Supreme Court

Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra, representing Hussain, submitted before a bench headed by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat that the complainant had filed several complaints against their client, and police had investigated but nothing has been found.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central government, submitted before a constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud that a Union Territory like Delhi, is an extension of the Union, administered by the Union through its own officers.

A bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha assured Swamy that the matter will be taken up for hearing in the second week of February. The bench also told the BJP leader that the matter was unlikely to be heard today as a constitution bench was going on.

Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, representing the Delhi government, submitted before a five-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud that civil servants serving in the national capital territory (NCT) should be accountable to the people through the elected government. He argued that the government cannot function if it does not have control over services as the exclusion of civil servants will negate governance.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Thackeray faction, submitted before a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud that the matter was urgent as the Election Commission was conducting proceedings on the issue of control over the party and the symbol.

A bench, headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, observed that a segment of the society would be left out if elections were held without reservation. The bench, also comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha, said: "We cannot have a vacuum in governance", as it noted that the term of some local bodies would come to end on January 31.

The RBI, in an affidavit filed in the apex court, said: "The averments made by the petitioners trying to link the scams to the RBI officials is fallacious and non-substantiated in the absence of any prima facie evidence produced by the petitioners. It is submitted that the RBI has an internal mechanism/framework to examine an employee's conduct if there are any specific allegations, or prima facie evidence with respect to his actions or omissions". The apex court, in October last year, had sought response from CBI and the RBI on the petition. The central bank further added that Swamy's plea is characteristically frivolous

"Nothing more, nothing less. One Hon'ble Judge in her dissenting opinion has said that Parliament should not have been bypassed," Jairam Ramesh said. He said there is nothing on the impact of demonetisation which was a singularly disastrous decision. "It damaged the growth momentum, crippled MSMEs, finished off the informal sector & destroyed lakhs and lakhs of livelihoods," he added. The verdict has nothing to say on whether the stated objectives of demonetisation were met or not. None of these goals - reducing currency in circulation, moving to a cashless economy

Most recently, Uttar Pradesh moved the Supreme Court against the Allahabad High Court order, which asked it to proceed with urban local body elections without reservation for OBCs. The high court noted that the government is yet to fulfil the triple test requirement laid down by the Supreme Court for such reservation. In the past, the triple test had haunted the Maharashtra government, which pursued a rigorous legal battle in the apex court, and also troubled the Madhya Pradesh government.

The legal wing of the AIADMK in the notice served on Thursday said that OPS does not have any right to use the name of the party, its symbol, or even its office address as the legal possession of the headquarters was with it the party interim general secretary EPS.