Weekly Legal Updates

February 5, 2024 – February 11, 2024

 

Supreme Court Reaffirms High Court's Authority to Quash FIRs Despite Charge Sheet Submission

In a recent legal pronouncement, the Supreme Court emphasized the ongoing jurisdiction of the High Court to assess the prima facie nature of alleged offenses, even when a charge sheet is submitted during the pendency of a petition seeking the quashing of the First Information Report (FIR). The ruling, drawing on the precedent set in the case of Joseph Salvaraj A. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2011), reaffirms the High Court's power to evaluate allegations based on the FIR, charge sheet, and other pertinent documents.

Background: Quashing Petition and Charge Sheet Submission

The case involved an accused-appellant who had filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking the quashing of an FIR that accused him of offenses punishable under Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The High Court dismissed the petition as infructuous, citing the submission of a charge sheet after the filing of the quashing petition.

Supreme Court's Disagreement and Legal Rationale

Disagreeing with the High Court's rationale, the Supreme Court, relying on its judgment in the Joseph Salvaraj A. case, asserted that the High Court retains the authority to examine the allegations based on the FIR, charge sheet, and other relevant documents. The Court expressed its disagreement with the view that the submission of a charge sheet renders the quashing petition moot, emphasizing that even if a charge sheet has been filed, the court can assess whether the alleged offenses have been prima facie established.

Court's Directive and Constitutional Emphasis

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the accused-appellant, directing the High Court to reconsider the quashing petition on its merits. Additionally, the Court ordered a stay on the arrest of the accused until the High Court makes a determination on the petition. Rooted in Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Court's decision underscores the High Court's jurisdiction in evaluating the validity of FIRs, regardless of the timing of charge sheet submissions.

 

Jammu and Kashmir High Court Delimits Writ Jurisdiction in Private Law Matters [Maheen Showkat Vs UT of J&K]

In a recent judicial pronouncement, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court underscored the distinction between public and private law matters, clarifying that extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for the enforcement of private remedies, even against public authorities. Justice Javed Iqbal Wani, leading the bench, elucidated that while a body performing a duty may fall under writ jurisdiction, not all its functions are subject to judicial review unless they possess a discernible public element.

Background: Admission Denial in Private School

The case centered on a minor student denied admission to class 11th in a private school, allegedly due to her father's legal actions against the school administration. Seeking admission and compensation for alleged harassment through a writ petition, the student's father argued that the school's actions violated her right to education. He contended that despite government aid and affiliation to the state board, the school's actions were motivated by personal reasons.

Counterarguments and Scrutiny of Dispute

Respondents countered, citing examination misconduct and alleging a history of harassment by the petitioner's family towards school staff. Justice Wani, scrutinizing the nature of the dispute, observed that the petition primarily addressed private wrongs committed by the school administration, lacking a public element in the allegations. The court noted that the petitioner's claims lacked the necessary public dimension for maintaining a writ petition.

Legal Precedents and Bench's Emphasis

Citing precedents such as "St. Mary's Education Society vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava" and "K.K. Saksena vs. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage," the bench reiterated that writ jurisdiction cannot be utilized to enforce private law remedies, even against public authorities. The court also highlighted the petitioner's receipt of a Discharge/Transfer Certificate during the case, rendering it infructuous and leading to the dismissal of the petition.

 

Gujarat High Court Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal Inaugurates Psycho-Socio Care Centers for Jail Inmates

In a significant move towards prison rehabilitation and mental health improvement, Gujarat High Court Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal virtually inaugurated psycho-socio care centers in central jails across Rajkot, Surat, and Vadodara. This initiative, building upon the successful pilot program initiated at Sabarmati Central Jail in Ahmedabad in 2022, aims at the rehabilitation, reformation, and reintegration of jail inmates.

Acknowledgment of the Pilot Program's Success

Justice Biren Vaishnav, speaking during the inauguration event, acknowledged the establishment of the first psycho-socio center at Sabarmati Central Jail in collaboration with Rashtriya Rashtra University (RRU). The program, inaugurated by former Chief Justice of India U U Lalit, has been instrumental in allowing inmates to express their emotions and contribute to the enhancement of mental health within prison walls.

Expansion and Innovative Approach

Justice Vaishnav highlighted the innovative approach, noting its implementation in Jammu and Kashmir through collaboration with RRU. The psycho-socio care centers in Rajkot Central Jail, Surat Central Jail, and Vadodara Central Jail are now integral parts of this transformative program, with psychologists from RRU overseeing their functioning.

Chief Justice Agarwal's Emphasis on Addressing Prolonged Jail Periods

Chief Justice Agarwal underscored the program's objective to address the challenge of prolonged periods of incarceration for prisoners. She highlighted the comprehensive psychological testing approach employed by the team of psychologists, utilizing semi-projective, projective, and objective techniques to assess the overall well-being of individuals.

Optimism for Gujarat as a Model State in Prison Reforms

Expressing optimism, Chief Justice Agarwal envisioned Gujarat becoming a model state for prison reforms and the successful implementation of psycho-social care initiatives. The success of this program aligns with the broader goal of creating a more humane and rehabilitative prison environment.

Enhancement of Advocacy Skills and Promotion of Inclusivity

The event also witnessed the presence of Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri from the Delhi High Court. Simultaneously, a two-day training program was inaugurated to enhance advocacy skills among legal aid counsels. Chief Justice Agarwal emphasized the positive shift towards accessibility and inclusivity in the legal system, attributing the increase in cases to a repositioning of society's faith in the justice dispensation system.

 

Justice Vijay Bishnoi Sworn in as Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court

On February 5, a momentous occasion unfolded as Justice Vijay Bishnoi took the oath as the Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court in a ceremony held at Raj Bhavan. Assam Governor Gulab Chand Kataria administered the oath, and the event was graced by the presence of Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma, Assembly Speaker Biswajit Daimary, and other distinguished dignitaries.

Appointment and Supreme Court Collegium's Recommendation

Justice Vijay Bishnoi's appointment to the esteemed position followed the recommendation of the Supreme Court Collegium in its resolution dated December 27, 2023. This recommendation came in response to the elevation of Justice Sandeep Mehta to the Supreme Court, creating a vacancy in the Chief Justice position at Gauhati High Court.

Official Notification by Central Government

The Central Government formalized Justice Vijay Bishnoi's appointment as the Chief Justice of Gauhati High Court through an official notification issued on February 2, 2024. His extensive legal experience and commendable background made him a fitting choice for the role.

Diverse Legal Background and Judicial Journey

Justice Bishnoi, who commenced his judicial journey as a Judge in the Rajasthan High Court on January 8, 2013, brings with him a diverse legal background. Prior to donning the robes, he practiced law at the Rajasthan High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal in Jodhpur. His practice encompassed civil, criminal, Constitutional, service, and election cases, showcasing a comprehensive understanding of various legal domains.

 

Madhya Pradesh High Court's Landmark Ruling on Maintenance Obligations in Separation Agreements

In a significant legal development, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has delivered a noteworthy judgment challenging the conventional grounds disqualifying a wife from seeking maintenance when living apart by mutual consent. Justice Vishal Dhagat, presiding over a specific case, emphasized that a wife cannot be considered as living apart from her husband by "mutual consent" if the husband fails to fulfill promises outlined in their separation agreement.

Background and Legal Context

The case centered around a woman who alleged coercion by her husband into signing a separation agreement after he engaged in an extramarital affair. The husband committed to providing maintenance and other provisions under this agreement.

Judicial Observation and Emphasis on Maintenance Entitlement

Justice Dhagat underscored that the entitlement of maintenance for the wife should not be undermined if the husband fails to uphold promises made in the separation agreement. Despite the terms stipulated in the agreement, the husband's failure to comply led the court to conclude that the separation could not be deemed mutual consent.

Challenge and Family Court's Dismissal

Despite the separation agreement not being a registered document, the family court dismissed the wife's plea for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), citing mutual consent based on the agreement.

High Court's Ruling and Emphasis on Agreement Breach

Acknowledging the merit in the wife's argument, the High Court emphasized that the husband's failure to adhere to the terms of the separation agreement nullified the claim of living apart by mutual consent. Consequently, the Court ordered the husband to pay the wife a monthly maintenance of ₹5,000 and ₹2,500 for their children. The revision petition filed by the wife was granted, overturning the family court's ruling.

 

Punjab and Haryana High Court Provides Clarification on 'Child in Need of Care and Protection' under JJ Act

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently addressed the parameters defining a 'child in need of care and protection' under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (JJ Act). Justice Deepak Gupta made this clarification while dismissing a petition filed by a 10-year-old, represented by his mother, seeking the registration of an FIR against his uncles for alleged physical abuse.

Background and Legal Proceedings

The child's mother had approached the Child Welfare Committee seeking a recommendation for the Juvenile Justice Board to direct the police to file an FIR. When no action was taken, a petition was filed in the High Court, urging it to instruct the Child Welfare Committee to recommend the FIR.

Court's Examination of JJ Act Provisions

In examining the provisions of the JJ Act, the Court highlighted the two categories under 'child in need of care and protection.' The first category encompasses children without guardians or settled homes, while the second covers children with parents or guardians incapable of caring for them or subjecting them to harm.

Emphasis on Specific Categories

The Court emphasized that the petitioner-child did not fall within these categories as he was living with his mother, who was advocating for him. The petitioner's counsel argued that the definition was illustrative, not exhaustive, citing a Supreme Court case. However, Justice Gupta clarified that the top court's observation applied specifically to cases of sexual abuse in government institutions.

Police Response and Legal Analysis

The police informed the Court that, despite heated exchanges, allegations of physical abuse against the petitioner were found to be false. The State counsel explained that, as the offenses were non-cognizable, an FIR required Magistrate permission under IPC Sections 323 and 506.

Court's Decision and Alternative Legal Remedies

The Court noted that the Juvenile Justice Board could order an FIR's registration for offenses against a child in need of care and protection, with prerequisites including a written complaint from the Child Welfare Committee and the case genuinely involving such a child. As the child did not meet the criteria in this case, the Court concluded that the Committee couldn't recommend an FIR. Considering the police reply and the lack of merit in the case, the Court dismissed the petition, allowing the petitioner to explore alternative legal remedies, including approaching the Jurisdictional Magistrate for FIR orders.

 

Introduction of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Bill, 2024 in Rajya Sabha

In a significant legislative move, the Central government presented the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Bill, 2024 in the Rajya Sabha on Monday. Union Minister of State for Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Ashwini Kumar Choubey, tabled the Bill, focusing on addressing outdated regulations that have led to a trust deficit in democratic governance.

Objective of the Amendment Bill

The Bill seeks to amend the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1974, which currently imposes penal provisions, including imprisonment, for non-compliance or contravention of its provisions. The statement of objects and reasons underscores the necessity to rationalize criminal provisions, ensuring that citizens and businesses operate without fear of imprisonment for minor, technical, or procedural defaults.

Key Amendments Proposed

The proposed amendments include:

(a) Nomination of Chairman of State Pollution Control Board: Prescribing the manner of nomination of the chairman of the State Pollution Control Board by the Central Government.

(b) Exemption for Industrial Plants: Granting the Central government authority to exempt certain categories of industrial plants from the application of Section 25, which pertains to restrictions on new outlets and discharges.

(c) Central Government's Authority on Guidelines: Empowering the Central government to issue guidelines on matters related to the grant, refusal, or cancellation of consent by any State Board for the establishment of industries, operations, processes, or treatment and disposal systems.

(d) Decriminalization and Monetary Penalties: Decriminalizing minor offenses and replacing them with monetary penalties for continued contravention.

(e) Adjudication of Penalties: Specifying the manner of adjudication of penalties by an adjudicating officer, with a rank not less than Joint Secretary to the Government of India or Secretary to the State government.

(f) Punishment for Non-Compliance: Outlining punishment for failure to comply with the provisions related to restrictions on new outlets, new discharges, and existing discharge of sewage or trade effluent.

(g) Allocation of Penalties: Crediting the amount of imposed penalties to the Environmental Protection Fund established under section 16 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

Balancing Act and Principles

The Bill aims to strike a balance between the gravity of the offense and the severity of the punishment, aligning with the principles of Ease of Living and Ease of Doing Business.

 

Supreme Court Allows Examination of Discharged Witness in Dowry Death Case [Sunder Lal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.]

In a significant ruling on a dowry death case, the Supreme Court granted permission for the examination of a witness who had been discharged by the prosecution. Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti emphasized that the witness had not been called to depose, and there was no legal bar for the defense to examine the discharged witness. The Court ruled that the Trial Court should assess the evidentiary value of the witness's statement, leaving the option for the prosecution to cross-examine.

Background of the Case

The case involved the appellant, accused in a dowry death matter where the deceased allegedly consumed poison. The deceased's relatives filed a complaint accusing the appellant and his relatives of harassment and improper cremation. The charge-sheet was filed, listing the deceased's brother, Pradeep, as a prosecution witness. However, Pradeep was discharged without being examined during the trial.

Legal Proceedings and Denial of Examination

After the prosecution evidence was closed, and the accused's statement recorded, the appellant sought to summon Pradeep under Section 233 of the CrPC. The Trial Court and the High Court rejected this request, citing the prosecution's loss of faith in Pradeep due to alleged influence from the appellant.

Supreme Court's Decision and Legal Interpretation

The appellant, relying on Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, argued that the legal bar applied to examined witnesses, not to those dropped without examination. The Supreme Court concurred, stating that both lower courts were wrong in denying the appellant's request, as Pradeep had not been examined by the prosecution. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court.

 

Supreme Court Upholds Disqualification Rule for Panchayat Members Over Validity Certificate [SUDHIR VIKAS KALEL vs. BAPU RAJARAM KALEL]

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed the automatic disqualification of Panchayat members in Maharashtra, elected from reserved SC/OBC seats, who fail to produce a Validity Certificate within 12 months from the election date. This ruling is based on Section 10-1A of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act 1959.

Legal Framework:

According to the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, a person contesting from a reserved seat must obtain a Caste Certificate, valid subject to verification and the grant of the Validity Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee.

Provision and Disqualification:

Section 10-1A of the Panchayats Act mandates candidates from reserved seats to produce the Validity Certificate from the Scrutiny Committee along with their nomination papers. Failure to do so within 12 months from the election date results in automatic retrospective termination of the election, leading to disqualification.

Precedents and Legal Status:

This provision was declared mandatory by the Bombay High Court in Anant H. Ulahalkar & Anr. Vs. Chief Election Commissioner & Ors (2017), a judgment later upheld by the Supreme Court in Shankar S/o Raghunath Devre (Patil) Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others (2019).

