A bench headed by Justice U U Lalit said the audit should be completed as early as possible, preferable within three months.

“It is clear that the audit contemplated was not intended to be confined to the temple only but with respect to the trust. This direction has to be seen in light of the reports of the amicus curiae in the case as recorded in order dated 2015,” the bench also comprising  Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi said.

The Administration committees of the Shree Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Kerala had on September 17 told the apex court that it is in great financial stress and offer are not sufficient to meet the expenses, while seeking an audit of the temple-related trust run by the Travancore royal family.

All temples in Kerala are closed and while this temple’s monthly expenses are Rs 1.25 crore, “we are able to hardly get 60-70 lakh rupees. Therefore, we are sought certain directions,” senior advocate R Basant, appearing for the committee had said.

Sharma is known for rushing to the Supreme Court with IPLs in sensational matters such as Rafel deal, Article 370, Hyderabad police encounter, etc. In 2018, the Supreme Court had imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on him for filing a frivolous PIL against the then Finance Minister Arun Jaitley.

In 2019, the Supreme Court had pulled up Sharma for filing a shoddily drafted petition challenging the revocation of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir.

Recently, he had filed a petition challenging the three controversial firm laws. Also, in April he filed another PIL seeking a fresh probe into the Rafale deal in the light reports about the French investigation against Dassault.

Sharma’s present PIL on the Pegasus issue lists the prime Minister of India Narendra Modi and the Central Bureau of Investigation as the respondents.

“The Supreme Court is thinking of beginning live-streaming of some court”, Justice Ramana said during the virtual launch of live-streaming of the proceedings of Gujarat High Court. The High Court goes live Monday.

The Chief Justice of India said currently, people get information about proceedings through the media. “In effect, the information from the court is being filtered by agents of transmission. In the process, there is sometimes a transmission loss leading to misinterpretation of questions asked and observations made by the bench, due to the absence of context. Vested interests are eager to amplify these misinterpretations in order to embarrass or discredit the institution,” he said.

“It is the lack of direct access which gives space for misconceptions. The formalization of the live streaming of court proceedings is the best cure for the aforesaid malady. Live-streaming of proceedings is crucial for dissemination of information which is a sacrosanct aspect of Article 19,” he said, adding that through such indirect access, people can get first-hand information about the entire proceedings and the opinions of the judges, “leaving little room for any mischief.”

“A judge cannot be swayed by popular opinion. Yes, with increased public gaze, he might become a subject of multiple debates, that should never deter him from his duty to protect the right of one against the might of many,” he said.

The Chief Justice of India said that with the enhanced access, “lawyers should not go after publicity”. “… rather they must ensure to put in all possible efforts protect the best interests of his clients. They must always uphold and maintain the dignity of the profession,” he said.

Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice M R Shah, who hails from Gujarat, also attended the virtual launch.

The order came on two separate petitions filed by advocates Gaurav Kumar Bansal and Reepak Kansal which claimed that Covid being a disaster notified under the Disaster Management Act (DMA) 2005, the Central government will be bound by Section 12 (iii) of the Act providing for the ex-gratia of Rs 4 lakh for those who died during the disaster. On March 14, 2020, the Centre had declared COVID-19 to be a disaster under DMA.

The Court said under Section 12(iii) of DMA, NDMA needed to issue guidelines on the ex-gratia under minimum standards of relief as the word used in the Act is “shall”.

“The statutory duty is cast upon the authority to frame guidelines of the ex-gratia. By not recommending the ex-gratia, it can be said that the national authority (NDMA) failed to perform its statutory duty under Section 12 of DMA,” said the bench of justices Ashok Bhushan and MR Shah.

The guidelines for the ex-gratia would be guided by the requirement, availability of funds, and money allocated for other measures needed for mitigation, prevention, and relief about COVID-19.

The Centre had argued that while passing the DMA, the legislature didn’t contemplate a pandemic situation as the Act was meant to provide relief for one-time events such as earth earthquakes, cyclones, etc, or few incidents taking place periodically for some time. Further, the Centre argued that during Covid-19, it is adopted a multi-pronged approach in containing the harm caused by disaster by augmenting hospital, infrastructure, medical, supplies, drugs, insurance to health care providers, and food safety to poor citizens.