The Constitution Bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M R Shah and Ravindra Bhat will be hearing the following cases listed before it on 23rd October.
KAUSHAL KISHOR vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Can Persons Holding Public Office Comment On Crimes ?
The bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra, in August 2016, while considering a writ petition filed by father of a rape victim from Bulandshahar, framed the following questions considering the allegations made in the petition. It was alleged in the petition that a minister and prominent political personality of the state (Azam Khan) had termed the entire incident as a "political conspiracy only and nothing else".
Later, Azam Khan tendered the apology for calling a Bulandshahar gang rape a "political conspiracy" which was accepted by the Court. But the bench then proceeded to consider larger issue.
The questions framed by Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Fali S. Nariman are as follows:
Senior Advocate Harish Salve, amicus curiae, had also framed three questions:
Taking note of these questions framed, the three judge bench had referred the matter in entirety to the Constitution bench.
CBI Vs. RR KISHORE
Deprivation Of Immunity By Retrospective Operation Of SC Judgment
Section 6A(1) of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 provided immunity for officers of the level of Joint Secretary and above a kind of immunity. The Delhi High Court held that the accused (one such officer) was entitled to the benefit of the said provision. The High Court took the view that the matter required fresh consideration for grant of previous approval under Section 6A (1).
In the meanwhile, the provisions of Section 6A(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 was held to be unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by a Constitution Bench in Subramanian Swamy versus Director, Central Bureau of Investigation.
In the appeal filed by CBI against Delhi HC judgment, the Court noticed that the judgment in Subramanian Swamy is silent as to whether its decision would operate prospectively or would have retrospective effect. So the question referred to the constitution bench was whether there can be a deprivation of such immunity by a retrospective operation of a judgment of the Supreme Court, in the context of Article 20 of the Constitution of India? It was observed:
"The provisions of Section 6A(1), extracted above, do indicate that for officers of the level of Joint Secretary and above a kind of immunity has been provided for. Whether there can be a deprivation of such immunity by a retrospective operation of a judgment of the Court, in the context of Article 20 of the Constitution of India, is the moot question that arises for determination in the present case."
AZIZ QURESHI vs. UNION OF INDIA
Forcing Governors To Resign
This is a writ petition filed by former Uttarakhand Governor Dr. Aziz Qureshi challenging the Union Home Secretary's oral communication asking him to resign from the post. The bench headed by the then CJI Justice TS Thakur had referred the petition to Constitution bench. He had alleged that the then Home Secretary had called him on the Government's behalf, asking him to put in his papers or face a transfer.
Click here to Read/ Download Notice