The 2G Spectrum Scam The
2G spectrum scam, a major political and financial scandal in India, surfaced in 2010, highlighting issues of corruption, transparency, and accountability in governance. In 2017, a special
CBI court acquitted all the accused, citing insufficient evidence. However, this decision was later appealed. Sanjay Jain represented the CBI in these appeal proceedings and was successful in persuading the Delhi High Court after an intensely contested long drawn legal battle spanning over 6 months and 53 hearings, to eventually grant leave to hear CBI's appeal against the acquittal judgment passed by the Spl Court, in a trial supervised by Supreme Court.
Anti-International Arbitration Injunction Suits Jain played a key role in two significant anti-arbitration injunction suits filed on behalf of the
Union of India against Khaitan Holdings (Mauritius) Ltd. and
Vodafone Group. These suits aimed to restrain the companies from continuing arbitral proceedings under
Bilateral Investment Treaties. In the Vodafone case, the
Delhi High Court upheld the argument that Indian courts had jurisdiction over such matters.
Class Action Petition against Nestle Sanjay Jain represented the Department of Consumer Affairs, in a
class action suit against
Nestle India. The
lawsuit, amounting to Rs 640 crores, addressed allegations of unfair trade practices related to
Maggi, a ready-to-cook instant noodles.
Short Service Commission for Women in the Army In a landmark case related to gender equality in the
Indian Armed Forces, Jain represented the
Union Government. The
Supreme Court directed the grant of permanent commission and consequential promotions to women Short Service Commission officers, acknowledging Jain's contributions to resolving complex issues in this case.
Tax Exemption on Incentives to Medical Professionals Sanjay Jain represented the
Income Tax Department in a notable case before the
Supreme Court of India, arguing against tax exemptions on expenditures incurred by pharmaceutical companies for providing incentives to medical practitioners for product promotion. His successful representation led to a decision that these expenditures would not qualify for tax exemptions.
Advocacy in Surrogacy Rights Jain played a significant role in a landmark case involving
surrogacy rights. The case revolved around a woman with
MRKH Syndrome, a condition affecting the ability to conceive. Jain's arguments before the
Supreme Court contributed to a stay on an amendment that restricted donor gametes in gestational surrogacy, thereby enabling the woman to pursue surrogacy with donor oocytes. The Central government has updated the Surrogacy (Regulation) Rules, 2022, stating that if a married couple is medically certified as unable to conceive, they are not required to provide both gametes for surrogacy. However, they must contribute at least one gamete for the procedure.
The GNCTD vs Union of India (Article 239AA Dispute) In the legal dispute concerning the interpretation of Article 239AA of the
Constitution of India, Sanjay Jain was part of the legal team representing the Central Government and the
Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. This case focused on the control of services under Entry 41 of the List II of the
Seventh Schedule of the
Constitution. Jain's role in this case included defending the Central Government's decision to extend the tenure of the Chief Secretary of Delhi, offering arguments about the comprehensive responsibilities of the Chief Secretary in both the legislative and executive domains of the elected
Government of Delhi, as well as in roles reserved for the Central Government.
Farishtey Scheme Case Jain represented the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi in a significant case concerning the Farishtey scheme. His arguments before the Supreme Court helped establish that the scheme is run by a society headed by the Delhi Health Minister, thereby clarifying any misconceptions regarding the Lieutenant Governor's involvement. ==References==