<p> A Supreme Court bench on Monday recused from hearing a plea for restraining the high court from delivering its judgement on scope of the Delhi government’s power.<br /><br /></p>.<p>A bench of Justices J S Khehar and Arun Mishra told senior advocate Indira Jaising, <br />representing the petitioner Delhi government, that the matter would be posted before a different bench.<br /><br />As Justice Khehar expressed personal difficulty in taking up the matter, the counsel sought direction for posting it before another bench for hearing on Tuesday only, due to urgency.<br /><br />This was strongly opposed by Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Centre, who said the issue should be left to the authorities concerned. “If that is her plea, I withdraw my consent,” the AG said. His stand sparked strong comment from Jaising, who said the AG was not expected to take such a position.<br /><br />“If you consent to a woman, you cannot withdraw it,” the bench told the AG in a lighter vein, while allowing Jaising’s plea for posting the matter for consideration on Tuesday.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Jaising appeared before the bench presided over by Chief Justice T S Thakur to seek direction for posting original suit filed under Article 131 of the Constitution by the Delhi government, along with the instant special leave petition. <br /><br />She submitted since the process has been complete with issuance of summons, the suit should be heard along with the petition. The bench, also comprising Justice D Y Chandrachud, declined her request, saying the suit will go on its own way and the bench hearing the special leave petition may not like to hear the suit.<br /><br /> The dispute centred around the extent of powers to be exercised by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi under Article 239A of the Constitution.<br /><br />Power tussle <br /><br />Delhi has seen an ongoing power tussle between the AAP government and the lieutenant governor on various issues, including the control over the Anti-Corruption Branch and power to transfer or retain bureaucrats.<br /><br />The Delhi government challenged the high court’s order of May 24 wherein it had reserved its order on a plea for stay of the proceedings concerning the federal structure and extent of the Delhi government’s power.<br /><br />Hearing on divorce plea to be expedited<br /><br />The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to expedite hearing on a PIL to examine if divorce granted by a church could be considered valid under the Indian common law, DHNS reports from New Delhi.<br /><br />A bench of Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice D Y Chandrachud allowed an interim application for early hearing in the case as senior advocate Soli Sorabjee, appearing for petitioner Clarence Pais, sought an urgent hearing. Pais, an ex-president of a Catholic association in Karnataka, said, when oral “triple talaq” could get legal sanctity for granting divorce to Muslim couples, why could Canon law decrees not be made binding on courts of law. <br /></p>
<p> A Supreme Court bench on Monday recused from hearing a plea for restraining the high court from delivering its judgement on scope of the Delhi government’s power.<br /><br /></p>.<p>A bench of Justices J S Khehar and Arun Mishra told senior advocate Indira Jaising, <br />representing the petitioner Delhi government, that the matter would be posted before a different bench.<br /><br />As Justice Khehar expressed personal difficulty in taking up the matter, the counsel sought direction for posting it before another bench for hearing on Tuesday only, due to urgency.<br /><br />This was strongly opposed by Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Centre, who said the issue should be left to the authorities concerned. “If that is her plea, I withdraw my consent,” the AG said. His stand sparked strong comment from Jaising, who said the AG was not expected to take such a position.<br /><br />“If you consent to a woman, you cannot withdraw it,” the bench told the AG in a lighter vein, while allowing Jaising’s plea for posting the matter for consideration on Tuesday.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Jaising appeared before the bench presided over by Chief Justice T S Thakur to seek direction for posting original suit filed under Article 131 of the Constitution by the Delhi government, along with the instant special leave petition. <br /><br />She submitted since the process has been complete with issuance of summons, the suit should be heard along with the petition. The bench, also comprising Justice D Y Chandrachud, declined her request, saying the suit will go on its own way and the bench hearing the special leave petition may not like to hear the suit.<br /><br /> The dispute centred around the extent of powers to be exercised by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi under Article 239A of the Constitution.<br /><br />Power tussle <br /><br />Delhi has seen an ongoing power tussle between the AAP government and the lieutenant governor on various issues, including the control over the Anti-Corruption Branch and power to transfer or retain bureaucrats.<br /><br />The Delhi government challenged the high court’s order of May 24 wherein it had reserved its order on a plea for stay of the proceedings concerning the federal structure and extent of the Delhi government’s power.<br /><br />Hearing on divorce plea to be expedited<br /><br />The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to expedite hearing on a PIL to examine if divorce granted by a church could be considered valid under the Indian common law, DHNS reports from New Delhi.<br /><br />A bench of Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justice D Y Chandrachud allowed an interim application for early hearing in the case as senior advocate Soli Sorabjee, appearing for petitioner Clarence Pais, sought an urgent hearing. Pais, an ex-president of a Catholic association in Karnataka, said, when oral “triple talaq” could get legal sanctity for granting divorce to Muslim couples, why could Canon law decrees not be made binding on courts of law. <br /></p>
