The Supreme Court has sought a response from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) regarding the bail plea of Vijay Nair, the former communication in-charge of the Aam Aadmi Party, who is implicated in a money laundering case linked to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam. Nair has been in custody for almost two years and the trial has not commenced despite 353 witnesses. Nair is challenging the trial court’s denial of his default bail plea. The money laundering case originates from a CBI FIR and alleges Nair’s involvement in arranging kickbacks for the Delhi government in exchange for favors related to the liquor retail business in Delhi. The ED accuses Nair of acting as a middleman for the ‘South Group’ and facilitating meetings with government officials. Raids were conducted at nearly three dozen locations in Delhi and Punjab, and other prominent figures are also implicated in the case.
The Supreme Court today extended its interim order, maintaining the stay on directives from BJP-governed states that required eateries along Kanwar Yatra routes to display owner and staff details. The opposition criticized these directives as divisive, discriminatory against Muslims. The court promised an early hearing and expressed disapproval of the Uttar Pradesh government’s failure to comply with its order.
The Supreme Court today rejected former Mumbai Police Pradeep Sharma’s plea to suspend his conviction for a fake encounter case, preventing him from contesting the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly polls. Sharma was convicted for the 2006 fake encounter killing of a suspected gang member. Despite bail, Sharma withdrew his plea following the Supreme Court’s refusal.
![[Odisha Mining Cess Dispute] 9-Judge Bench Reserves Verdict| Disagreement Between Odisha & Centre on Supreme Court's Ruling](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/image-36-3.png?resize=447%2C350&ssl=1)
Today, On 31st July, The Odisha and Central governments are in disagreement over the Supreme Court’s recent judgment on states’ authority to levy a mining cess. The court is now deliberating on whether the judgment should apply retrospectively or prospectively. This disagreement has caused significant consternation, with both sides presenting their arguments. The judgement is awaited.
The Central government Today (July 31st) opposed states’ plea in the Supreme Court for a refund of royalty levied on mines since 1989, arguing it would burden public units by over Rs 70,000 crore. The Supreme Court’s recent ruling stated royalty is not a tax, and states sought retrospective application, which the Centre opposed.
The Supreme Court is set to hear petitions today challenging the Uttar Pradesh government’s order for shopkeepers along the Kanwar Yatra route to display their names. Trinamool MP Mahua Moitra argues that the directive violates constitutional rights. The move has sparked criticism and is expected to be discussed in Parliament.
Today, On 10th May, Former police officer Pradeep Sharma was granted bail by the Supreme Court in connection with a 2006 fake encounter case. The decision, following Maharashtra’s lack of objection, raises questions about police conduct and the justice system in the state. Sharma’s case adds to the ongoing discourse on law enforcement accountability and alleged extrajudicial actions.
![[Breaking] Supreme Court Strikes Down Haryana's 5-Marks Reservation in Employment Exams](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/image-16-1.png?resize=447%2C309&ssl=1)
Today,26th April, The Supreme Court upheld the eligibility criteria for Madhya Pradesh judicial service, requiring 3 years of legal practice or 70% in a law degree, emphasizing the need for qualified candidates. The decision dismisses objections and reinforces the requirement’s importance for the state’s judiciary, ensuring competent candidates and elevating judicial standards.
Breaking||The ongoing survey at Bhojshala/Kamal Maula Mosque complex in Madhya Pradesh’s Dhar district by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) led to claims of Hindu symbols’ discovery. The Supreme Court declined to halt the survey, and both Hindu and Muslim sides contested the findings. The dispute revolves around the building’s original purpose, with Hindus viewing it as a temple and Muslims as a mosque.
The Supreme Court Today reserved judgment on whether mineral royalties are considered a tax under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act of 1957. The nine-judge bench, led by CJI DY Chandrachud, engaged in extensive deliberations over eight days, addressing appeals from state governments, mining entities, and public sector undertakings. This decision is highly anticipated for its potential impact on India’s regulatory landscape.