Whatsapp Privacy, Independent ECI, Applicability Of SARFAESI To Co-Op Banks: SC Constitution Bench To Hear From Feb 25 [Read Notice]
The Constitution Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra is set to consider the following four cases from 25th February 2020.The other judges in the bench are Justices Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose.Whatsapp Privacy CaseKARMANYA SINGH SAREEN vs. UNION OF INDIA This is a special leave petition filed against Delhi High Court judgment in Whatsapp Privacy case. Karmanya...
The Constitution Bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra is set to consider the following four cases from 25th February 2020.The other judges in the bench are Justices Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and Aniruddha Bose.
Whatsapp Privacy Case
KARMANYA SINGH SAREEN vs. UNION OF INDIA
This is a special leave petition filed against Delhi High Court judgment in Whatsapp Privacy case. Karmanya Singh Sareen and Shreya Sethi had challenged the 2016 privacy policy of popular mobile application WhatsApp. While allowing the WhatsApp to go ahead with the privacy policy and to share data with Facebook, the High Court had issued following directions
i) If the users opt for completely deleting "WhatsApp" account before 25.09.2016, the information/data/details of such users should be deleted completely from "WhatsApp" servers and the same shall not be shared with the "Facebook" or any one of its group companies.
ii) So far as the users who opt to remain in "WhatsApp" are concerned, the existing information/data/details of such users upto 25.09.2016 shall not be shared with "Facebook" or any one of its group companies.
iii) The respondents shall consider the issues regarding the functioning of the Internet Messaging Applications like "WhatsApp" and take an appropriate decision at the earliest as to whether it is feasible to bring the same under the statutory regulatory framework.
In April 2017, the bench headed by the then Chief Justice of India J S Khehar had referred this SLP to Constitution Bench.
Independent mechanism for selection of Election Commissioners
ANOOP BARANWAL vs. UNION OF INDIA
Applicability of SARFAESI to Cooperative Societies/Banks
PANDURANG GANPATI CHAGULE vs, VISHWASRAO PATIL MURGUD SAHAKARI BANK LTD.
These appeals question the applicability of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) to Cooperative Societies/Banks.
A three judge bench, referred this matter to constitution bench noticing the conflicting decisions in Greater Bombay Coop. Bank Ltd. vs. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd. and others [(2007) 6 SCC 236] and the earlier pronouncements of this Court in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Union of India [(1983) 4 SCC 1666], T. Velayudhan vs. Union of India [(1993) 2 SCC 582] and Union of India vs. Delhi High Court Bar Association [(2002) 4 SCC 275]. These judgments relate to the scope of the legislative fields covered by Entry 45 of List I and Entry 32 of List II of the Seventh Schedule.
State's Power To Fix Sugarcane Price
WEST U.P. SUGAR MILLS ASSOCIATION vs. STATE OF U.P.
In these batch of appeals, a three judge bench of Supreme Court had referred the following issues to larger bench in 2012:
1) Whether by virtue of Article 246 read with Entry 33 of List III to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution the field is occupied by the Central legislation and hence the Central Government has the exclusive power to fix the price of sugarcane?
2) Whether Section 16 or any other provision of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 confers any power upon the State Government to fix the price at which sugarcane can be bought or sold?
3) If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, then whether Section 16 or the said provision of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 is repugnant to Section 3(2)(c) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Clause 3 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966? and if so, the provisions of the Central enactments will prevail over the provisions of the State enactment and the State enactment to that extent would be void under Article 254 of the Constitution of India.
4) Whether the SAP fixed by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 16 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 is arbitrary, without any application of mind or rational basis and is therefore, invalid and illegal?
5) Does the State Advisory Price (for short `SAP') constitute a statutory fixation of price? If so, is it within the legislative competence for the State?
6) Whether the power to fix the price of sugarcane is without any guidelines and suffers from conferment of arbitrary and uncanalised power which is violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India?
Click here to Read/Download Notice
Read Notice