JANUARY : LEGAL AFFAIRS 2018

Maternity Leave Is Part Of Service Period, Must For A Woman To Be Real

Mother: Madras HC.

Justice Manmohan Singh Gets Additional Charge Of IPAB.

Justice Manmohan Singh, retired judge of the Delhi High Court, has been given the
additional charge of Chairman of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB).

The IPAB handles appeals against orders and decisions of India s Controller
General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks.

Centre Notifies The Electoral Bond Scheme To ͞Cleanse͟ Political Funding .

(a) The Electoral Bond would be a bearer instrument in the nature of a

Promissory Note and an interest free banking instrument capable of being
purchased by an Indian citizen or a body incorporated in India.
(b) The Bonds shall be issued in the denomination of Rs. 1000, Rs. 10,000, Rs.
1,00,000, Rs. 10,00,000 and Rs. 1,00,00,000 from specified branches of the
State Bank of India (SBI).
(c) The Bonds can be bought only after fulfilling all the existing Know Your
Customer (KYC) norms. The Bonds would, however, not carry the name of
the payee.
(d) Payments for issuance of bonds shall be accepted in Indian rupees, through
demand draft, cheque, Electronic Clearing System or direct debit to the
buyer s account.
(e) The Bonds would be available for purchase for a period of 10 days each in
the months of January, April, July and October. An additional period of 30
days shall be specified by the Central Government in the year of general
elections to the House of People.
(f) The Bonds would have a life of 15 days, during which they can be used for
making donations only to political parties registered under Section 29A of
the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951.
 (g) Only those political parties will be eligible for donations through electoral
bonds which secured not less than one per cent of the votes polled in the
last general election to the House of the People or a legislative assembly .
(h) For tax purposes, the face value of the bonds shall be counted as income by
way of voluntary contributions received by an eligible political party, for the
purpose of exemption from Income-tax under Section 13A of the Income
Tax Act, 1961.

The Supreme Court ordered the BCCI to allow Bihar to play Ranji Trophy and
other domestic cricket tournaments.

Lalu Prasad Sentenced To 3.5-Years Imprisonment In Fodder Scam Case

The CBI court on Saturday sentenced RJD supremo Lalu Prasad to three-and- half-
year imprisonment each under various sections of Indian Penal Code and the
Prevention of Corruption Act in a fodder case (RC64A/96) related to fraudulent
withdrawal of around Rs. 89 lakh from Deoghar treasury in the 1990s. Both the
sentences would run concurrently. CBI judge Shiv Pal Singh also imposed a fine of
Rs. 5 lakh each under IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act on Lalu Prasad. He
would have to undergo imprisonment of one year more, in case he fails to pay the
fine which amount to Rs. 10 lakh.

Justice Sudhir Agarwal Of Allahabad HC Decides A Whopping 1 Lakh Cases

In 12 Years.

Justice Sudhir Agarwal of the Allahabad High Court has reportedly accomplished a
feat of sorts by deciding one lakh cases since his appointment in October, 2005.

Hindu Daughter Can Claim Marriage Expenses From Father: Kerala HC.
The Kerala High Court has held that an unmarried Hindu daughter has the legal
right to claim from her father reasonable expenses for marriage. This is based on
Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, as per which a
father has the legal obligation to maintain his unmarried daughter, whether
legitimate or illegitimate. Maintenance , as defined in Section 3(b)(ii) of the Act,
includes reasonable expense of and incidental to marriage. Hence, the legal
obligation of father extends to meeting reasonable marriage expenses.

Magistrate Has No Express Or Implied Power To Direct Accused To Give

Voice Samples For Investigation Purposes: Kerala HC.

The Kerala High Court has held that there is no express or implied power conferred
by the statute to the magistrate to direct the accused to give voice samples for the
purposes of investigation. The ruling was rendered by a division bench comprising
Justice AM Shaffique and Justice P Somarajan. While rendering the ruling, the
division bench overruled an earlier decision of a single bench in Pratap v CBI
(2017) (3) KLT 458, which had held that the magistrate has power under Section
311A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to direct the accused to give voice
samples.