Case Details and Ruling:

In a specific case, the appellant failed to produce the Validity Certificate within the stipulated period despite applying for it during nomination. The Supreme Court ruled against protection under the Maharashtra Temporary Extension of Period for Submitting Validity Certificate Act, 2023, as the appellant failed to communicate the election result to the Scrutiny Committee within the stipulated time, as directed by the Bombay High Court.

Court's Emphasis:

The Court emphasized the importance of due diligence by candidates aspiring to contest reserved seats and noted that the appellant did not fulfill all necessary requirements within his control. Extending protection under the Temporary Extension Act would, according to the Court, allow the appellant to benefit from his oversight.

Decision and Implications:

In light of these findings, the Supreme Court affirmed the automatic disqualification of the appellant, directing the cessation of his membership. The Court also endorsed the High Court's directive for another party to stop exercising powers as a sarpanch and ordered the notification of a fresh election for the post of village Sarpanch.

 

Supreme Court Upholds Detention in UAPA Case, Rejecting Bail Plea Amidst Trial Delay [Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Another]

In a recent judicial pronouncement, the Supreme Court has denied bail to an individual facing charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), emphasizing that the mere prolongation of the trial process does not provide grounds for release, especially in cases involving severe offenses. Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, presiding over the case, underscored the accused's alleged involvement in a conspiracy related to terrorist acts under Section 18 of the UAPA and asserted that trial delays cannot be the sole basis for granting bail.

Judicial Scrutiny: No Leniency Despite Trial Delays

In a case marked by allegations of promoting the Khalistani terror movement, the Supreme Court has declined bail to the appellant, emphasizing that delay in trial proceedings, even if protracted, does not warrant release in grave offenses. The Court stressed the need to consider the gravity of charges, specifically highlighting the material on record that indicated the accused's complicity in supporting terrorist activities.

Challenging Precedents: Appellant Invokes Right to Speedy Trial

The appellant drew reference to the precedent set in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, asserting that a violation of the right to a speedy trial should be a fundamental ground for bail in UAPA cases. Having spent over five years in detention, the appellant argued that only a fraction of witnesses had been examined during this period. However, the Court distinguished this case from Najeeb's, pointing out the unique circumstances surrounding Najeeb's trial.

Stricter Standards: Two-Pronged Test for Bail Under UAPA Reiterated

Reiterating the stringent criteria for bail under UAPA, the Court outlined a two-pronged test, examining the prima facie case against the accused and considering general bail principles under Section 439 CrPC. The Court emphasized that, in the present case, the ongoing trial and examination of 22 witnesses, including protected ones, warranted denial of bail.

Material Significance: Court Highlights Appellant's Alleged Role

Despite the appellant's arguments, including the absence of his name from the terror funding chart and lack of incriminating evidence on his mobile phone, the Court rejected the plea, maintaining that these factors did not absolve the appellant of his purported involvement in the alleged criminal activities.

Origins of the Case: Khalistan Movement Promotion and Banned Organization's Involvement

The case originated from intelligence about individuals promoting the Khalistan movement, leading to the discovery of the banned organization "Sikhs for Justice." Several arrests, including that of the appellant, followed, with charges ranging from illegal receipt of funds for separatist promotion to attempts to procure weapons and alleged connections with an ISI handler.

Judicial Caution: Supreme Court Stresses Seriousness of Charges in Bail Denial

Emphasizing the severity of the charges and the potential impact on witnesses, the Supreme Court rejected the appellant's plea for bail. The decision serves as a judicial reminder that delays in trial alone do not justify release in cases involving grave offenses under UAPA.

 


 Bombay High Court Establishes Distinction: Implicit Executorship in Will Clarified

In a recent legal pronouncement, the Bombay High Court has provided crucial clarification regarding the implicit executorship in a Will, emphasizing that the designation of an individual to manage specific payments from a designated fund does not automatically imply their appointment as an executor. Justice Manish Pitale, presiding over a petition for Letters of Administration (LoA) with Will annexed, underscored that having the responsibility to handle particular payments does not amount to an implied executorship, particularly if broader authority over the entire estate is lacking.

Petitioner's Quest for Authorization: LoA Petition Examined

The petitioner, Dimple Rakesh Doshi, sought Letters of Administration for a Will dated May 29, 2022. The Will designated the petitioner as the sole owner of the deceased's movable and immovable property, with specific instructions for the distribution of investment proceeds to family members, assisted by her husband. However, objections were raised by the Registry, suggesting that the petitioner should file a probate petition due to an implied executorship.

Legal Arguments Unveiled: Implied Executorship Scrutinized

Advocate Rubin Vakil, representing the petitioner, argued against the implied appointment of the petitioner as an executor based on the language of the Will. The court carefully examined the Will, noting its direction for payments from a specific fund but observed the absence of explicit appointment as an executor. Drawing from legal precedents, including the Calcutta High Court's ruling in Nimai Charan Chatterjee v. Lakshmi Narayan Chatterjee, the court emphasized that implicit executorship requires authority over the entire estate's debts and legacies.

Critical Examination: Lack of Explicit Powers in Will

The court, after scrutinizing the Will, found no indication that the petitioner possessed the necessary powers to be an executor by implication. Consequently, the ruling favored the petitioner, allowing the LoA petition. The court highlighted that as the Will did not expressly appoint an executor, the legatee could establish the Will's validity, leading to the issuance of Letters of Administration.

Resolution of Objections: Clear Path for the Petitioner

With the petitioner addressing other objections, the court directed the Registry to proceed with the grant in accordance with the law. This decision by the Bombay High Court provides essential clarity on the distinction between explicit and implicit executorship in a Will, particularly concerning directives for specific payments from designated funds.

 

Delhi High Court Affirms Chargesheet Validity: Documents' Absence Not a Defect [OMA RAM v. STATE OF GNCTD]

In a recent judicial pronouncement, the Delhi High Court has clarified that the absence of accompanying documents does not render a chargesheet invalid. In a case overseen by Justice Anoop Kumari Mendiratta, the court highlighted that while it is customary for all relevant documents to accompany a chargesheet, their absence does not automatically vitiate the chargesheet. The court, while dismissing a plea for statutory bail in a cheating case (OMA RAM v. STATE OF GNCTD), emphasized the Investigating Officer's right to further investigation, unaffected even after filing the chargesheet under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

Statutory Bail Plea Rejected: Timely Chargesheet Filing Prevails

The accused, seeking statutory bail, argued that an incomplete chargesheet was filed within the mandated 90-day period. The plea contended that certain critical original documents were yet to be collected by the Investigating Officer (IO). The court, dismissing these claims, asserted that the chargesheet's filing within the prescribed timeframe, coupled with the court taking cognizance of the offenses, outweighed the plea for statutory bail.

Judicial Clarity: Chargesheet Completeness Despite Document Absence

Justice Mendiratta clarified that the chargesheet's completeness, even in the absence of certain supporting documents, does not invalidate it. The court underlined that the Investigating Officer retains the right for further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., even after the chargesheet is filed. The court noted that the court's satisfaction regarding the commission of an offense and subsequent cognizance remains unaffected by ongoing investigations or the need for additional documents.

Procedural Understanding: Chargesheet Validity Uncompromised

This ruling by the Delhi High Court provides crucial clarity on the procedural aspects of chargesheets, emphasizing that their validity is not compromised by the absence of specific documents at the time of filing. The decision reinforces the Investigating Officer's ongoing authority for further investigation, underscoring the distinction between chargesheet completeness and the right to explore additional evidence.

 


 Bombay High Court Asserts Exclusive Authority of Appointing Court in Arbitral Tribunal's Extension [K.I.P.L. Vistacore Infra Projects J.V vs Municipal Corporation of the city of Ichalkarnji]

In a recent landmark decision, the Bombay High Court, under the guidance of Justice Bharati Dangre, has unequivocally clarified that the authority to extend the mandate of an arbitral tribunal or arbitrator, as per Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, lies solely with the court that appointed the arbitrator(s). The court emphasized the alignment of the term 'Court' in Section 29A with the appointing court's jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act.

Background of the Dispute: Municipal Corporation vs. Infra Projects J.V.

The legal dispute emerged from a sewage treatment plant project, leading to complications and legal actions between the Municipal Corporation of Ichalkarnji (Respondent) and K.I.P.L. Vistacore Infra Projects J.V. (Petitioner). Following various legal proceedings, arbitration was proposed, and an arbitrator was appointed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

Arbitration Challenges Amidst Pandemic: Mandate Expiry and Legal Interpretation Dispute

The arbitration process faced hurdles due to the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in the expiration of the arbitrator's mandate. The Petitioner sought an extension under Section 29-A, leading to a legal interpretation dispute over the term 'Court' as specified in the provision.

Court's Observations and Interpretation: Defining 'Court' in Section 29A

The High Court scrutinized Section 29-A(4), which stipulates that the arbitrator's mandate terminates if an award is not issued within the prescribed timeframe, and only the 'Court' can extend it. Referring to the definition of 'Court' in Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration Act, the court emphasized that the term is intricately woven into the Act's framework.

Rejecting Narrow Interpretation: High Court as Appointing Authority and Extension Jurisdiction

Rejecting the Respondent's narrow interpretation, the High Court highlighted that it was the High Court that intervened and appointed the arbitrator, making it the logical authority for the extension. Citing precedent in Cabra Instalaciones Y. Services vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited, the court affirmed that the High Court, acting under Section 29A, cannot appoint a substitute arbitral tribunal.

Conclusion: Harmonizing 'Court' with Section 11 Authority

The High Court concluded that interpreting 'Court' in Section 29A aligns with the appointing court's authority under Section 11, ensuring coherence and avoiding legal complications. Consequently, the court granted the petition, extending the arbitral tribunal's mandate by an additional six months.

Significance of the Decision: Landmark Clarification on Arbitral Tribunal's Extension Jurisdiction

This significant ruling by the Bombay High Court establishes a precedent, providing clarity on the exclusive authority of the appointing court in extending the mandate of an arbitral tribunal. The decision aims to prevent legal conflicts and streamline the interpretation of crucial provisions within the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

 


 Bombay High Court's Landmark Decision: Arbitrator's Fee Determination and Conduct Standards Clarified [Shanklesha Construction and Others vs Ashok Mohanraj Chhajed]

In a recent judicial milestone, the Bombay High Court, led by Justice Manish Pitale, has addressed crucial aspects pertaining to arbitrator fees and procedural conduct, offering clarity on the guidelines for fee determination and the discretionary powers of arbitrators. The court underscored the necessity of mutual agreement among the parties for any alterations in arbitrator fees, as outlined in the tripartite agreement and Schedule IV of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Tripartite Agreement Significance: Basis for Arbitrator Fee Determination

Drawing from the Supreme Court's guidelines in the ONGC vs. Afcons Gunanusa JV case, the High Court emphasized the pivotal role of a tripartite agreement in determining arbitrator fees. The court clarified that arbitrators are entitled to compute fees for both claims and counterclaims within the 'sum in dispute,' and any modifications to fees must be consensual, adhering to the principles set forth in Schedule IV.

Flexibility in Procedural Conduct: Liberating Arbitrators from CPC and Evidence Act Constraints

The High Court emphasized that arbitrators are not bound by the rigid rules of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and the Evidence Act. Instead, arbitrators possess the flexibility to adopt a reasonable approach aligned with the principles of natural justice during arbitral proceedings. This recognition of arbitrators' discretion is a departure from the stringent procedural constraints applicable in traditional court proceedings.

Addressing Procedural Concerns: Timely Intervention and Section 34 Proceedings

The court highlighted that any concerns related to procedural conduct should be raised during Section 34 proceedings, subsequent to the issuance of the arbitral award. This approach allows parties to address procedural issues at an appropriate stage, maintaining the efficiency of the arbitral process.

Clarity on Fee Determination and Conduct Principles: Implications of the Ruling

This landmark ruling from the Bombay High Court provides clarity on the process of determining arbitrator fees, emphasizing the significance of mutual agreement among the parties. Additionally, the decision reinforces the discretionary powers of arbitrators in conducting proceedings in a manner consistent with the principles of natural justice, thereby contributing to a more flexible and efficient arbitration process.

Legal Landscape Impact: Setting Precedent for Arbitrator Fee Agreements and Procedural Flexibility

With this decision, the Bombay High Court has set a precedent that not only defines the parameters for arbitrator fee agreements but also reinforces the importance of procedural flexibility in arbitration proceedings. The ruling is expected to have a significant impact on future arbitration cases, guiding parties, arbitrators, and legal practitioners in navigating fee determinations and procedural conduct in a more efficient and adaptable manner.

 


 Delhi High Court Affirms Arbitration Clause in Dispute Resolution Agreement [Praveen Kumar Kapoor vs Raj Kumar Jain and Anr]

In a recent landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court, under the leadership of Justice Prateek Jalan, has provided clarity on the enforceability of an arbitration clause within a Memorandum of Understanding/Settlement Agreement (MoU). The court clarified that a dispute resolution clause featuring alternative modes of settlements, including arbitration, doesn't necessitate fresh consent from the parties once the clause has been agreed upon. The court underscored that the use of the term "will" in the clause indicates a clear agreement, eliminating the need for further consensus.

Background: Construction MoU and Dispute Resolution Clause

The case involved an MoU for construction work between Praveen Kumar Kapoor ("Petitioner") and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The MoU contained a dispute resolution clause, Clause 5, allowing resolution through mutual agreement, mediator, or arbitrator. Due to non-compliance by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the Petitioner filed a Section 9 application in the Commercial Court. After objections were considered, the court allowed the Respondents to present these before the arbitrator. The Petitioner appealed to the Delhi High Court, initiated arbitration proceedings, and filed a Section 11 application for an arbitrator's appointment.

Enforceability of Arbitration Clause: "Will" Signifying Consensus

The High Court emphasized that the three alternative modes of settlement outlined in Clause 5 of the MoU didn't require further consensus once agreed upon. The court highlighted the use of the term "will" in the clause as indicative of a clear agreement, rejecting the argument that fresh consent was needed for arbitration. The court referred to the Supreme Court's stance in Jagdish Chander Ramesh Chander & Ors., affirming that the mere mention of "arbitration" wouldn't constitute an arbitration agreement if further consent was necessary.

Limitation Issue: Examined at Section 11 Stage

Addressing the limitation issue, the High Court found that the petition's mention of payments until early 2021 fell within the three-year limitation period. The court clarified that a limitation challenge could be examined at the Section 11 stage only if evident on the face of the petition, leaving the matter open for the arbitrator's consideration.

