ALSO READKarti dares govt, CBI in SC to reveal his undisclosed assets SC dismisses PIL seeking implementation of fundamental duties SC directs Centre to start filling up vacancies in ITAT Will try to expedite process of filling up ITAT vacancies: SC PIL on political funding: SC asks govt, poll panel to respond
A five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, would tomorrow 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 A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y 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 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.
(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)