Supreme Court to deliver four key judgments today: All you need to know

While the Supreme Court pronounced verdict in two major cases on Tuesday, the trend is to be continued today with the apex court expected to deliver several path-breaking decisions. Chief Justice Dipak Misra is due to retire next week with October 1 being his last working day in office and benches headed by him are expected to deliver verdicts on some key issues in coming days. 

Key verdicts that are likely to be delivered today include Aadhaar case, SC/ST quota in promotions, membership revival of lawmakers if conviction stayed and live-streaming Supreme Court proceedings.

Here is all you need to know about these four cases: 

Aadhaar Case:

The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce its crucial verdict Wednesday on a batch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of Centre's flagship Aadhaar scheme and its enabling 2016 law.

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra had on May 10 reserved the verdict on the matter after a marathon hearing that went on for 38 days, spanning four-and-half months.

As many as 31 petitions, including one by former High Court judge K S Puttaswamy, have been filed in the matter.

When the judgement was reserved by the court, Attorney General K K Venugopal had told the bench, which also comprised Justices A K Sikri, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, that this matter had become the "second longest" one in terms of days of hearing after the historic Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973.

A battery of senior lawyers, including Shyam Divan, Gopal Subramaniam, Kapil Sibal, P Chidambaram, Arvind Datar, K V Vishwanath, Anand Grover, Sajan Poovayya and a few others, had argued on behalf of the petitioners opposing the Aadhaar Scheme on various grounds.

Besides the former HC judge, the top lawyers argued for petitioners, who included Magsaysay awardee Shanta Sinha, feminist researcher Kalyani Sen Menon, social activists Aruna Roy, Nikhil De, Nachiket Udupa and CPI leader Binoy Visman.

Live streaming of court proceedings:

The Supreme Court is also likely to pronounce the verdict on a clutch of petitions seeking live streaming and video recording of court proceedings across the country.

A bench of CJI Dipak Misra and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud had reserved its verdict on August 24, saying it wanted to implement the concept of "open court" to decongest the courtrooms.

Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, had said that live streaming could be introduced as a pilot project in the Chief Justice of India's court on matters of constitutional importance and had submitted suggestions on the guidelines for live streaming of court proceedings. 

The bench was hearing petitions including those filed by senior advocate Indira Jaising, law student Snehil Tripathi and NGO 'Centre For Accountability and Systemic Change' on the issue.

The apex court had earlier termed the proposal of live streaming of the court proceedings as the "need of the hour".

A petition, filed by Tripathi, a student of National Law University in Jodhpur, had sought a direction for setting up live streaming rooms within the apex court premises and granting access to legal interns. It had sought requisite guidelines to facilitate witnessing of the proceedings for interns.

Jaising, in her PIL, had sought video-recording of proceedings on matters of national importance.

Quota benefits for SC/ST in job promotions:

The verdict on a batch of petitions seeking that a seven-judge bench reconsiders the court's 2006 judgement which had put conditions for granting quota benefits in job promotions for SC/ST employees will also be pronounced today by a five-judge constitution bench headed by CJI Dipak Misra.

The bench, also comprising Justices Kurian Joseph, RF Nariman, SK Kaul and Indu Malhotra, had reserved its verdict on August 30 after hearing various stakeholders, including the Centre, on the matter.

A five-judge constitution bench, in its 2006 verdict in the M Nagraj case, had said the states are bound to provide quantifiable data on the backwardness of Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST), the facts about their inadequate representation in government jobs and the overall administrative efficiency, before providing quota in promotions to members of these communities.

The Centre and various state governments have also sought reconsideration of this verdict on various grounds, including that the members of the SC and ST communities are presumed to be backward and considering their stigma of caste, they should be given reservation even in job promotions.

The Centre has alleged that the verdict in the M Nagraj case had put unnecessary conditions in granting quota benefits to the SC and ST employees and sought its reconsideration by a larger bench.

Membership revival of lawmakers if conviction stayed: 

The top court is likely to pronounce its verdict on a question whether grant of stay on the conviction of a disqualified lawmaker by an appellate court would revive his or her membership of a House.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra which had reserved its order on the plea filed by NGO Lok Prahari on July 23, will pronounce the verdict.

The apex court while reserving the verdict on the plea of the NGO had said that a lawmaker, whose conviction in a criminal case has not been stayed by an appellate court, would stand disqualified from the membership of the House.

The NGO had alleged that the 2013 verdict of the apex court in the Lilly Thomas case was being flouted by the Members of Parliament, MLAs and MLCs, who continue to hold their memberships even after their convictions in criminal cases.

The apex court, on July 10, 2013, had struck down section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act (RPA) that gave a convicted lawmaker the power to remain in office on the ground that appeals have been filed within three months of conviction.

(With PTI inputs)