Court's Decision: Referral to Arbitration under Delhi International Arbitration Centre

In conclusion, the Delhi High Court allowed the petition and referred the disputes to arbitration under the Delhi International Arbitration Centre. This decision establishes a precedent on the enforceability of arbitration clauses within MoUs, offering clarity on the interpretation of such clauses and the significance of the parties' initial agreement.

 


 Delhi High Court Emphasizes Strict Adherence to Time Limit for Challenging Arbitral Awards [National Research Development Corporation & Anr vs Chromous Biotech Pvt Ltd.]

In a recent significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, under the guidance of Justice Pratibha M Singh, has underscored the unequivocal nature of the time limit specified in Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court firmly asserted that the condonation of delay in challenging an arbitral award beyond the prescribed period is impermissible unless the party can demonstrate diligence and genuine reasons beyond its control for the delay.

Background of the Case: NRDC and DSIR vs Chromous Biotech Pvt Ltd.

The National Research Development Corporation (NRDC) and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) filed a Section 34 petition challenging an arbitral award related to the development of a molecular diagnostics kit for malaria detection with Chromous Biotech Pvt Ltd. The Respondent's failure to meet obligations led to arbitration, resulting in an award against the Petitioners. The Petitioners filed a Section 34 application to challenge the award, seeking to condone a 54-day delay in filing. The limitation period under Section 34(3) was due to expire on 9th April 2023.

Absolute Nature of Time Limit: Express Exclusion Preventing Extension

Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Popular Construction, the High Court emphasized the absolute nature of the time limit in Section 34. The phrase 'but not thereafter' in the proviso to Section 34(3) was deemed an express exclusion under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, preventing any extension beyond the specified period. The court stressed the Arbitration Act's scheme, aiming to minimize the courts' supervisory role in the arbitral process.

Limited Scope for Extension: Diligence and Genuine Reasons Required

Referring to Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of India, the High Court reiterated the limited scope for extending the statutory period for challenging arbitral awards. While the proviso allows a thirty-day extension for sufficient cause, the court emphasized the importance of adherence to statutory timelines. It affirmed that, similar to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, delays beyond the prescribed limits cannot be condoned. The court maintained that jurisdiction exists to condone delay in re-filing, but the party must demonstrate diligence and genuine reasons beyond its control for the delay.

Court's Decision: Dismissal of Petition as Time-Barred

Ultimately, the court found the Petitioners lacking in providing a reasonable explanation for the delay and dismissed the petition as time-barred under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act. This ruling reinforces the stringent adherence to time limits in challenging arbitral awards, emphasizing the need for parties to act diligently within the prescribed periods.

 


 Bombay High Court Clarifies Necessity of Separate Arbitration Agreement under MSMED Act [M/s Bafna Udyog vs Micro & Small Enterprises, Facilitation Council and anr.]

In a recent significant ruling, the Bombay High Court, under the guidance of Justice Neela Gokhle, has underscored the crucial requirement of a distinct arbitration agreement for disputes falling under the purview of the Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act). The court rejected the proposition advocating a deemed arbitration agreement under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, affirming that a separate and explicit arbitration agreement between the parties is indispensable.

Background of the Case: Bafna Udyog vs Siddhivinayak Exports

M/s Bafna Udyog, categorized as a small entity under the MSMED Act, sought Rs. 92,41,072/- along with future interest from Siddhivinayak Exports. Despite unsuccessful attempts at resolution, Bafna Udyog submitted a termination certificate under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, to the Micro & Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC). However, the MSEFC did not initiate arbitration within the mandatory ninety-day period. Consequently, Bafna Udyog approached the Bombay High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act.

Deemed Arbitration Agreement and Court's Authority: Section 18(3) of MSMED Act

The petitioner argued that the MSEFC's failure to arbitrate within the prescribed period empowered the court, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, to appoint an arbitrator. It contended that Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, establishing a deemed arbitration agreement, eliminates the need for a separate agreement. The petitioner further asserted that the court's authority under Section 11(6) arises when an institution fails to fulfill its statutory function.

High Court's Clarification: Voluntary Arbitration Agreement Requirement

The High Court clarified that an Arbitral Tribunal's jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes emanates from a voluntary arbitration agreement between the parties. Section 18 of the MSMED Act mandates conciliation as the initial step, and only if unsuccessful does the MSEFC have the authority to arbitrate or refer the dispute. The provisions of the Arbitration Act then apply, assuming the existence of an explicit arbitration agreement.

Interpretation of Section 11(6)(c) and Valid Arbitration Agreement Requirement

Addressing Section 11(6)(c) of the Arbitration Act, the court explained that jurisdiction is vested in the court only if a person or institution fails to perform a function under an agreed-upon procedure. Importantly, the phrase "under that procedure" refers to a mutually accepted arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration Act. Without such an agreement, Section 11(6)(c) cannot be invoked.

Precedent Reference and Dismissal of Petition: Pursuit of Legal Remedies

The court referred to a Supreme Court decision in Mahanadi Coal Fields v. IVRCL AMR. Joint Venture, establishing that invoking Section 11(6) without a valid arbitration agreement is invalid. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as not maintainable but granted the petitioner the liberty to pursue available legal remedies. This ruling clarifies the mandatory requirement of a separate arbitration agreement under the MSMED Act, maintaining the integrity of the arbitral process.

 


 Landmark Decision: Supreme Court Defines Contempt Standards for Court Orders Compliance

In a groundbreaking judgment, the Supreme Court has outlined specific criteria for determining contempt of court in cases involving delays in adhering to court orders.

Judicial Precision: Deliberate Action Required for Contempt Charges

A recent verdict by the Supreme Court has established that a delay in complying with a court order does not automatically constitute contempt of court, unless there is clear evidence of deliberate or wilful action. The bench, comprised of Justices B.R. Gavai, Sudhanshu Dhulia, and Sandeep Mehta, made this crucial clarification while adjudicating a plea filed by an IAS officer who was convicted by the High Court for a delayed response to a court directive.

Nuanced Ruling: Quasi-Judicial Nature of Contempt Proceedings Emphasized

Recognizing contempt proceedings as quasi-judicial, the Supreme Court underscored that a mere delay in adhering to a court order is insufficient to trigger the Contempt of Courts Act. The court asserted that without concrete evidence of a deliberate or wilful act, contempt charges should not be invoked solely based on delayed compliance.

Case Overview: IAS Officer's Appeal Successfully Challenges High Court Conviction

In the case under consideration, an IAS officer contested his conviction by the High Court, arguing against the characterization of his delayed compliance as a wilful and deliberate violation. Despite eventually fulfilling the court order, the officer faced contempt charges due to the perceived delay, which the High Court deemed intentional in the absence of a satisfactory explanation.

Clarity Restored: Supreme Court Sets Precedent on Contempt Charges

This landmark ruling by the Supreme Court establishes a crucial precedent, underscoring the necessity for evidence of deliberate or wilful acts to substantiate contempt of court charges. The decision offers clarity on the application of the Contempt of Courts Act in situations where delays in court order compliance are at the center of legal scrutiny.

 


Weekly Legal Updates

January 29, 2024-February 4, 2024

 

Landmark Decision: Supreme Court Affirms Restrictions on Introducing Additional Evidence in Appeals, Stresses Trial Stage Diligence [Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod Vs. State of Gujarat & anr.]

Unwavering Judicial Standpoint: Appellate Prudence Tied to Diligent Trial Practices

In a recent groundbreaking ruling, the Supreme Court has upheld the principle that a party's failure to diligently present evidence during the trial of a criminal case bars the later introduction of such evidence in an appeal. Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta underscored the judicious exercise of authority to introduce additional evidence at the appellate stage, emphasizing that this power should only be invoked when the absence of evidence during trial could lead to a miscarriage of justice.

Scrutiny of Appellate Denial: A Cheque Dishonour Case under the Legal Microscope

The Court, adjudicating an appeal challenging the Appellate Court's refusal to admit supplementary evidence under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, closely examined the case of an accused convicted in a cheque dishonour matter. The appellant aimed to introduce the testimony of a handwriting expert regarding the signature in question. However, the Court emphasized that the authority under Section 391 could only be exercised if due diligence was observed during the trial.

Crucial Lesson in Trial Strategy: A Signature Authentication Challenge

The accused, convicted in the cheque dishonour case, had not taken steps to contest the authenticity of the signature during the trial. The Court's observation suggested that to prove the signatures on the cheque were not genuine, obtaining a certified copy of the appellant's specimen signatures from the bank during the trial could have been a more appropriate course of action. The judgment underscores the paramount importance of diligence in presenting evidence during the trial stage, thereby limiting the scope for introducing additional evidence during the appellate phase.

 

Landmark Judgment: Supreme Court Sets Stringent Precedent on Caste-Based Intent in SC/ST Act Cases, Acquits Accused in Modesty Outrage Allegations [Dashrath Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh]

Crucial Legal Pronouncement: Specific Intent of Caste-Based Outrage Required for SC/ST Act Conviction

In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court has unequivocally stated that a conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 must be predicated on the act of outraging the modesty of a woman being committed with a specific intention based on caste grounds. The court emphasized the precise language of the section, highlighting that the offense should be committed with the explicit intent of targeting an individual belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.

Textual Scrutiny: Section 3(1)(xi) and its Cast-Influenced Requirements

Citing the verbatim wording of Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, which pertains to assaulting or using force on a woman with the intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty, the court clarified that the perpetration of the offense should be underpinned by the intention that the victim is a member of the Scheduled Caste category. The ruling, delivered by Justices B.R. Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Sandeep Mehta, annulled the concurrent findings of both the High Court and the Trial Court.

Judicial Precedent Echoed: Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra (2000)

The court harked back to the case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra (2000) to underscore the indispensable requirement of caste-based intent for a conviction under the SC/ST Act. In the current case, the complainant accused the appellant of attempting to outrage her modesty during her engagement in household chores at the appellant's residence.

Thorough Case Review: Caste-Based Intent Absent in Allegations

Upon meticulous scrutiny of the case record, the court observed that, even considering the most severe allegations made by the complainant, the accused did not commit the act with the intention of targeting a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste. Despite the trial court's conviction on various offenses, including one under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, the Supreme Court, finding the conviction untenable on merit, acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act.


 Key Legal Clarification: Supreme Court Advocates Use of Certified Bank Documents in Signature Dispute Cases under Section 138 of NI Act [Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat and another]

Presumption of Genuineness: Burden on Accused in Section 138 Cases

In a significant legal pronouncement, the Supreme Court has underscored the admissibility of certified copies of bank documents in cases falling under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, specifically when the accused disputes the signature on a cheque. The court emphasized the statutory presumption of genuineness accorded to indorsements on a cheque under Section 118(e) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, placing the onus on the accused to present evidence that rebuts this presumption.

Utilizing Bankers' Books Evidence Act: Admissibility of Certified Copies

Highlighting the relevance of certified copies of bank documents under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891, the court affirmed that such copies could be summoned for comparison with the signature on the cheque. Particularly in cases where the accused challenges the authenticity of the signatures, the court noted that obtaining a certified copy of the specimen signature maintained by the bank is permissible, utilizing powers under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Appellate Stage Evidence: Limitations and Due Diligence

This ruling formed part of an appeal challenging the Appellate Court's refusal to admit additional evidence under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 in a cheque dishonour case. The court reiterated that the power under Section 391 could only be exercised if the appellant was thwarted from presenting such evidence during the trial despite exercising due diligence. Crucially, the accused had not taken steps to dispute his signature during the trial, and the returned cheque did not indicate any discrepancies in signatures.

Strategic Approach: Certified Copies during Trial

The court observed that, to establish the signatures on the cheque were not genuine, obtaining a certified copy of the appellant's specimen signatures from the bank during the trial would have been a more appropriate approach. It further noted that the appellant's earlier application for comparing signatures by a handwriting expert, dismissed during the trial, had not been contested.

Judicial Outcome: Appeal Dismissed, Affirmation of High Court's Judgment

In light of these circumstances, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgment of the High Court. The decision provides a clear directive on the permissible use of certified bank documents in signature dispute cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

 

Judicial Emphasis: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Discretionary Nature of Writ of Certiorari in Tax Penalty Dispute [M/S Falguni Steels v. State Of U.P. And Others]

Inherent Judicial Authority: Certiorari as a Discretionary Power

In a notable pronouncement, the Allahabad High Court has accentuated that the writ of certiorari is not automatically granted but rather constitutes a discretionary power vested in a superior court to review and annul decisions rendered by lower courts, tribunals, or administrative bodies. Justice Shekhar B. Saraf, presiding over a case challenging an order under Section 129 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and its subsequent affirmation by the first appellate authority, elucidated that certiorari is typically issued in cases marked by evident legal errors, jurisdictional matters, or procedural irregularities that impact the fairness and legality of proceedings.

Penalty Order Scrutiny: Evident Legal Lapses and Jurisdictional Overreach

The penalty order under Section 129 of the CGST Act, premised on the absence of an e-way bill for the petitioner's goods, faced scrutiny. While the first appellate authority upheld this penalty order, the court observed that both authorities overlooked the crucial fact that one e-way bill was generated before interception, and the other after interception but before a show-cause notice could be issued. The absence of any intent to evade tax was apparent, leading the court to conclude that both authorities had exceeded their jurisdiction under the CGST Act.

Legal Precedent Invoked: Importance of Intent in Imposing Penalties

Drawing upon the decision in Hindustan Herbal Cosmetics v. State of U.P., the court underscored the indispensable role of the intention to evade tax in imposing penalties. It held that the authorities, by acting beyond their jurisdiction and imposing tax without a valid reason, had committed a legal infirmity.

Etymology of Certiorari: "To be More Fully Informed"

The court delved into the Latin origin of Certiorari, meaning "to be more fully informed," emphasizing its pivotal role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring judicial oversight over administrative actions. Citing Supreme Court decisions, including Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and Another v. Bikartan Das and Others and Nagendra Nath Bora and Another v. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeal, Assam and Others, the court concluded that the authorities had overstepped their jurisdiction, justifying the issuance of a writ of certiorari against their orders.

Judicial Outcome: Quashing of Penalty Orders

Consequently, the penalty order and the subsequent order of the first appellate authority were quashed in the case, reaffirming the discretionary nature of the writ of certiorari in the realm of tax penalty disputes.

