) appointed Senior Advocate Gaurav Pachnanda as amicus curiae to help resolve a complex jurisdictional question under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The 5-judge Bench, led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan, is addressing the issue of filing cancellation petitions and has enlisted Pachnanda’s expertise. The case is scheduled for further examination in May 2024.
The counsel for the Shahi Idgah managing committee argued in the Allahabad High Court today that the suit seeking the removal of the mosque is constrained by the statute of limitations. The Muslim side cited a compromise dating back to 1968, stating the suit filed in 2020 is beyond the three-year limit to challenge a compromise. The High Court set March 13 as the next hearing date. The case involves a dispute over Waqf property. The Waqf Act allows the Waqf Boards in India to claim unlimited powers over properties without recourse to legal challenge, raising questions in the context of a secular country. Waqf Board holds over 8,54,509 properties encompassing more than eight lakh acres of land, with powers to acquire and declare ownership without need for proof. The controversy surrounding the Waqf Act and the dispute over the mosque illustrates the complexities of religious property laws in India, provoking debate about the Act’s constitutionality.