In views concurring with Justice Lakshmanan (Justice SH Kapadia was the dissenter), Justice Balakrishnan said: “...In a case of this (criminal litigation) nature, nobody else has got any right to interfere, especially by way of Public Interest Litigation or else such PIL would only hamper the course of justice and may cause prejudice to the accused by denying fair trial...PILs are not meant to settle their scores under the guise of a public interest litigation and to fight a legal battle.”

AUGUST 22: Seems power crisis is concern of the court, not state

Pulling up the Delhi government following a “vague” affidavit with no measures to tide over the prolonged power crisis, Justice Balakrishnan said the state didn’t seem to be in a position to meet the power demands for the Commonwealth Games to be held in 2010. Describing the affidavit as “not satisfactory”, Justices Balakrishnan and DK Jain said: “It seems as if the power crisis is the concern of the Court and not of the State.”

JANUARY 17: States must set up panels to tackle workplace sexual harassment

Justice Balakrishnan directed the chief secretaries of all states to find out if committees had been set up to deal with such complaints in all departments and institutions with more than 50 employees. Along with Justice RV Raveendran, he ruled: “...To coordinate the steps taken in this regard, there should be a state-level officer ie either the secretary of the Women and Child Welfare Department (of the HRD Ministry) or any other suitable officer... concerned with the welfare of women and children in each state.”

... contd.