Satyam Scam: SEBI Bars Price Waterhouse From Auditing Any Listed
Company For Two Years.

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), on Wednesday, barred Price
Waterhouse (PW) from auditing any listed company in India for a period of two
years for its alleged role in the multi-crore Satyam scam.

The Delhi High Court has ruled that mere hosting of a webpage on
Facebook would not confer jurisdiction in the State where such page is viewed.

Kerala HC Disposes Of Its Oldest Case

Kerala High Cour , disposed of its oldest case, which was 33 years old. The
proceedings in the case, in fact, spanned over more than a century.

 Important Facts:
Justice Chandrachud (88) was the country s longest-serving Chief Justice, having
served in that office between 1978 and 1985.

CJI Kamal Narain Singh held office from November 25, 1991 to December 12,
1991, lasting just 17 days. (shortest tenure )
2002 was the only year which saw four CJIs being appointed in quick succession
namely CJI Bharucha , CJI Kirpal, CJI G.B.Pattanaik and CJI Khare.

When The Constitutional Validity Of ͞Aadhaar͟ Is Under Challenge Before

SC, Chattisgarh HC Makes It Mandatory For Accused And Sureties For Bail .

Now, it will be difficult for a person without Aadhaar card to obtain bail from the
courts in Chhattisgarh as the high court has directed all the trial courts to
necessarily obtain copy of the Aadhaar card of the accused as well as of the
surety, while examining surety papers submitted along with bail applications.

Highlights Of Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Bill-2017.

The Amendment Bill inserts a new Section 143A in the Act of 1881, making
provision for the payment by the drawer of the dishonoured cheque to the payee
thereof of interim compensation of an amount not exceeding 20% of the value of
the instrument, during the pendency of proceedings for the offence of dishonour
under Section 138 of the Act.

Further, the Bill provides for the insertion of Section 148 in the Act of 1881
whereunder, in an appeal by the drawer against conviction under Section 138, the
appellate court is empowered to order the appellant to deposit such sum which
shall be a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial court.
The amount so payable shall be in addition to any interim compensation paid by
the appellant under Section 143A. Also, the same has to be deposited within a
period of 60 days from the date of order in this behalf.

Lok Sabha Passes Bill To Hike Salaries Of Supreme Court & High Court
Judges.

The provisions pertaining to salaries will come into force retrospectively from
January 1, 2016, once they are notified. The Bill, which is in line with the 7th Pay
Commission for officers of all-India services, amends the High Court Judges
(Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and Supreme Court Judges
(Salaries and Conditions of Service) Act, 1958.
It proposes to increase the salary of the Chief Justice of India from the current Rs.
1 lakh to Rs. 2.80 lakhs per month. It further increases the salary of Supreme
Court Judges and High Court Chief Justices from the current Rs. 90,000 to Rs. 2.50
lakhs. Similarly, the Judges of High Court, who currently get Rs. 80,000 per month,
will now draw a monthly salary of Rs. 2.25 lakhs.

Constitutionality Of 2018 Haj Guidelines: SC Says Allotment Of Seats To

States By Draw Of Lots Will Be Subject To Final Determination Of Challenge.

Delhi HC Clears Way For Recruitment Of Women In Territorial Army.

In a path breaking decision, the Delhi High Court on Friday opened the gates for
women to enter the Territorial Army.

Women are eligible for recruitment and appointment to the Territorial Army under
Section 6 of the Indian Territorial Army Act, 1948.

It is declared that any person mentioned in Section 6 of the Territorial Army Act,
1948 includes both males as well as females in Kush Kalra Vs Union Of India

The Delhi High Court emphasised the observation of US Supreme Court in 1979 in
case titled Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v B Feeney, wherein it said
…Although pu li e ploy e t is ot a o stitutio al ight, … a d the States ha e
ide dis etio i f a i g e ployee ualifi atio s, …these p e ede ts di tate that
any state law overtly or covertly designed to prefer males over females in public
employment would require an exceedingly persuasive justification to withstand a
constitutional challenge under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment .

In the verdict delivered in 1996 in case titled United States v Virginia et al, the
United States Supreme Court was considering the decision rendered by the Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit laying down that the exclusion of women from
the educational opportunities by the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) as violative of
the equal protection to women. In 1990, prompted by a complaint filed with the
Attorney General by a female high school student seeking admission to the
Virginia Military Institute (VMI), the United States sued the Commonwealth of
Virginia and VMI, alleging that VMI s exclusively male admission policy violated
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Uttarakhand HC Recommends Govt. To Enact Legislation For Awarding

Death Penalty For Rape Of Girls Aged 15Yrs Or Below.

We recommend/suggest to the State Government to enact suitable legislation for

awarding death sentence to those found guilty of raping girls aged 15 years or
below within three months.

SC Refers Petition Challenging The Vires Of Section 497 IPC To Constitution
Bench.

A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India on Friday referred the petition
challenging the Constitutional validity of Section 497 IPC to the constitution Bench.

Section 497 in The Indian Penal Code-497. Adultery.—Whoever has sexual

intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to
be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such
sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of
adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case the wife
shall not be punishable as an abettor.
SC Asks Legal Service Authority To Aid Convict Who Spent Nearly 3 Decades
In Prison of Uttar Pradesh .
The Supreme Court has asked the UP Legal Service Authority to help a convict who
spent nearly three decades in prison, by giving necessary legal aid to file requisite
petitions before the high court challenging a Government Order that rejected his
plea seeking premature release.
Health Of Citizens First: SC Stays Karnataka HC Judgment On Pictorial
Warnings On Tobacco Products .
The Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice D. Y. Chandrachud
and Justice A. M. Khanwilkar on Monday granted an interim stay on the
Karnataka High Court judgment dated December 15, 2017 striking down the 2014
amendment to the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Packaging and
Labelling Rules) of 2008.
National Anthem Not Mandatory In Cinema Halls: SC.
The bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra of the Supreme Court today in a
significant order, modified it s November 30, 2016 interim order which had made
it mandatory. SC today left it to the discretion of each cinema house.

Article 51A in The Constitution Of India 1949

51A. Fundamental duties It shall be the duty of every citizen of India (a) to abide
by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the national Flag and
the National Anthem;

(b) to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for
freedom;

(c) to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India;

(d) to defend the country and render national service when called upon to do so;

(e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the
people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional
diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women;

(f) to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture;

(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers
and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures;

(h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and
reform;

(i) to safeguard public property and to abjure violence;

(j) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so
that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement
SC To Reconsider Suresh Kumar Kaushal Judgment Which Upheld The Vires
Of S.377 IPC.

Supreme Court of India on Monday agreed to re-consider the two Judge bench
Judgment in Suresh Kumar Kaushal Vs Naz Foundation which upheld the
constitutional validity of S.377 of Indian Penal Code.

Section 377 in The Indian Penal Code-377. Unnatural offences.—Whoever

voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man,
woman or animal, shall be punished with 1 [imprisonment for life], or with impris-
onment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine. Explanation.—Penetration is sufficient to constitute the
carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S, is a landmark civil rights case in which the
Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the fundamental right to marry is
guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The ruling meant that all fifty states must lawfully perform and recognize the
marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages
of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities.
SC Tells Uttarakhand Govt To Appoint Lokayukta Within 8 Months Of
Coming Into Force Of New Legislation Of 2017.
BCI Invites Comments From MPs, MLAs And MLCs On Plea For Their
Debarment From Practicing As Advocates.
The counterargument is based on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. Haniraj
L. Chulani v. Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (1996). The court held that a
person qualified to be an advocate would not be admitted as one if he or she is in
full-time or part-time service or employment.

SC Distinguishes Freedom Of The Press From Defamation.

Section 499 in The Indian Penal Code-499. Defamation.—Whoever, by words
either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations,
makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or
knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the
reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to
defame that person. Explanation 1.—It may amount to defamation to impute
anything to a deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of
that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or
other near relatives. Explanation 2.—It may amount to defamation to make an
imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as
such. Explanation 3.—An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed
ironically, may amount to defamation. Explanation 4.—No imputation is said to
harm a person s reputation, unless that imputation directly or indirectly, in the
estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person, or
lowers the character of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or
lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that
person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.