 


 Legal Clarity: Allahabad High Court Distinguishes Grounds for Void and Voidable Marriages under Hindu Marriage Act

Distinct Legal Framework: Section 11 and Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act

The Allahabad High Court, in a recent pronouncement, has provided legal clarification on the distinctive grounds for void and voidable marriages under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court, comprising Justice Vivek Kumar Birla and Justice Donadi Ramesh, underscored that grounds for void marriages, as outlined in Section 11 of the Act, are separate and distinct from those enumerated in Section 12 for voidable marriages.

Void Marriages: Non-Existence and Irreparable Nature

The court elucidated that marriages deemed void under Section 11, owing to violations of specific clauses of Section 5, are considered non-existent. A declaration seeking the voidness of such marriages can be pursued under Section 11, and these unions cannot be rectified. The court emphasized the irrevocable nature of void marriages, asserting that they cannot be cured or validated.

Voidable Marriages: Validity Until Annulled by Competent Court

In contrast, the court clarified that voidable marriages are considered valid until a competent court annuls them through a decree of nullity under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Until such a decree is granted, voidable marriages retain their legal validity and binding nature.

Case Context: Appellant's Challenge and Amendment to Petition

The appellant-wife challenged the dismissal of her petition under Section 11 by the Family Court. She contended that the original petition was initially filed under Section 12 but was later amended to fall under Section 11. The appellant argued that the absence of the husband during the proceedings, coupled with claims of duress and fraud, justified the court's consideration under Section 11.

Court's Observations: Inapplicability of Section 11 Grounds

The court noted that the grounds specified in Section 11 were not applicable to the case at hand. It emphasized that since the crucial "saptapadi" (sat fera) ritual had not taken place, rendering the marriage invalid, the subsequent registration of marriage held no legal significance. Additionally, the court dismissed the fraud claim, citing the appellant's admission of the marriage before the Sub Registrar.

Rejection of Argument: Distinct Nature of Sections 11 and 12

Emphasizing that the amendment to change the nature of the petition from Section 12 to Section 11 was initiated by the appellant herself, the court rejected her argument that the petition could be considered on grounds other than those specified in Section 11. The court concluded that the grounds available for divorce under Sections 11 and 12 are distinct and should be treated as such.

Legal Precedent: Not Every Misrepresentation Qualifies as "Fraud"

Quoting a Delhi High Court case, the court highlighted that not every kind of misrepresentation or concealment of fact qualifies as "fraud" under Section 12 of the Act. Finally, the court observed that for a voidable marriage, a declaration is necessary, but this is not applicable to a void marriage.

Judicial Decision: Dismissal of Appeal at Admission Stage

Given the absence of grounds under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the court dismissed the appeal at the admission stage in the case titled "Km. Ankita Devi v. Shri Jagdependra Singh @ Kanhaiya." The decision provides clarity on the distinct legal parameters governing void and voidable marriages under the Act.

 

Delhi High Court Reserves Judgment in PIL Alleging Facebook's Algorithm Promotes Hate Content Against Rohingya Community [Mohammad Hamim & Anr. v. Facebook India Online Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.]

Landmark PIL Hearing: Allegations of Facebook's Algorithm Promoting Hate Content

The Delhi High Court has reserved judgment in a significant Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against Facebook India (now Meta), which alleges that the platform's algorithmic features are promoting "hateful and harmful content" against the Rohingya community. The PIL, filed by Rohingya refugees Mohammad Hamim and Kawsar Mohammed, who sought refuge in Delhi after escaping ethnic violence in Myanmar, was heard by a division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora.

Judicial Reflections: PIL as Representation and Compliance with IT Rules 2021

During the hearing, the court suggested that the PIL might be treated as a representation to the Central Government or allowed the petitioners to directly approach Facebook with their concerns. The bench reserved the order and indicated that if dissatisfied, the petitioners could use the appellate mechanism under the IT Rules 2021. The court critiqued the petition for lacking a reference to the IT Rules 2021 and emphasized the need for a prior notice to the Union Government, highlighting the importance of following proper procedures before filing a PIL.

Contentions of the Petitioners: Alleged Hate Campaigns and Remedial Demands

The plea alleges that Facebook's algorithm promotes hate campaigns against the Rohingya community, branding them as "terrorists" and "infiltrators." The petitioners seek a direction for Facebook to suspend accounts spreading hateful content and appoint trained human moderators to analyze the context of hate narratives. Additionally, they request training algorithms to prevent the suggestion of polarizing content in Indian languages and altering the ranking system that prioritizes hate speech.

Legal Representation: Senior Advocates and Facebook's Defense

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves and Advocate Kawalpreet Kaur represented the petitioners, while Senior Advocate Arvind P. Datar, along with Advocate Tejas Karia, appeared for Facebook. The court suggested that the petitioners should have filed a civil suit for better adjudication and hinted that a writ petition under Article 226 might not be the appropriate remedy.

Facebook's Defense: IT Rules Compliance and Content Moderation

Facebook's counsel argued that the IT Rules of 2021 provide a three-tier system to handle offending posts, including hate speeches. Gonsalves contended that Facebook abets and magnifies hate speech against the Rohingya community, alleging it as the propagator. The court acknowledged the prevalence of abuse on social media but questioned the appropriateness of a writ petition in such cases.

Dismissal Plea and Next Steps: Lack of Evidence and Court's Decision

Datar sought dismissal of the plea, asserting that it failed to demonstrate the ineffectiveness of Facebook's guidelines and lacked evidence of the platform abetting hateful content. After hearing both sides, the court announced its decision to pass orders in the matter. The PIL raises concerns about potential violence against the Rohingya community due to the dissemination of hate remarks on Facebook, especially during the 2024 Indian elections

 


 Legal Decision: Kerala High Court Rejects Petition for Employment Assistance Based on Daughter's Marital Status [Arifa TK v. The District Collector & Ors.]

Judicial Pronouncement: Dismissal of Petition for Employment Assistance

In a recent legal development, the Kerala High Court has dismissed a petition, titled Arifa TK v. The District Collector & Ors., seeking employment assistance for a married daughter due to her husband's job loss. Justice Devan Ramachandran, while rejecting the petition, underscored the distinction between dependency as a factual circumstance and a legal doctrine.

Legal Interpretation: Dependency as a Factual Circumstance

The court emphasized that dependency is a factual circumstance rather than a legal doctrine. It deemed the petitioner, a married woman, ineligible for dependency assistance, asserting that her husband's well-paying job contradicted the notion that her dependency on her father had been "restored" following her husband's alleged job loss abroad.

Challenged Rejection: Marital Status and Dependency Certificate

The petitioner's counsel argued against the rejection of the dependency certificate based solely on the appellant's marital status. The counsel contended that a daughter, regardless of her marital status, is entitled to employment assistance. However, the court stressed the importance of adhering to eligibility criteria, stating that granting benefits to those not fully eligible under the relevant Government Order would compromise its purpose and intent.

Legal Principle: Adherence to Eligibility Criteria

The court, in its decision, highlighted the necessity of adhering to eligibility criteria, maintaining that deviations could undermine the purpose and intent of the relevant Government Order. While recognizing the petitioner's arguments, the court maintained that the denial of employment assistance was based on factual considerations surrounding the petitioner's dependency.

Judicial Emphasis: Marital Status and Eligibility for Assistance

Justice Devan Ramachandran's judgment underscores the significance of considering factual circumstances, such as financial dependency, when determining eligibility for employment assistance. The court's decision, rejecting the petition solely based on the daughter's marital status and financial situation, sets a precedent emphasizing adherence to eligibility criteria in such matters.


 Judicial Applause: Madras High Court Commends Tamil Nadu's LGBTQ+ Policy for Diversity and Inclusivity

Judicial Praise: Acknowledgment of Tamil Nadu's LGBTQ+ Policy

The Madras High Court has extended commendation to the Tamil Nadu government for its progressive initiatives, particularly praising the Tamil Nadu Gender and Sexual Minority (LGBTQ+) Policy. Justice Anand Venkatesh expressed appreciation for the policy's design, which focuses on the well-being and empowerment of the LGBTQ+ community.

Judicial Emphasis: Commitment to Inclusiveness

Justice Anand Venkatesh highlighted the state's ongoing commitment to inclusiveness and empowerment through the LGBTQ+ policy. The court acknowledged the nuanced approach of the policy, foreseeing its role in creating a supportive environment, promoting voluntary initiatives, and expanding outreach programs.

Policy Evaluation: Detailed and Comprehensive Approach

Describing the LGBTQ+ policy as a detailed and comprehensive testament to the state's dedication to inclusivity and empowerment, the court emphasized its subtle navigation through the intricate landscape of LGBTQ+ rights in Tamil Nadu. The policy was acknowledged for fostering a dialogue on diversity and acceptance.

Judicial Directives: Combatting Stigma and Ensuring Welfare

Justice Anand Venkatesh, who has consistently issued directives to combat LGBTQ+ stigma and ensure community welfare, was informed that the draft policy, incorporating public opinion, awaited government review.

Policy Highlights: Features Benefitting Trans and Intersex Community

After reviewing the policy, the court applauded its commendable efforts to recognize and address the rights and welfare of the trans and intersex community in the state. The court assured a deliberate process, focused on implementing a beneficial policy for the community, acknowledging the time needed for stakeholder considerations.

Key Features of the LGBTQ+ Policy:

1. Horizontal reservation in education and employment for transgenders and intersex persons.

2. Job protection after legal transition to a different gender identity.

3. Simplified legal name and gender changes based on state or central transgender ID cards.

4. Age relaxation in employment to account for academic hurdles, challenges, and time delays.

5. Gender-affirming medical and surgical care with adherence to global standards.

6. Elimination of unethical two-finger tests on transmasculine persons.

7. Compliance with Home Ministry's advisory on transgender prisoners in prisons.

8. Measures against violence and harassment, including shelters for LGBTQ+ individuals.

9. Sensitization programs across institutions and healthcare providers.

10. Three-month extension for stakeholder consultations and committee expansion.

Case Title: Mrs S Sushma & Ors v The Director General of Police and Others


 Judicial Assertion: Karnataka High Court Emphasizes Due Process for Eviction After Lease Expiry [K T Suresh & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others]

Legal Clarity: Due Process After Lease Expiry

In a recent ruling, the Karnataka High Court has underscored the importance of due process upon the expiration of a lease or licence granted by a Municipal Corporation. Justice Suraj Govindaraj, on a single-judge bench, issued directives, emphasizing that forcible removal of occupants is not permissible. Instead, Municipal Corporations must adhere to the procedures outlined in either the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, or the Transfer of Property Act.

Judicial Instructions: Adherence to Legal Process

The court issued directives to the Secretary of the Urban Development Department, instructing all Corporations and Municipalities within its jurisdiction to follow the legal process and refrain from resorting to coercive possession of premises.

Case Background: Forceful Eviction and Legal Redress

This decision arose from pleas filed by tenants of Mysuru Municipality who were forcefully evicted when they did not vacate the allotted premises. The court directed the return of forcibly taken-over premises to the petitioners, allowing them to continue their businesses until lawful eviction.

Compensation Directive: Addressing Livelihood Impact

The Municipality was instructed to compensate dispossessed shopkeepers with Rs. 200 per day until possession was restored. The petitioners, identified as street vendors, argued that the Municipality's actions, involving pourakarmikas and police personnel, deprived them of their livelihood.

Legal Approach: Rejection of Forced Vacancy without Due Process

Despite the Municipality's claim that the lease had expired, the court rejected the notion that the petitioners were required to vacate without due process. It highlighted that the Municipality could either follow the Transfer of Property Act for eviction or invoke the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, to obtain judicial/quasi-judicial orders before enforcement.

Judicial Disapproval: Condemnation of Use of Force

The court denounced the Municipality's use of force, emphasizing that officials breaking locks without judicial direction constituted an abuse of power. It stressed the importance of the State and its instrumentalities adhering to the rule of law and maintaining a model litigant conduct.

Judicial Remedies: Independent Inquiry and Accountability

Consequently, the court allowed the pleas and directed the Principal Secretary of the Urban Development Department to conduct an independent inquiry and take action against the officials involved. This judicial assertion reiterates the significance of following due process in eviction matters, safeguarding the rights of occupants even after the expiration of a lease or licence.

 

Judicial Pronouncement: Supreme Court Reiterates Criteria for Rape Offense Based on False Promise of Marriage [SHEIKH ARIF VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR]

Legal Clarity: Criteria for Rape Offense and False Promise of Marriage

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court has reiterated the criteria for establishing the offense of rape based on a false promise of marriage. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal, underscored the crucial element that the woman's consent, right from the beginning, must be obtained under the influence of the false promise. This principle was emphasized, citing the judgment in Anurag Soni v State of Chhattisgarh (2019) 13 SCC 1.

Case Background: Appeal Challenging Rape Case

The case before the Court involved an appeal by a man challenging the Bombay High Court's decision not to quash a rape case against him. The prosecution alleged that the man and the woman were in a physical relationship for four years (2013-2017) with the understanding that they would marry. However, in 2018, the woman discovered the man's engagement with another woman, leading her to file an FIR, alleging that her consent was based on a false promise of marriage. The man claimed that they had married in 2017 and presented a 'nikahnama' as evidence.

Judicial Analysis: Consent, False Promise, and 'Nikahnama'

After reviewing the evidence, the Supreme Court noted that the woman was above 18 years old when she consented to the relationship, and she did not object during the entire four-year period. The Court rejected the argument that the physical relationship was maintained solely on the basis of a false promise to marry. Referring to the 'Nikahnama,' the Court accepted the engagement and proposal facts but concluded that the woman's denial of the marriage being solemnized with the appellant made it implausible that the physical relationship was solely based on the promise of marriage.

Judicial Decision: Dismissal of Prosecution as Abuse of Legal Process

Based on this analysis, the Court held that the case did not establish a false promise to marry from the beginning, as sufficient evidence, in the form of the 'Nikahnama,' indicated the marriage. Consequently, the Court deemed the continuation of the prosecution a gross abuse of the legal process, as no purpose would be served by pursuing the case against the man. This judicial pronouncement provides clarity on the criteria for establishing the offense of rape in cases involving a false promise of marriage.

 


 Judicial Division: Bombay High Court Issues Split Verdict on Challenge to IT Amendment Rules Empowering Fact-Checking Unit [Kunal Kamra v. Union of India]

Legal Challenge: Petitions against IT Amendment Rules

In a recent development, the Bombay High Court has issued a divided opinion on petitions challenging the validity of Rules 3(i)(II)(A) & (C) of the IT Amendment Rules, 2023. These rules empower the Central government to establish a fact-checking unit (FCU) to identify 'fake, false, or misleading' information regarding its business on social media platforms.

