CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtDivision Bench(2012) 09 SC CK 0006

All India Judges Asson. and Others vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 17 September 2012 · Citation: (2012) 10 SCALE 573

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ranjana Prakash Desai, J · Aftab Alam, J
CASE NUMBER
I.A. No. 16 of 2011 in I.A. No. 244 of 2009 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1022 of 1989, I.A. No. 17 of 2011 in I.A. No. 244 of 2009 and Compt. Petition (C) No. 403 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 360 words

I.A. No. 16 of 2011 in I.A. No. 244 of 2009:

1.

As prayed, put up after two weeks.

I.A. No. 17/2011 in I.A. No. 244 of 2009:

Mr. A.T.M. Sampath, leaned amicus curiae, gives a detailed state-wise chart showing compliance of the directions of this Court.

2.

20 States which are enumerated in Part-A of the chart have reported full compliance with the directions of this Court.

3.

The remaining 10 States are yet to fully comply with the directions of this Court. One of the ten States is the State of Jammu and Kashmir, which we shall deal with separately. The rest of the nine States are Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh. Maharashtra, Orissa, Union Territory of Puducherry and National Capital Territory of Delhi.

4.

The chart submitted by Mr. A.T.M. Sampath clearly states the issues that remain to be complied with by each of these States as per the directions of this Court.

5.

We direct the counsel representing each of the nine States to collect copies of the chart from Mr. Sampath's office and to file their respective affidavits in response to the deficiencies shown in the chart within three weeks from today.

6.

We expect each of the State to report to this Court that the omissions pointed out in the chart have now been rectified and directions of this Court stand fully complied with. In case, the directions of the Court are not fully complied with within three weeks, we may feel constrained to summon personally the concerned officials from the States concerned.

7.

The counsel representing the Union Territory of Puducherry and National Capital Territory of Delhi and the counsel representing the Union of India state that they would require the sanction of the Government of India to comply with the directions of this Court on some of the issues.

8.

Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned ASG, is present before this Court and we put him on notice on this aspect of the matter.

9.

Put up on October 15, 2012.

Contempt Petition (C) No. 403 of 2011:

10.

No one appears to press this contempt petition. Put up after two weeks.