How Many Law Colleges Can Operate In A State? SC Asks BCI.

The Supreme Court, on Monday, directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to furnish
district-wise data on the number of law colleges that can be permitted to operate
in a particular State.

Former HC judge Dhingra to head new SIT on 1984 riots

The Supreme Court on Thursday appointed the former Delhi High Court judge,
Justice S.N. Dhingra, as chairman of its Special Investigation Team (SIT), to further
investigate 186 cases in connection with the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.

The apex court decided to independently investigate these cases after an earlier
SIT appointed by the Centre closed them.

The three-member SIT would also have Abhishek Dular, a 2006 IPS batch officer,
and Rajdeep Singh, a retired IPS officer.
Judge Loya͛s Death: Journalist Moves SC Seeking Independent Probe.
The demand for an independent probe into the mysterious death of CBI special
judge Brijgopal Harkishan Loya in 2014, when he was presiding over the
Sohrabuddin fake encounter case, has now reached the Supreme Court.

In A First A Woman Lawyer Recommended For SC Judgeship: SC Collegium

Recommends Names Of Sr. Ad. Indu Malhotra And Justice KM Joseph.

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the names of Senior Advocate
Indu Malhotra and Uttarakhand Chief Justice KM Joseph for appointment as
Supreme Court Judges.

Indu Malhotra is a senior counsel practising in the Supreme Court of India for the
past 30 years. She was the second woman to be designated Senior Advocate by
the Supreme Court in 2007. The first was Leila Seth, mother of author Vikram
Seth, who got this honour in 1977 and later went on to become India's first
woman chief justice. She has authored the third edition of a commentary The Law
and Practice of Arbitration and Conciliation, 2014 which was recently released in
April 2014. She has specialised in the law of arbitration, and has appeared in
various domestic and international commercial arbitrations. In December 2016
she has been made member of the High Level Committee (HLC) in the Ministry of
Law and Justice by the Government of India to review Institutionalization of
Arbitration Mechanism in India.She has been unanimously recommended for
appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court.She will also be the first woman
judge to be elevated directly from the Bar.

Only six women judges have made it to the Supreme Court since Independence. In
the first 39 years of the Supreme Court, no woman was appointed to it. In 1989,
Justice M Fathima Beevi was appointed as the first woman judge of the Supreme
Court. Justice Sujatha V Manohar, Justice Ruma Pal, Justice Gyan Sudha Misra,
Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai ,Justice R Banumathi are the other women judges
appointed to the apex court.
Imprtant Facts:

The first woman advocate of India was Cornelia Sorabjee.

The first woman judge of India and also the first woman judge of High Court was
Justice Anna Chandy.

The first woman to be appointed Chief Justice of a state High Court was Justice
Leila Seth.

The first woman to be appointed judge of the Supreme Court was Justice M
Fatima Beevi.

New Chief Justices Recommended For 5 High Courts By The Collegium.

The Collegium has recommended that Calcutta High Court Acting Chief
Justice Jyotirmoy Bhattacharya be transferred to the Delhi High Court as the
Chief Justice to replace Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal.

Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice of Chhattisgarh High Court, has

been recommended as Andhra Pradesh High Court Chief while Justice Surya Kant
of Punjab and Haryana High Court has been recommended to be appointed as
the new Chief Justice.

Justice Abhilasha Kumari of Gujarat High Court has been recommended to be

appointed as the Chief Justice of Manipur High Court. Collegium also
recommended the name of Acting Chief Justice of Kerala High Court
Justice Antony Dominic as the Chief Justice.

Highlights Of Consumer Protection Bill-2018

The Consumer Protection Bill of 2018, seek to replace the existing Act of 1986.

With a view to fill the institutional void in the regulatory regime extant, the Bill
envisages the creation of a Central Consumer Protection Authority to address the
issues of false or misleading advertisements which are prejudicial to the interests
of the public and unfair trade practices as defined in section 2(47) of the Bill, with
an investigation wing to probe into instances thereof.
Bill imposes an obligation on celebrity endorsers of any product or service to verify
the veracity of the claims regarding the product or service before endorsing the
same, failing which the authority may prohibit the endorser of a false or
misleading advertisement from making endorsement of any product or service for
a period which may extend to 1 year, and a further prohibition of upto 3 years for
every subsequent contravention.