Judicial Split: Justice Gautam Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale

Justice Gautam Patel ruled in favor of the petitioners, including political satirist Kunal Kamra, the Association of Indian Magazines, News Broadcasters of Digital Association, and the Editor's Guild of India. Conversely, Justice Neela Gokhale upheld the amendment. A detailed judgment is awaited, and the matter will now be referred to a third judge per Bombay High Court Rules.

Interim Relief: Delay in FCU Notification

Meanwhile, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta assured the Court that the FCU notification would be delayed for another 10 days. The petitioners were granted the liberty to apply for further protection extension before the appropriate forum.

Rules' Mandate: Removal or Disclaimer for Flagged Content

The rules mandate social media intermediaries such as 'X,' 'Instagram,' and 'Facebook' to either remove flagged content or add a disclaimer once identified by the government's FCU.

Legal Arguments: Violation of Sections 79 and 87(2)(z) & (zg) of IT Act

The petitioners argued that these rules are ultra vires Sections 79, safeguarding intermediaries, and Section 87(2)(z) & (zg) of the IT Act 2000. They contended a violation of fundamental rights under Article 14 (equal protection under the law) and freedom of speech under Articles 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Kunal Kamra's Concerns: Arbitrary Censorship and Account Suspension

Kunal Kamra expressed concerns about potential arbitrary censorship and the suspension of his accounts due to the rules, emphasizing his reliance on social media for sharing content.

Key Issues Raised During Proceedings:

1. Lack of safeguards protecting satire in the amended IT Rules 2023.

2. Ministry of Information and Technology's argument on FCU serving public interest.

3. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's clarification on intermediaries' role and potential loss of safe harbor.

4. Concerns about arbitrariness and discrimination arising from the government's identification of 'fake' information.

5. Debate on the broad definition of 'information' in the IT Act and its impact on freedom of speech.

6. Questions about the FCU's advisory nature and its potential impact on freedom of speech across various media channels.

7. Justice Patel's inquiry into limiting the scope of 'information' defined under the IT Act.

8. Advocates' arguments for striking down the rules to protect freedom of speech.

This divided opinion adds complexity to the ongoing legal debate surrounding the IT Amendment Rules and their implications for freedom of speech on digital platforms.

 

Judicial Pronouncement: Madras High Court Emphasizes Procedural Safeguards in License Seizure Cases under Motor Vehicle Act [P Prabhu v Regional Transport Officer]

Procedural Fairness in License Seizure Cases

In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards when seizing driving licenses under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Justice B Pugalendhi, presiding over the Madurai bench, addressed petitions seeking the return of licenses seized from individuals facing criminal charges under Section 304(A) IPC for causing death by negligence.

Background: Seizure of Licenses and Criminal Charges

The petitioners, employed as drivers in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, had their licenses seized after criminal cases were registered against them. The police seized their licenses, forwarding them to the respective Regional Transport Officers (RTOs), who retained the licenses. The petitioners argued against any offense under the Motor Vehicle Act, as final reports in the criminal cases were pending, and they had not been convicted.

Legal Arguments: Section 19 of the Motor Vehicle Act

The Additional Government Pleader contended that, as a cognizable offense under IPC Section 304(A), the authority had the right to suspend licenses under Section 19 of the MV Act, following Rule 21 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989.

Judicial Analysis: Timing of License Seizure and Police Powers

The court referred to past judgments, acknowledging conflicting opinions within the High Court on the timing of license seizure in such cases. It clarified that the power of seizure by the police under Section 206 of the MV Act was limited to specific offenses and required recorded reasons.

Procedural Safeguards: Role of Regional Transport Authority (RTA)

Emphasizing that authorities could only act under Section 19 based on a police report, the court clarified that the police lacked automatic power to seize licenses upon filing an FIR. It mandated that the police forward a report to the relevant RTA, which, after ensuring the existence of contingencies provided in the Act and providing an opportunity to the license holder, could take appropriate actions.

Judicial Directive: Return of Licenses and Future Actions

Consequently, the court directed the RTO to return the driving licenses to the petitioners. It underscored that the police could forward relevant materials to the RTO after filing the final report, allowing the RTO to take appropriate actions as outlined in the MV Act

 

Judicial Decision: Telangana High Court Alters Conviction from Murder to Culpable Homicide, Emphasizes Distinction Between 'Intent' and 'Knowledge'

In a recent judgment, the Telangana High Court modified the conviction of a man from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, underlining the crucial distinction between 'intent' and 'knowledge.' The Division Bench of Justice K. Lakshman and P. Sree Sudha heard a criminal appeal filed by the husband convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly using an axe to murder his wife.

Key Points of the Judicial Decision:

1. Crucial Distinction: The court emphasized the critical difference between 'intent' and 'knowledge' in determining the accused's culpability. It highlighted that the accused's actions should be closely examined to ascertain whether there was a specific intention to take a life.

2. Application of Precedent: Citing the judgment of Pulicherla Nagaraju vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, the court outlined circumstances where the accused might possess knowledge that his actions could cause death but lack the specific intention to take a life.

3. Factual Background: The court considered the factual background of the case, noting that the husband and wife had been quarreling, leading the wife to move back to her parents' house. The accused sought her return, but her father informed him that she was unwell and would return later.

4. Absence of Premeditation: The court observed that the wife's refusal suddenly provoked the accused. In the heat of the moment, he entered the house, grabbed an axe, and ended her life. The court concluded that the murder was not premeditated, and the accused had no prior intention to take his wife's life.

5. Assessment of Intent: The court emphasized that when the statute classifies 'murder with intention' and 'murder without intention' under distinct categories, it is the responsibility of the courts to assess whether the elements of Section 302 of the IPC, involving specific intent, have been met.

6. Role of Knowledge: The judgment highlighted that 'knowledge' is a circumstance to consider while inferring intent. If the evidence doesn't reveal an intention to cause death but establishes knowledge that the acts could lead to death, the accused can be held guilty under the second part of Section 304 IPC.

7. Conviction Modification: Consequently, the court modified the accused's charge from Section 302 to Section 304 of the IPC, considering the absence of premeditation and the sudden provocation. Taking into account the accused's 9.5 years in jail, the court adjusted his sentence to 'time served.'

This judicial decision underscores the nuanced assessment required in cases involving the distinction between 'intent' and 'knowledge' in criminal offenses. The court's application of precedent and careful consideration of the factual circumstances led to a modification of the accused's conviction and sentence

 


 Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava Appointed as Permanent Judge of Jharkhand High Court

In a recent announcement, the Central government has officially appointed Additional Judge Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava as a permanent judge of the Jharkhand High Court. The Ministry of Law and Justice issued a notification, exercising the power conferred by Article 217(1) of the Constitution of India.

Appointment Confirmation:

The President, in exercise of the power conferred by Article 217(1) of the Constitution of India, appointed Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava as a permanent judge of the Jharkhand High Court.

Notification Details

The Ministry of Law and Justice issued an official notification confirming Justice Srivastava's appointment. The notification states that he will assume office as a Judge of the Jharkhand High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.

Collegium Recommendation

The decision to appoint Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava as a permanent judge follows the recommendation made by the Supreme Court Collegium on January 18. The Collegium found him fit and suitable for the permanent appointment as a judge of the Jharkhand High Court.

This appointment signifies the culmination of the Collegium's evaluation and the President's formal approval, solidifying Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava's position as a permanent judge in the Jharkhand High Court

 

Supreme Court Issues Landmark Order Banning Mention of Caste or Religion in Legal Filings

In a groundbreaking legal development, the Supreme Court has issued a far-reaching directive, forbidding the inclusion of caste or religion references in petitions or proceedings submitted to the courts. During the hearing of a transfer petition related to a family dispute, Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah expressed dissatisfaction with the inclusion of the parties' caste details in the memo. The court stressed the immediate need to cease this practice.

Key Points:

1. Comprehensive Prohibition: The Supreme Court has issued a comprehensive directive prohibiting the mention of the caste or religion of parties in petitions, suits, or proceedings filed before both the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts. This prohibition applies irrespective of any previous inclusion of caste or religion details in lower courts.

2. Prompt Compliance: In order to ensure swift compliance with the directive, the Supreme Court has instructed the circulation of this order to all Registrar Generals of High Courts, underlining the significance of abandoning the practice of referencing caste or religion in legal filings.

3. Precedent and Context: This directive aligns with a similar stance taken by a previous bench, led by Justice Abhay S.A. Oka in October of the preceding year. The earlier bench had deprecated the inclusion of caste or religion details in the cause title of judgments. The current case, titled "SHAMA SHARMA v. KISHAN KUMAR," further underscores the court's commitment to discouraging such references in legal proceedings.

 

Legal Luminary Abhinav Mukerji Named Pioneer Additional Advocate General for Bihar at the Apex Court

In a landmark decision, the State of Bihar has appointed Senior Advocate Abhinav Mukerji as its inaugural Additional Advocate General (AAG) to represent cases before the Supreme Court. The government conveyed this historic appointment through an official letter dated January 25, addressed to the Advocate General (AG) of Bihar.

Distinguished Legal Career and Recent Senior Advocate Status

Abhinav Mukerji, a trailblazing first-generation advocate, recently achieved the prestigious status of Senior Advocate conferred by the Supreme Court of India. Having secured a gold medal in the Advocate-on-Record (AoR) examination, he brings a wealth of experience, having previously served as the Standing Counsel for the State of Bihar and as the Additional Advocate General for the State of Himachal Pradesh at the Supreme Court.

Versatile Legal Expertise Across Key Domains

His extensive legal prowess spans diverse areas such as anti-doping law, narcotics, constitutional, civil, criminal, and commercial law. Trained in the chambers of esteemed Senior Advocates Maninder Singh and Prathiba M Singh (now a Judge of the Delhi High Court), Mukerji also had the privilege of working under the late Senior Advocate and former Cabinet Minister Arun Jaitley.

Leadership Role in Anti-Doping Appeals

Abhinav Mukerji currently holds the prestigious position of Vice Chairman of the Anti-Doping Appeal Panel, acting as the apex appellate authority for resolving disputes related to doping control in sports within India.

 

Supreme Court Emphasizes Prudent Evaluation by Magistrates in Issuing Summoning Orders

In a recent legal pronouncement, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of a thorough and thoughtful evaluation by Magistrates when issuing summoning orders, cautioning against casual decisions. Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar overturned the concurrent findings of the High Court and Trial Court, emphasizing that while detailed reasoning may not be mandatory, Magistrates must be convinced of sufficient grounds for initiating legal proceedings against the accused.

Background: Commercial Dispute Escalated to Criminal Complaint

The case in question originated from a commercial dispute that escalated into a criminal complaint, leading to the Magistrate issuing summons under Sections 406, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused challenged this decision in the High Court, which rejected the application, asserting that the matter involved disputed facts requiring adjudication. Subsequently, the accused appealed to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's Examination and Findings

Upon careful examination, the Supreme Court determined that there was no prima facie case against the accused. The Court criticized the Magistrate for insufficiently recording satisfaction and observed that the allegations did not amount to offenses warranting the summoning of the appellant. The Court underscored that the conversion of a commercial dispute into a criminal matter was unwarranted.

Legal Precedents and Judgment References

The Supreme Court referred to its judgments in Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs Special Judicial Magistrate and Deepak Gaba vs State of Uttar Pradesh. It concluded that the accused could not be tried for offenses under Sections 405 and 406 of the IPC, noting the absence of evidence supporting misappropriation or conversion and criticizing the vague allegations of criminal intimidation.

Rebuke and Clarification: High Court's Oversight in Applying Legal Tests

The Supreme Court rebuked the High Court for not applying the legal test proposed in Dalip Kaur vs Jagnar Singh, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing civil disputes from criminal offenses. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment, quashing both the criminal complaint case and the summoning order against the accused appellant in the case of Sachin Garg versus State of U.P & Anr.

 

Calcutta High Court Sets Clear Standards for Maintenance Proceedings under Section 125 of CrPC

In a recent legal ruling, the Calcutta High Court elucidated that the maintenance provisions outlined in Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) should be viewed as welfare legislations, distinct from their criminal law counterparts. Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, in a single-bench decision, declined to quash a maintenance claim against the petitioner, emphasizing that the burden of proof for maintenance does not require evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and that the conduct of the wife in her matrimonial home is not the sole criterion for granting maintenance.

Petitioner's Attempt to Quash Proceedings and Legal Background

The petitioner sought to quash all proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, citing a previous judgment from a coordinate bench that had acquitted him of offenses under IPC 498A, 406, and 34. The petitioner argued that the wife's allegations in both the criminal cases and the maintenance case were similar, and the criminal charges were dismissed due to vague and unsubstantiated claims.

Contentions and Counterarguments

The petitioner contended that the wife had made false allegations in her maintenance plea, relying on the earlier judgment to establish her inclination for false accusations. However, the wife's counsel argued that her entitlement to maintenance should be determined after a trial, and the petitioner had not submitted his affidavit of assets and liabilities.

Court's Clarification on Objectives and Criteria for Maintenance

The Court acknowledged the disparity in objectives between Section 498A IPC, addressing cruelty leading to dowry death, and Section 125 CrPC, which focuses on welfare. It emphasized that a spouse may be entitled to maintenance based on refusal or neglect, whether expressed or implied. The Court concluded that, at this early stage without a trial, determining the existence of actual refusal or neglect was challenging. It deemed the financial status and educational qualifications of the wife irrelevant to the continuation of the maintenance suit, and subsequently dismissed the plea for quashing

 

Supreme Court Affirms Precedence of Earlier Clauses in Deeds, Quashes Criminal Proceedings [BHARAT SHER SINGH KALSIA VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.]

In a recent landmark judgment, the Supreme Court reiterated the paramount importance of the order of clauses in a deed, asserting that when a later clause contradicts and nullifies the obligations established by an earlier one, the earlier clause should take precedence. Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah overturned the decisions of the High Court and Trial Court, emphasizing the necessity to prioritize earlier clauses over conflicting later clauses in the interpretation of deeds or contracts.

Background: Power of Attorney and Allegations of Criminal Acts

The case centered on the interpretation of clauses in a Power of Attorney (PoA) executed by landowners in favor of individuals from whom the appellant purchased land. Clauses 3 and 11 of the PoA granted authority to execute deeds, including sales, while Clause 15 empowered the holder to present signed documents for registration. Allegations of criminal acts and fraud led to the registration of an FIR, with the appellant seeking quashing based on a previous discharge by a coordinated bench.

