New Delhi: A five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, would on Tuesday start hearing five key issues, including the power tussle between the Centre and Delhi government over administrative jurisdiction and a matter relating to passive euthanasia.
Besides the CJI, the bench also comprises justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan.
The bench will also deal with issues like whether a parliamentary committee report can be referred to or relied upon during judicial proceedings, how to add income for future prospects of victims in motor accident claims and whether the top court can entertain a plea for making an arbitration award a rule of the court.
The court had in February 2014 referred to a constitution bench a plea favouring voluntary passive euthanasia or mercy killing in cases where a person is suffering from terminal illness and has no chance of revival and recovery as per the medical opinion. The court would consider the prayer of an NGO, Common Cause, to declare 'right to die with dignity' as a fundamental right within the fold of Right to Live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The bench would also hear the matter relating to the tug- of-war between the Centre and the Delhi government over the administration of the National Capital Territory.
The Delhi High Court had on August 4 last year declared the Lieutenant Governor as the administrative head of the national capital against which the city government has moved the apex court.
The constitution bench would also hear the issue whether a parliamentary committee report could be referred to or relied upon during judicial proceedings before the top court.
The matter had cropped up when a two-judge bench on April 5 this year was hearing a PIL seeking to quash licencing of two vaccines for cervical cancer treatment as the approval for their use was done without adequate research on safety. It had referred to certain reports of parliamentary panels.
In a matter related to the grant of compensation by Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, a two-judge bench had in 2014 said that while calculating compensation to victims, the issue of adding income for future prospects needed an authoritative pronouncement and had referred the matter to a higher bench.
The bench will hear whether the top court can entertain an application for making an arbitration award a rule of the court.