The Bill introduces an express provision in respect of Unfair Contracts, conferring

jurisdiction on the state and national commissions to entertain complaints arising
therefrom, in addition to complaints against defective goods and deficient
services.

The Bill explicitly provides for entertainment by the statutory fora of claims for
compensation under a product liability action for any harm caused by a defective
product manufactured by a product manufacturer or serviced by a product service
provider or sold by a product seller.

Writ Of Mandamus Can͛t Be Issued To Legislature To Amend Law: SC.

Four sitting judges of the Supreme Court -the senior most in SC-today held a
press conference.

In an unprecedented act, four sitting judges of the Supreme Court -the senior most
in SC-today held a press conference, saying that the administration of the apex
court is not in order and many things less than desirable are happening in last
few months.

Justice Jasti Chelameswar who has been the rebel within the collegium for
quite some time addressed the press conference flanked by Justice Ranjan Gogoi,
Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Kurien Joseph.

Totaliser is a proposed mechanism in the voting machines in India to hide the
booth-wise voting patterns. A totaliser allows the votes cast in about 14 polling
booths to be counted together. At present, the votes are tallied booth by booth.
Bharat Electronics Limited, Bengaluru, and Electronics Corporation of India
Limited, Hyderabad, developed the totaliser.

The Insolvency And Bankruptcy Amendment Bill, 2017.

29A. A person shall not be eligible to submit a resolution plan, if such person, or
any other person acting jointly with such person, or any person who is a promoter
or in the management or control of such person. The above-mentioned main
clause was followed by the list of persons barred from submitting such plans,
which were:

(i) an undischarged insolvent,

(ii) a wilful defaulter,

(iii) account has been identified as a non-performing asset for more than a year,

(iv) has been convicted of an offence punishable with two or more years of
imprisonment,

(v) has been disqualified as a director under the Companies Act, 2013,

(vi) has been prohibited from trading in securities by SEBI,

(vii) has indulged in undervalued, preferential, or fraudulent transactions,

(viii) he has given guarantee on a liability of the defaulting company undergoing

resolution or liquidation,

(ix) is connected to any person mentioned above (including promoters,

management, or any person related to them), or

(x) has indulged in these activities abroad.

Section 30 provided for retrospective operation. It provided that the Committee of

Creditors shall not accept the plans submitted prior to the Ordinance if the
resolution applicant is ineligible after the coming in of Ordinance and in the
absence of other plans, the resolution professional shall be required to invite fresh
resolution plans.

The guardian ad litem is appointed by court and whereas the next friend is
not.

The Supreme Court, has held that there is neither any provision for appointment of
next friend by the court nor the permission of the court is necessary for such
appointment.

Guardian Ad Litem
When a person involved in a suit cannot adequately represent his or her own
interests, the court may appoint a guardian ad litem to protect the person's
interests. Unlike typical guardians or conservators, guardians ad litem only protect
their wards' interests in a single suit. Generally, courts appoint guardians
ad litem to represent legal infants and adults who are actually or allegedly
incapacitated. Courts most frequently appoint guardians ad litem in parents'
disputes over of their children.

Mere Act Of Seeking Political Asylum No Ground For Denying Passport, Not
Prejudicial ͞To Sovereignty And Integrity Of India-under Section 6 (1) (a) of the
Passport Act, 1967͟: Delhi HC

Article 77 in The Constitution Of India 1949

77. Conduct of business of the Government of India

(1) All executive action of the Government of India shall be expressed to be taken
in the name of the President

(2) Orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the President
shall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in rules to be made by
the President, and the validity of an order or instrument which is so authenticated
shall nor be called in question on the ground that it is not an order or instrument
made or executed by the President

(3) The President shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the
business of the Government of India, and for the allocation among Ministers of the
said business

