- (1.) THE Registry has submitted a report that an affidavit on behalf of the State of Nagaland has been filed but the learned counsel has not filed vakalatnama. Copies of the affidavit have also not been served upon the amicus. Therefore, the reply is ignored.
(2.) AN affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Government of Assam by M/s Corporate Law Group, but copies of the same have not been served upon any of the amicus despite Registry's repeated letters. Four weeks' time by way, of first and last chance is allowed to the learned counsel to serve copies of the same upon the amicus failing which the additional affidavit shall stand ignored. So far as the response filed on behalf of the Patna High Court is concerned, the learned counsel is directed to serve copies thereof on all other advocates within four weeks, failing which the same shall be ignored. So far as the State of Jammu and Kashmir is concerned, it has been stated that the Bill could not be introduced in the House as the assembly has been dissolved. Let the learned counsel take instructions as to whether any ordinance can be promulgated by the Governor within four weeks. It has been stated that no response has been filed on behalf of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Goa. Four weeks' time by way of last chance is allowed to file their responses.
(3.) IT appears that, pursuant to the main judgment rendered by this Court on 2-8-2005, in Salem Advocate Bar Assn. v. Union of India, 2005 (6) SCC 344, a Task Force was to be constituted by the Government of India for assessing the impact of different legislations on the judicial system and a report was to be submitted to this Court. On 7-11-2008, Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Solicitor General stated that a tentative decision has been taken to constitute a Task Force headed by Mr Justice M. Jagannadha Rao, former Judge of this Court.;