Court's Scrutiny of Clauses and Harmonious Interpretation

The court meticulously examined the clauses, emphasizing the need for a harmonious interpretation. It concluded that there were no contradictions between Clauses 3 and 11 and Clause 15, as the latter was an addition rather than a derogation. Citing the Forbes v Git case, the court asserted that if a later clause qualifies rather than destroys an earlier one, they should be read together to discern the parties' intention.

Precedence of Earlier Clauses and Relief Granted

The judgment underscored that in case of a conflict between Clauses 3 and 11 and Clause 15, the earlier clauses would prevail. Granting relief to the appellant, the court quashed the FIR and associated trial proceedings, highlighting the absence of any criminal involvement on the appellant's part in the PoA execution.

Commitment to Protecting Litigants and Aligning with Legal Principles

This decision reaffirmed the court's commitment to safeguarding litigants against unnecessary and vexatious criminal prosecution, aligning with the principles articulated in the Vishnu Kumar Shukla v State of Uttar Pradesh case.

 


Weekly Legal Updates

January 22, 2024- January 28, 2024

 

Exploring Overwhelming Public Support for Simultaneous Elections: A Government Initiative

Survey Reveals 81% Public Backing for Unified Elections

The Ministry of Law and Justice in the Union Government has unveiled a remarkable 81% endorsement from respondents in its recent call for opinions on the concept of One Nation One Election. The government's invitation for feedback on potential adjustments to the existing legal and administrative structure for simultaneous elections in the country, open from January 5 to January 15, garnered a substantial 20,972 responses.

Former President-Led Committee Evaluates Feasibility

To assess the viability of simultaneous elections, a high-level committee headed by ex-President Ram Nath Kovind has been appointed. This distinguished committee, which includes figures like Ghulam Nabi Azad, Arjun Ram Meghwal, NK Singh, and Harish Salve, convened on January 21 to analyze the wealth of responses received.

Comprehensive Input from Various Sources

In addition to public feedback, the government sought opinions from 46 political parties, obtaining responses from 17. The committee took note of suggestions from the Election Commission of India and engaged in consultations with a diverse range of stakeholders, including jurists, former Chief Justices, former Chief Election Commissioners, and leaders of prominent organizations.

Historical Context and Government's Perspective

The government underscored that elections to the Lok Sabha and state Legislative Assemblies were concurrently held from 1951-52 to 1967. However, the continuity of this practice was disrupted, leading to frequent separate elections. The government contends that this departure results in substantial expenses and diverts security forces and electoral officers from their primary duties for extended periods.

Committee's Ongoing Deliberations

The high-level committee is set to reconvene for its next meeting on January 27 to continue in-depth discussions on the matter, considering the diverse perspectives gathered from the public and various stakeholders.

 


 Revolutionizing Digital Proceedings: Chief Justice Chandrachud's Innovations for Streamlining Soft Copy Pleadings

Innovative Solutions Unveiled to Address Disparities

Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud took a significant step on Monday by introducing initiatives to tackle concerns related to the alignment of paginated soft copies of pleadings during Supreme Court hearings. Recognizing existing disparities between the bar and the bench in handling PDFs, the CJI announced the upcoming release of a comprehensive standard operating procedure (SOP) to address these challenges.

Pilot Phase and Systematic Segregation

The outlined measures, slated to undergo a pilot phase in the CJI's courtroom before expanding to other courtrooms, involve the systematic segregation of digital pleadings into primary documents, additional documents, and records.

Key excerpts from the measures include:

Building on Prior Guidelines and Ensuring Efficiency

This initiative follows the Supreme Court's issuance of guidelines in August last year for filing written submissions and compilations in Constitution Benches and crucial final-hearing cases. The guidelines provide an SOP for submitting soft copies of written submissions and common compilations of documents, rules, and precedents, with fixed timelines for oral arguments. The guidelines also designate nodal counsel and specify filing formats, emphasizing efficient case management. Chief Justice Chandrachud's recent measures aim to enhance and streamline the digital proceedings further, ensuring a more efficient and uniform approach to handling soft copy pleadings.

 


 Advocate Shashank Garg Takes Helm as Chair of ICC India Arbitration Group

Transition in Leadership Effective January 1

The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has appointed Advocate Shashank Garg as the new Chair of the ICC India Arbitration Group (IAG), succeeding Senior Advocate Ciccu Mukhopadhaya as of January 1. While Mukhopadhaya continues to lead the arbitrator selection committee for ICC India, the change in leadership was officially announced during the 9th annual ICC India Arbitration Group Meeting on December 1, 2023.

Endorsements from ICC Leadership

The announcement took place in the presence of ICC Court President Claudia Salomon, ICC Court Secretary General Alexander Fessas, and ICC Regional Director for South Asia Tejus Chauhan. Salomon commended Mukhopadhaya and the IAG for their significant contributions and expressed confidence in Garg's leadership. She stated, "I am confident that Shashank will continue the excellent leadership to guide the IAG and build on the trust that Indian companies and public sector undertakings have in ICC Arbitration."

Vision for Collaboration and Future Initiatives

Chauhan, anticipating collaboration with Shashank Garg, highlighted their shared vision to promote India as a prominent seat and Indian nationals as arbitrators. He encouraged practitioners to actively engage as they collectively shape the future of the next century. The emphasis on collaboration and forward-looking initiatives underscored the commitment to advancing arbitration practices in the region.

Leadership Experience and Commitment to Excellence

Advocate Shashank Garg, bringing over 15 years of experience to his new role, is a former partner at a leading Indian law firm. His extensive background includes representing clients in diverse domestic and international arbitrations. Additionally, Garg serves as a member of the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR. Expressing his privilege in being part of the ICC's century-old legacy, he highlighted the challenges and rewards associated with bringing together top minds in arbitration to contribute to India's aspiration of becoming a modern arbitration hub.

 

Delhi High Court Upholds Constitutionality of Hindu Marriage Act Prohibition

Dismissal of Plea Challenging Section 5(v) and Sapinda Marriages

The Delhi High Court, led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, delivered a verdict on Monday rejecting a plea challenging the constitutional validity of Section 5(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This section specifically prohibits marriages between Sapinda relatives, including distant cousins, and has been a part of the legal framework for decades.

Established Legal Prohibition

The court underscored the long-standing nature of the prohibition against marriages between Sapinda relatives and emphasized the necessity of drawing a clear line to prevent potential pleas seeking recognition of incestuous marriages. Acting Chief Justice Manmohan expressed concern about the possibility of acknowledging incestuous relationships as valid marriages, reinforcing the court's commitment to maintaining the established legal framework.

Petitioner's Challenge and Court's Response

The plea, filed by a woman, contested Section 5(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which permits marriages between any two Hindus unless they are Sapindas. However, it allows such marriages if custom or usage permits. The petitioner argued that her marriage was unfairly impacted by the misuse of these provisions and sought to strike down or amend Section 5(v) while demanding legitimacy for her marriage.

The court, in its assessment of the case, highlighted that the petitioner's family was aware of the prohibition, and ignorance of the law cannot be accepted as an excuse. Furthermore, the court commented on the recognition of consanguineous marriages, stating that the Hindu Marriage Act already acknowledges their validity where they are part of an established custom.

Emphasis on Legal Awareness and Customary Validity

The court's decision not only upholds the constitutional validity of Section 5(v) but also emphasizes the importance of legal awareness among citizens. Additionally, it recognizes the validity of consanguineous marriages when they align with established customs, providing clarity on the legal framework surrounding Sapinda relationships under the Hindu Marriage Act.

 

Gujarat High Court Takes Suo Motu Action on Harni Lake Boat Tragedy

Judicial Response to Vadodara Boat Capsize Incident

On January 19, the Gujarat High Court, led by Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice Aniruddha Mayee, took suo motu cognizance of the tragic boat capsize incident that unfolded on January 18 at Harni lake in Vadodara. The incident resulted in the unfortunate drowning of 12 students and 2 teachers out of the 34 individuals on board. The court formed a division bench and promptly directed the State's Home Department to submit a comprehensive report on the actions taken in response to the incident by January 29.

GHCAA President's Alert and Court's Concern

The Gujarat High Court Advocates' Association (GHCAA) President, Brijesh Trivedi, brought the incident to the court's attention by submitting news articles related to the tragedy. Chief Justice Agarwal expressed deep concern over the incident, describing it as shocking and among the most tragic occurrences. She underscored the imperative for strict adherence to safety norms mandated by law to avert such incidents in the future.

Chief Justice's Personal Connection and Firm Stand

During the proceedings, Chief Justice Agarwal shared a personal experience related to a college trip where her junior had drowned in a lake, emphasizing the profound impact of such incidents. The court, in response to the government counsel's explanation attributing the boat's capsizing to exceeding its capacity, asserted that such an explanation is unacceptable. Chief Justice Agarwal stressed the critical need to prevent overcrowded boats from operating, signaling the court's intent to address this pressing issue.

Commitment to Address Safety Concerns

The suo motu action by the Gujarat High Court reflects its commitment to addressing safety concerns surrounding water-based activities, particularly in the wake of the tragic boat capsize incident at Harni lake. The court's directive for a detailed report underscores its proactive approach in ensuring accountability and preventive measures to safeguard lives in similar circumstances.

 


 Madhya Pradesh High Court Affirms Saptapadi as Essential for Valid Hindu Marriages

Landmark Ruling in Ajay Kumar Jain and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

In a groundbreaking decision, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has unequivocally stated that, according to Hindu law, a marriage does not hold the status of a contract unless the Saptapadi ceremony is solemnized. This proclamation was part of the court's dismissal of a plea lodged by four petitioners seeking the quashing of an FIR filed under Sections 366, 498-A, and 34 of the IPC.

Background of the Case

The petitioners were accused of abducting the prosecutrix and coercing her into signing marriage-related documents after forcibly bringing her to Jabalpur. The defense contended that a valid marriage had taken place between the victim and petitioner no. 1, citing the exchange of garlands (Varmala) and application of vermilion (Sindoor). Despite presenting a marriage certificate, the court underscored the absence of legal provisions recognizing the marriage solely through the exchange of garlands.

Significance of Saptapadi Ceremony

Emphasizing the indispensable role of the Saptapadi ceremony in validating a Hindu marriage, the court rejected the petitioners' assertion that the victim and petitioner no. 1 were a legally married couple. The court acknowledged the victim's statement regarding her abduction, deeming the allegations in the FIR sufficient to establish a prima facie case of a cognizable offense.

Legal Principles and Dismissal of the Plea

The court further highlighted the legal principle that, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./ Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, it should not interfere with ongoing investigations. Taking these considerations into account, the court found no grounds warranting interference and consequently dismissed the petition. This landmark ruling reaffirms the centrality of the Saptapadi ceremony in Hindu marriages and provides clarity on the legal recognition of such unions under Hindu law.

 

Supreme Court Emphasizes Inducement in Section 420 Cases, Acquits Wife in Passport Forgery Case

Landmark Ruling in Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. versus State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr.

In a significant ruling on January 22, the Supreme Court highlighted the crucial role of inducement in prosecuting individuals for cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan emphasized that a deceitful act must be accompanied by inducement, leading to the transfer of property, for the offense to be established.

Reversal of Previous Decisions

The Bench overturned the decisions of both the High Court and the Trial Court, clarifying that the offense of cheating requires more than mere deceit; it necessitates dishonest inducement resulting in the delivery of property and subsequent loss or damage.

Background of the Case

The case involved a husband accusing his wife and relatives of cheating and forgery for using his signature to obtain a passport for their minor child. The Supreme Court quashed the criminal case, reasoning that the wife's actions did not amount to cheating, as there was no dishonest intention and no loss or damage suffered by the husband.

Key Legal Principles

The court emphasized that for an offense under Section 420 IPC, the prosecution must establish both the act of cheating and the dishonest inducement leading to the delivery of property. In this specific case, the court found the fundamental elements of deceit and damage to be conspicuously absent.

Dismissal of Forgery Charges

Additionally, the court dismissed charges of forgery, stating that the offense requires the preparation of a false document with dishonest intent, which was not proven against the appellants.

Discharge from Passport Act Offense

Furthermore, the court discharged the appellants from an offense under Section 12(b) of the Passports Act, 1967, as the State FSL report deemed the alleged forgery inconclusive.

Final Verdict and Costs

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Trial Magistrate, quashing the criminal case against the appellants. The court also imposed a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the husband. This ruling establishes a precedent emphasizing the necessity of inducement in Section 420 cases and provides clarity on the elements required to establish the offense of cheating under Indian law.

 


 Supreme Court Stresses Fraudulent Intent Requirement in Cheating Cases, Warns Against Criminalizing Civil Disputes

Crucial Observations in JAY SHRI vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

In a significant observation, the Supreme Court clarified that a mere breach of contract does not amount to the offenses of cheating or breach of trust under the Indian Penal Code unless there is evidence of fraudulent or dishonest intention. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, strongly discouraged the transformation of purely civil disputes into criminal cases and emphasized the need to deter attempts to settle non-criminal civil matters through criminal prosecution.

Background of the Case

The remarks were made during the hearing of a criminal appeal challenging an order from the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur bench. The accused individuals were alleged to have entered into an agreement to sell, received Rs. 80 Lacs from the complainant, and subsequently failed to fulfill the terms of the agreement. An FIR was filed against them under Sections 420 and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC.

Discouraging Criminalization of Civil Disputes

The Division Bench referred to the Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others case and strongly discouraged the practice of converting civil disputes into criminal cases. The Court stressed the importance of preventing attempts to settle matters that involve no criminal offense through the use of criminal prosecution.

Anticipatory Bail Application and High Court's Decision

The accused individuals sought anticipatory bail from the High Court, contending that the case was a mere breach of contract and fell within the purview of civil matters. Despite their arguments, the High Court rejected their bail application, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's Decision

Upon reviewing the case, the Supreme Court was convinced that the appellants had presented a valid case for anticipatory bail. The Court granted them bail while making it clear that its observations regarding the fraudulent intent requirement should not be considered when determining the merits of the case. This ruling serves as a reminder of the need for genuine criminal intent in cases of cheating and breach of trust, cautioning against the criminalization of disputes that are essentially civil in nature.

 

Delhi High Court Upholds Limited Scope for Retrospective GST Registration Cancellation in Non-Filing of Returns Case

Landmark Decision in Aryan Timber Store Through Its Prop Virender Kumar vs Sales Tax Officer

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has affirmed that the cancellation of Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration cannot be carried out retrospectively solely due to the non-filing of returns. Justices Sanjeev Sachdev and Ravinder Dudeja emphasized that the absence of return filings for a specific period does not warrant the retrospective cancellation of registration, especially for periods when the taxpayer was compliant.