Article 145 in The Constitution Of India 1949

145. Rules of Court, etc

(1) Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament the Supreme Court
may from time to time, with the approval of the President, make rules for
regulating generally the practice and procedure of the Court including

(a) rules as to the persons practising before the Court,

(b) rules as to the procedure for hearing appeals, and other matters pertaining to
appeals including the time within which appeals to the Court are to be entered;
(c) rules as to the proceedings in the Court for the enforcement of any of the
rights conferred by Part III;

(c) rules as to the proceedings in the Court under Article 139A;

(d) rules as to the entertainment of appeals under sub clause (c) of clause ( 1 ) of
Article 134;

(e) any judgment pronounced or order made by the Court may be received and
rules as to the conditions the procedure for such review including the time within
which applications to the Court for such review are to be entered;

(f) rules as to the costs of and incidental to any proceedings in the Court and as to
the fees to be charged in respect of proceeding therein;

(g) rules as to the granting of bail;

(h) rules as to stay of proceedings;

(i) rules providing for the summary determination of any appeal which appears to
the Court to be frivolous or vexatious or brought for the purpose of delay;

(j) rules as to the procedure for inquiries referred to in clause ( 1 ) of Article 317

(2) Subject to the provisions of clause ( 3 ), rules made under this article may fix
the minimum number of Judges who are to sit for any purpose, and may provide
for the powers of single Judges and Division Courts

(3) The minimum number of Judges who are to sit for the purpose of deciding any
case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this
Constitution or for the purpose of hearing any reference under Article 143 shall be
five: Provided that, where the Court hearing an appeal under any of the provisions
of this chapter other than Article 132 consists of less than five Judges and in the
course of the hearing of the appeal the Court is satisfied that the appeal involves a
substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution the
determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the appeal, such Court shall
refer the question for opinion to a Court constituted as required by this clause for
the purpose of deciding any case involving such a question and shall on receipt of
the opinion dispose of the appeal in conformity with such opinion

(4) No judgment shall be delivered by the Supreme Court save in open Court, and
no report shall be made under Article 143 save in accordance with an opinion also
delivered in open Court

(5) No judgment and no such opinion shall be delivered by the Supreme Court
save with the concurrence of a majority of the Judges present at the hearing of the
case, but nothing in this clause shall be deemed to prevent a Judge who does not
concur from delivering a dissenting judgment or opinion

Article 246 in The Constitution Of India 1949

246. Subject matter of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States

(1) Notwithstanding anything in clauses ( 2 ) and ( 3 ), Parliament has exclusive

power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the
Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the Union List)

(2) Notwithstanding anything in clause ( 3 ), Parliament, and, subject to clause ( 1

), the Legislature of any State also, have power to make laws with respect to any
of the matters enumerated in List III in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution
referred to as the Concurrent List)

(4) Parliament has power to make laws with respect to any matter for any part of
the territory of India not included (in a State) notwithstanding that such matter is
a matter enumerated in the State List

Union List
The Union List or List-I is a list of 97 numbered items (the last item is numbered
100) given in Seventh Schedule in the Constitution of India on
which Parliament has exclusive power to legislate. The legislative section is divided
into three lists: Union List, State List and Concurrent List. Unlike the federal
governments of the United States, Switzerland or Australia, residual powers
remain with the Union Government, as with the Canadian federal government.[1]
There are 97 items on the list, of which one is no longer in force. These are
77. Constitution, organisation, jurisdiction and powers of the Supreme
Court (including contempt of such Court), and the fees taken therein persons
entitled to practice before the Supreme Court.

State of Rajasthan v Prakash Chand, (1998) 1 SCC 1.

it has further been held that as far as the roster is concerned, which is an
administrative function, the Chief Justice is the ͚master of the roster͛ and he
alone has the prerogative to constitute the benches of the court and allocate cases
to the benches so constituted. It has been clarified by the Constitution Bench that
this has also been the convention of the Supreme Court and as such is the law. It
has been clarified that the convention is followed because of judicial discipline and
decorum. It has been emphatically clarified that Once the Chief Justice is stated
to be the Master of the Roster, he alone has the prerogative to constitute
Benches