Background of the Case

The petitioner challenged the order that retroactively canceled their GST registration, effective from July 1, 2017, along with the associated Show Cause Notice. The petitioner had ceased business operations on March 31, 2019, and applied for cancellation on May 6, 2019. The cancellation order lacked justification for retrospective action, and the petitioner was not given notice about the potential retrospective cancellation during the Show Cause Notice.

Court's Observations

The court noted that once the registration was canceled, there was no obligation for the petitioner to file returns. The cancellation based on the failure to file returns was deemed unsustainable, particularly with a retrospective effect.

Legal Reference and Clarification

Referring to Section 29(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the court emphasized that the cancellation of GST registration should not be mechanical and requires satisfying specific circumstances outlined in the provision. The court clarified that non-filing of returns alone does not justify the retrospective cancellation of registration when the taxpayer was compliant during the filing periods.

Modification of Cancellation Order

The court modified the cancellation order, determining that it would be effective from May 6, 2019, the date when the petitioner initially applied for registration cancellation. The ruling clarified that authorities are not restricted from taking lawful steps for recovering any outstanding tax, penalty, or interest from the petitioner.

 

Bombay High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity of Goa Rural Improvement Cess Act for Environmental Protection

Landmark Decision in Sesa Sterlite Ltd. v. State of Goa and connected petitions

In a recent landmark decision, the Bombay High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the Goa Rural Improvement and Welfare Cess Act, 2000 (Goa Cess Act). This legislation imposes a cess on carriers transporting scheduled materials, including coal, coke, sand, debris, and mineral ore in Goa. The court commended the proactive approach of the state government in addressing environmental concerns arising from the transportation of potentially harmful materials.

Background and Dismissal of Writ Petitions

The court dismissed writ petitions filed by eight companies involved in transporting mineral ores into Goa, challenging the constitutionality of the Act and its impact on inter-state trade. The petitioners argued that the cess imposed was unconstitutional and hindered the free movement of goods between states.

Environmental Concerns and Government's Efforts

Addressing concerns related to dust pollution associated with material transportation, the court acknowledged the government's ongoing efforts to manage environmental challenges. It emphasized the state's responsibility to strike a balance between economic interests and environmental preservation.

Constitutional Challenges and Court's Response

The petitioners challenged the Act under Articles 301, 303, and 304, claiming violations of freedom of trade and discrimination. The court rejected these claims, asserting that the Act, aimed at generating revenue for infrastructure and health improvement, fell within the legislative powers of the state.

Distinct Nature of Cess and GST Laws

Additionally, the court dismissed arguments based on GST laws, emphasizing the distinct nature of the cess under the Goa Cess Act and its specific objectives for rural welfare.

Conclusion and Affirmation of Constitutional Validity

In conclusion, the Bombay High Court affirmed the constitutional validity of the Goa Cess Act, recognizing its alignment with societal needs for infrastructure development and environmental protection. This decision reinforces the state's authority to address environmental concerns through targeted legislation while balancing the interests of inter-state trade.

 


 Delhi High Court Grants Divorce Citing Wife's Non-Adjusting Attitude and Mental Cruelty

Landmark Decision in X v. Y

The Delhi High Court recently granted a divorce to a man based on grounds of cruelty by his wife. Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna noted the wife's "non-adjusting attitude" and lack of maturity in resolving differences without subjecting the husband to public humiliation, resulting in mental cruelty.

Emphasis on Non-Adjusting Attitude and Lack of Maturity

The division bench emphasized that prolonging the matrimonial relationship would serve no fruitful purpose. After a comprehensive examination of the evidence, the court concluded that the discord between the parties amounted to acts of cruelty. This decision set aside a family court order that had previously dismissed the husband's petition seeking divorce under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Turbulent Matrimonial Journey

Married in 2001 with two daughters, the couple's matrimonial journey, spanning from 2001 to the filing of the divorce petition in 2017, was described as tumultuous and lacking in love, affection, and trust.

Observations and Legal Basis for Divorce

In allowing the husband's appeal, the court observed that the wife persistently made baseless allegations against him, demonstrating a lack of love and trust. While acknowledging that resorting to legal remedies is not inherently cruel, the court stressed that invoking legal authorities should be done bona fide and with a valid basis. In this case, the court found the wife unable to substantiate the grounds of alleged dowry harassment or domestic violence, deeming them unjustified.

 

Madras High Court Affirms Right of Married Woman to Seek Maintenance for Minor Brother under Section 125 of CrPC

Landmark Ruling in R. Ochappan vs. Keerthana

In a significant ruling, Justice KK Ramakrishnan of the Madras High Court clarified that Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) does not prohibit any individual, including a married woman, from filing a maintenance petition on behalf of a minor. The court's decision addressed a case where a married woman sought maintenance for her minor brother from their father.

Social Welfare Objectives of Section 125 CrPC

Highlighting the social welfare objectives of Section 125 CrPC, the court emphasized its role in preventing destitution and vagrancy, providing a speedy remedy for women, children, and destitute parents in distress.

Background of the Case

In this case, the petitioner, a father working as a driver, had been approached by his daughter and her minor brother seeking maintenance. The trial court dismissed the petition, citing the sister's lack of locus standi as a natural guardian for her minor brother. However, the revision court allowed the petition, invoking Section 399 of CrPC, directing the father to pay maintenance to both the daughter and the minor brother.

High Court's Decision

The High Court upheld the revision court's decision, asserting that the married daughter could not claim maintenance for herself but had the right to seek it on behalf of her minor brother. The court referred to several Supreme Court decisions supporting the interpretation that Section 125 CrPC allows any person to file a maintenance petition on behalf of minor children.

Endorsement of Suo Motu Power for Minor Children's Welfare

The court further endorsed the revision court's use of suo motu power in the interest and welfare of the minor children, upholding the order to grant maintenance to the minor brother. Consequently, the criminal revision filed by the father was dismissed. This ruling reinforces the broader interpretation of Section 125 CrPC in addressing the maintenance rights of minor children, even when sought by a married woman on their behalf.

 

Rajasthan High Court Declines Abortion Plea for 11-Year-Old Rape Survivor, Emphasizes Foetus' Right to Life

Key Decision in Victim v. State of Rajasthan & Ors

In a significant decision, the Rajasthan High Court has rejected a plea for the medical termination of pregnancy filed on behalf of an 11-year-old rape survivor. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, presiding over a single-judge bench, emphasized the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 for a fully developed foetus. The court expressed reservations about terminating a pregnancy, particularly at a stage where the foetus has a fully formed brain and lungs with heartbeats.

Concerns and Refusal of Abortion Plea

Despite requests from both the State and the petitioner to induce labour for the minor survivor, the court refused, citing concerns about potential adverse effects on the unborn child's neurotic development and the survivor's health. The court highlighted that a live child could be born naturally in eight weeks under medical advice and supervision.

Medical Board's Report and Court's Agreement

The Medical Board's report indicated that terminating the pregnancy post 31 weeks would pose risks to the minor mother. The court concurred with this assessment, asserting that a woman's autonomy to decide on pregnancy continuation cannot override the Medical Board's opinion.

Court's Directions for Survivor's Well-being

The court issued various directions for the well-being of the survivor and her unborn child, including admitting her to a government facility until she reaches the age of majority, providing medical care, and preserving foetal samples for DNA analysis and rape case investigation. Compensation under the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011, was also mandated.

Alternative Suggestions and Legal Context

Referring to precedents from the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the Supreme Court, the court proposed the survivor stay at a shelter home and consider adoption. The plea was made through the survivor's maternal uncle, citing atrocities leading to the unwanted pregnancy and family constraints.

This decision highlights the complex legal and ethical considerations surrounding abortion, especially in cases involving minor survivors of sexual assault, and underscores the judiciary's role in balancing various interests for the overall welfare of the individuals involved

 

Allahabad High Court Clarifies Distinction Between Sections 311 and 233 of CrPC in Witness Summoning

Key Ruling in Anupam Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home And Anr

The Allahabad High Court recently provided crucial clarification on the distinction between Section 311 and Section 233 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) concerning the summoning of defense witnesses during a trial. The court emphasized that Section 311 vests the power with the court to summon or recall witnesses, while Section 233 grants the accused the right to produce evidence in their defense.

Emphasis on Court's Authority Under Section 311

Highlighting the court's authority under Section 311 to recall and re-examine witnesses for a just decision, the bench, led by Justice Jyotsna Sharma, stressed that this power should be exercised when necessary for a fair trial. The court noted that Section 311 reflects the inherent power of the courts, allowing them to call any witness to achieve the highest goal of justice.

Role of Section 233 in Defense Evidence

In contrast, the court explained that Section 233 comes into play when the prosecution's evidence is complete, and the accused is given the opportunity to present their defense. This right belongs to the accused, and while the court ordinarily issues process at their request, it can decline if the request is made for vexation, delay, or defeating the ends of justice.

Case Background and Critique of Trial Court

The case involved a murder accused, Anupam Singh, challenging the trial court's refusal to summon defense witnesses. The court criticized the trial court for misconstruing the scope and implications of Sections 311 and 233, stating that the refusal to summon witnesses was legally flawed. The High Court allowed the plea, granting the revisionist the liberty to move an application specifying the witnesses to be summoned, and directed the trial court to issue summons for their production as defense witnesses. This ruling provides clarity on the procedural aspects of summoning witnesses in criminal trials, emphasizing the distinct roles of Sections 311 and 233 in ensuring a fair and just trial.

 

Karnataka High Court Rules Against Impleading Proposed Purchaser in Family Property Partition Suit

Key Decision in Master Thejas & Another vs. C R Babu

The Karnataka High Court has clarified that a proposed purchaser of a joint family property cannot be made a party respondent in a suit for partition and separate possession among family members. In a decision by Justice M G Uma, the court set aside the trial court's order allowing Murugan to be impleaded in the family dispute, emphasizing that Murugan was neither a necessary nor a proper party in the suit.

Court's Perspective on Murugan's Rights

The court expressed the view that Murugan, the proposed purchaser, had no right created under the agreement for sale regarding the scheduled property, except the right to seek specific performance of the contract against defendant No.1. The court noted that Murugan had already initiated legal proceedings by filing a suit for specific performance against defendant No.1.

Background of the Dispute

The dispute arose when Murugan sought impleadment in a suit for partition and separate possession, arguing that he had entered into an agreement for sale with defendant No.1. However, the court observed that the sale agreement was not registered, and no sale deed was executed during the pendency of the suit.

Legal Standing and Outcome

Highlighting that Murugan's rights, even if successful in the specific performance suit, would be subject to the outcome of the present family suit, the court ruled that the trial court had erred in deeming Murugan's presence necessary for the determination of the dispute. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the order for impleadment in the family partition suit. This decision provides clarity on the scope of impleadment in family property partition suits, particularly in cases involving proposed purchasers with contractual rights that are yet to be realized.

 

Kerala High Court Emphasizes 'Substantial Question of Law' Requirement for Second Appeal

Key Ruling in Poyil Salim V Thazhe Kandoth Mariyam

The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that a second appeal under Order XLII Rule 1,2 read with Section 100 CPC shall only be admitted and heard on the basis of a 'substantial question of law,' excluding equitable grounds. In a ruling by Justice A. Badharudeen, the court emphasized that a substantial question of law, for the purpose of a second appeal, need not necessarily be of general importance but must have substance, significance, and importance.

Background of the Case

The case involved defendants challenging a Trial Court's decree and judgment through a second appeal, asserting that recovery of possession was wrongly granted to the plaintiffs due to an alleged fraudulent purchase certificate.

Court's Analysis and Findings

The High Court found that the appellants failed to formulate substantial questions of law for admission of the second appeal, as mandated by Section 100 of CPC. Justice Badharudeen highlighted the mandatory nature of formulating a substantial question of law for a second appeal and clarified that the court cannot decide the appeal on equitable grounds.

Dismissal of Second Appeal

Consequently, the court dismissed the second appeal for lacking any raised substantial questions of law. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the statutory requirement of formulating substantial questions of law when seeking a second appeal and emphasizes that equitable considerations alone do not meet the criteria for such appeals.

 

Landmark Appointment: Justice Prasanna B Varale Sworn in as Supreme Court Judge

Historic Oath-Taking Ceremony

In a momentous event on January 25, Justice Prasanna B Varale assumed office as a judge of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, administered the oath of office, marking the beginning of Justice Varale's tenure in the country's highest judicial institution.

Restoring Full Bench Strength

Formerly serving as the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court and as a judge in the Bombay High Court, Justice Varale's appointment restores the Supreme Court's full complement of 34 judges. This development holds significance as the apex court attains its maximum bench strength, ensuring a comprehensive and diverse representation in its adjudicatory functions.

Enhanced Scheduled Caste Representation

Justice Varale's inclusion in the Supreme Court also contributes to a historic milestone, with three judges from the Scheduled Castes—Justices BR Gavai, CT Ravikumar, and Varale. This unprecedented representation reflects a commitment to diversity and inclusivity within the highest echelons of the Indian judiciary.

Collegium's Resounding Endorsement

The Collegium, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, expressed high praise for Justice Varale's professional acumen, unimpeachable conduct, integrity, and ethical standards. The resolution, endorsed by the Collegium comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Aniruddha Bose, underscores the meticulous selection process that identifies individuals of exemplary legal stature for appointments to the Supreme Court.

Judicial Career Distinction

Justice Varale's elevation is a testament to his distinguished legal career, which spans over 23 years of practice at the Bar, coupled with impactful roles as a judge in the Bombay High Court and later as the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court. This wealth of experience positions him as a valuable addition to the Supreme Court's bench.

Filling the Vacancy

The appointment of Justice Varale addresses the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice SK Kaul last month, ensuring the continuity of the court's functioning and maintaining its optimal strength.

 

Supreme Court Pronouncement: Default Bail and Charge-Sheet Filing

Judicial Clarity on Default Bail

In a landmark judgment dated January 24, the Supreme Court provided definitive guidance on the applicability of default bail provisions when a charge-sheet is filed against an accused. The ruling clarifies a significant legal question related to the right of an accused to seek default bail during the pendency of investigations against other co-accused.

Default Bail Denied Despite Incompleteness

The Supreme Court unequivocally held that an accused does not have the right to claim default bail once a charge-sheet is filed, irrespective of its completeness or ongoing investigations against other individuals implicated in the case. The judgment asserts that the mere filing of a charge-sheet removes the possibility of invoking the right to default bail.

Cognizance of Offense, Not Offender

The court emphasized that the initiation of proceedings pertains to the offense committed and not the identity of the offender. It underscored that the absence of all details in the charge-sheet does not invalidate it, as the court takes cognizance of the offense. The ruling provides clarity on the legal standing of a charge-sheet, even if some documents are not submitted.

Overturning Previous Decisions

This decision overturned the rulings of both the High Court and the Trial Court, which had earlier granted default bail to Kapil and Dheeraj Wadhawan in a case involving alleged misappropriation of funds obtained as a loan from a consortium of banks led by the Union Bank of India.

Implications for Incomplete Charge-Sheets

The judgment's significance extends to cases where investigating officers attempt to file incomplete charge-sheets to thwart the accused's right to default bail. The ruling establishes that the accused's entitlement to default bail ceases upon the filing of a charge-sheet, regardless of its completeness or ongoing investigations involving co-accused.

Statutory Right to Default Bail

While acknowledging the statutory right to default bail, the Supreme Court's ruling provides a nuanced understanding of its limitations, particularly in situations where a charge-sheet has been filed. This legal pronouncement ensures clarity and uniformity in the application of default bail provisions across different criminal cases.

 

Supreme Court's Review of Women's Reservation Constitutional Amendment

Legal Scrutiny of Constitutional Amendment

The Supreme Court convened on January 25 to deliberate on a petition challenging the 'delimitation clause' of the Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023. This amendment introduces women's reservation in legislative bodies, awaiting implementation post the next census. The National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) filed the petition, highlighting concerns about delaying the amendment's execution until after the census and delimitation exercise.

Deliberations on Implementation

The bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, Dipankar Datta, and Prasanna B Varale, presided over the public interest litigation (PIL). Another petition, filed by Congress leader Jaya Thakur, echoes similar sentiments, urging immediate implementation of the women's reservation. The court, however, expressed reservations during Thakur's petition in November, raising questions about implementing the amendment before the 2024 general elections.

Parallel PILs on Women's Reservation

Simultaneously, the Supreme Court is reviewing a 2021 PIL from the NFIW, advocating for the reintroduction of the women's reservation bill. The court had earlier criticized the government's stance on women's reservation. The bench directed that Thakur's petition be heard concurrently with NFIW's plea to avoid multiple litigations. Additionally, another writ petition supporting the 33 percent women's quota is part of the ongoing deliberations.

Integration of Petitions

During the recent hearing, the bench directed the association of NFIW's latest plea with this batch of petitions. The court is expected to examine the constitutional and legal aspects surrounding the women's reservation, ensuring clarity and coherence in its implementation.

Constitutional Amendment Details

The Constitution (One Hundred and Sixth Amendment) Act, 2023, proposing one-third reservation for women in legislative bodies, received presidential assent in September. It introduces horizontal reservation for women from scheduled castes and tribes and includes a sunset clause after 15 years. Opposition leaders supported the legislation but expressed concerns about deferring implementation until after the census and delimitation.

Opposition Concerns and PILs

Congress leader Dr. Jaya Thakur filed a PIL seeking immediate implementation, challenging the clause delaying execution. The ongoing legal scrutiny encompasses multiple petitions, reflecting the complexity and significance of women's reservation in Indian legislative bodies.

 

Supreme Court's Deliberation on Guidelines for Transparent ED Investigations

Ensuring Fairness in ED Investigations

On January 25, the Supreme Court expressed its intent to establish guidelines to ensure fair and transparent investigations in cases involving the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) and state government officials. The Court aimed to prevent vindictive arrests and mala-fide witch-hunting while ensuring accountability for offenders. The bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan, addressed a writ petition filed by the ED seeking the transfer of a bribery case against ED officer Ankit Tiwari from the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Notice to State of Tamil Nadu

The Court issued notice to the State of Tamil Nadu, seeking its response and postponed the matter for two weeks. During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta emphasized the ED's commitment to a fair investigation. Allegations were raised against the Tamil Nadu Police for impeding ED investigations by not sharing FIRs of scheduled offences.

Proposed Nationwide Guidelines

The bench proposed the evolution of guidelines applicable nationwide to address the broader issue of fair investigations involving ED and state agencies. It urged collaborative efforts between both parties to contribute suggestions, aiming for a pan-India applicable solution. The discussion highlighted challenges arising from the federal nature of the country and the necessity for a balanced mechanism, especially with different ruling parties at the Centre and the State.

Direction to State Agency and Transparency Emphasis

The court directed the State agency to refrain from further investigation against Tiwari and requested the sharing of all collected materials. The hearing underscored the importance of transparency and fairness in probing cases involving ED and state agencies. The Court suggested collaborative investigations by state anti-corruption bureaus and the ED, supervised by retired DGP officers or former High Court judges, to prevent vindictive actions while scrutinizing the guilt of the accused.

Heated Exchanges and Call for Transparent Mechanism

Heated exchanges between Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal emphasized the need for a transparent mechanism to avoid political vendettas and ensure accountable investigations. The Court acknowledged statutory provisions but stressed the necessity of transparent guidelines applicable across states to ensure a robust and unbiased investigative process.

 


 Delhi High Court's Directives for Enhanced Facilities in Special Schools and Hostels for Visually Impaired Children

Court Mandates Efficient Operation and Maintenance

The Delhi High Court has issued a set of directives to the Delhi Government and its Directorate of Education (DoE) to ensure efficient operation and maintenance of seven special schools and hostels in the national capital dedicated to visually impaired children.

DoE's Responsibility for Hostel Facilities

A division bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, mandated that the DoE takes responsibility for offering hostel facilities to all students in these special schools. This includes ensuring timely provisions such as food, uniform, clothes, recreation facilities, and other daily necessities for the students.

Emphasis on RPWD Act Compliance

The court emphasized adherence to Section 31 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act), which requires educational institutions to provide amanuensis (a person who writes or takes dictation) to blind students and students with low vision.

Appointment of Staff and Infrastructure Enhancement

Within eight weeks, the DoE is directed to appoint a Superintendent for each hostel, regular cooks, sanitation staff, caretakers, and security guards to ensure consistent and timely availability of food and other facilities. The DoE is also tasked with ensuring the timely provision of braille books, assistive devices, and other reading materials for each student in the special schools.

Setting a Benchmark for the Country

The court urged the DoE to maintain and enhance existing facilities and infrastructure, aiming to set a benchmark for the country. It expressed confidence that prioritizing compliance with these directives would transform the special schools and hostel facilities into a model for other states.

Appreciation for Government's Efforts

The directives were issued in response to a plea from the National Federation of the Blind filed in 2018, focusing on the facilities provided to blind children in hostels. The court recorded its appreciation for the Delhi Government's efforts to fulfill its responsibilities under the RPWD Act and directed the DoE to assess proposed steps for the hostels before February 28, facilitating necessary budgetary allocations for the upcoming financial year 2024-25

 

International Court of Justice Imposes Immediate Measures on Israel Amidst Genocide Allegations in Gaza

In a long-anticipated verdict, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued immediate measures against Israel to prevent the alleged genocide of Palestinians in Gaza. The ruling, announced on January 26, 2024, responds to South Africa's plea for interim actions under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

The ICJ's imposed measures include:

Prevention of Genocidal Acts

In a 15 to 2 decision, the court instructs Israel to take all necessary actions, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention, to forestall acts outlined in Article 2 of the convention. This encompasses averting the killing of group members, causing harm, intentionally inflicting conditions leading to the group's destruction, and implementing measures to prevent group births.

Military Restraint

With a 15:2 majority, Israel is mandated to ensure its military refrains from committing the aforementioned acts immediately.

Incitement to Genocide

In a 16 to 1 vote, Israel is compelled to prevent and penalize direct and public incitement to commit genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

Humanitarian Assistance

Backed by a 16:1 majority, Israel must promptly take effective measures to provide urgently needed basic services and humanitarian aid to address adverse conditions faced by Palestinians in Gaza.

Preservation of Evidence

By 15:2 votes, Israel is directed to take effective measures preventing the destruction and ensuring the preservation of evidence related to alleged acts within the scope of the Genocide Convention.

Reporting Requirement

Israel is required to submit a report to the court on all measures taken to comply with the order within one month, as decided by a 15:2 vote.

Additionally, the ICJ calls for the immediate and unconditional release of hostages abducted during the October 7, 2023, attack in Israel.

Court’s Emphasis

The court emphasizes that these immediate measures are based on a prima facie analysis and do not constitute a final judgment on the allegations against Israel. It recognizes South Africa's standing to bring the action and expresses deep concern about the significant human tragedy in the region, acknowledging the loss of life and human suffering.

 

Upholding Spousal Maintenance Obligations: Allahabad High Court Affirms Husband's Duty to Provide Support

In a recent legal development, the Allahabad High Court has reinforced the obligation of husbands to provide financial support to their wives, drawing upon a precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Kamal vs. State Of U.P Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another.

Financial Duty Prevails: Husband's Responsibility Under Section 125 CrPC

The Allahabad High Court, led by Justice Renu Agarwal's bench, underscored that husbands are mandated to offer maintenance to their wives as stipulated under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The court's decision, influenced by the Supreme Court's ruling in Anju Garg vs. Deepak Kumar Garg 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 805, emphasized the expectation for husbands to earn, even through manual labor if physically capable, unless legally excused.

Legal Challenge and Justification

The case in question involved a criminal revision plea filed by a husband who contested a Family Court order instructing him to pay Rs. 2,000 per month as maintenance to his wife under Section 125 CrPC. The husband argued that his wife voluntarily left their matrimonial home without valid cause and was financially self-sufficient.

Cruelty Allegations and Evidentiary Support

The wife countered, asserting that she left the marital home due to dowry-related cruelty and presented evidence of the husband's purported income from various sources. The Family Court, after a thorough examination of the evidence, determined the husband's capacity to earn and directed him to provide financial support.

Upholding the Legal Verdict

Considering the presented facts and the absence of evidence disqualifying the wife from maintenance, the Allahabad High Court upheld the Family Court's decision. The court dismissed the revision plea and affirmed the order for the husband to pay Rs. 2000/- per month from the application date, with arrears to be settled in five equal quarterly installments.

 

Legal Precedent Upheld: Estoppel Doctrine Reinforced by Delhi High Court

In a recent landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court has unequivocally upheld the Estoppel Doctrine, emphasizing that parties receiving payments under an arbitral award surrender their right to challenge the award regarding disallowed claims. Justice Sanjeev Narula's bench delivered a decisive judgment, highlighting the binding nature of accepting payments under the award.

Complex Construction Dispute: Background of M/s K.S. Jain Builders v. Indian Railway Welfare Organisation

The case at hand revolved around a Letter of Acceptance (LOA) dated 12.04.2016, originally awarded for the construction of 144 dwelling units, later reduced to 126 units by the respondent Indian Railway Welfare Organisation. Despite a 2018 agreement between the parties, project delays led to arbitration, resulting in the arbitrator partially allowing the petitioner's claims while rejecting counter-claims by the respondent.

Challenging Quantum and Grounds for Contestation

Following the arbitration, the petitioner contested a portion of the award's quantum under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The challenge included claims of manifest illegality in the application of contractual terms and a purported miscalculation of compensation for profit loss. However, a crucial element emerged during the proceedings.

Estoppel Triggered: Compensation for Loss of Profit Already Accepted

The Court noted that the compensation for loss of profit, a key point challenged by the petitioner, had already been paid and accepted. Relying on the precedent set in Sporty Solutionz v. Badminton Association of India, the Court held that accepting payments under the arbitral award triggers the estoppel principle, preventing the challenging party from disavowing any aspect of the award adverse to their interests.

High Threshold for Challenge: The Court's Emphasis on Patent Illegality

Underscoring the significance of the precedent, the Court emphasized that the threshold for proving patent illegality, which renders the award challengeable, is exceptionally high. Mere misapplication of contract terms is insufficient; it necessitates a blatant and fundamental error surpassing typical legal or contractual mistakes.

Dismissal of Challenge: Upholding Estoppel Principle

In its final ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, reaffirming the principle that parties receiving payment under an arbitral award are estopped from challenging the award concerning disallowed claims. This decision sets a robust legal precedent, underlining the binding nature of accepting monetary benefits under arbitral awards.

 

Judicial Mandate: Allahabad High Court Directs State to Augment Compensation for Acid Attack Survivors

In a recent landmark ruling, the Allahabad High Court has issued a directive compelling the State to enhance compensation for a mother-son duo who were victims of a harrowing acid attack. The bench, comprising Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Surendra Singh-I, underscored the intrinsic right to medical grants guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, as established by Supreme Court precedents.

Agonizing Journey for Justice: Acid Attack Victims Navigate Legal Channels

The petitioners, a mother-son duo, endured severe injuries from an acid attack, prompting the husband to pursue compensation through various avenues, including the District Legal Service Authority and the National Commission for Women. Despite their persistent efforts, initial attempts to secure compensation proved futile.

Legal Claim and Counterargument: Battle Over Compensation Figures

Relying on the Uttar Pradesh Rani Laxmi Bai Mahila Evam Bal Samman Kosh Niyamawali, 2015, the mother sought Rs. 5,00,000 for her acid attack injuries, while the petitioners collectively sought Rs. 26 lakhs to cover medical expenses. The respondent contested, proposing compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs for the mother and challenging the validity of the bills amounting to Rs. 26 lakhs.

Committee Verification and State's Stand: Dispute Over Medical Expenses

The Court referred the case to a committee for verification, which substantiated medical expenses totaling Rs. 5,20,437. However, the State argued that the mother should only be entitled to Rs. 2 lakhs, citing her alleged failure to utilize free medical treatment available in government hospitals.

Judicial Rebuke and Additional Compensation: State's Obligation Despite Hospital Choice

Dismissing the State's argument, the Court, in alignment with Supreme Court precedent, asserted that once bill vouchers were validated by respondent authorities, the State could not deny the petitioner's right to seek treatment at a private hospital. Consequently, the Court directed an additional payment of Rs. 2 lakhs to the petitioners.

Legal Precedent and Critique: Allahabad High Court Emphasizes Compensation Enhancement

Highlighting the precedent allowing for the augmentation of compensation for acid attack victims, the Court expressed dissatisfaction with the trial court's failure to direct compensation despite ordering offenders to pay Rs. 10,000. Criticizing the District Legal Services Authority's rejection of compensation applications, the Court reiterated that the right to medical grants is an integral aspect of Article 21.

Judicial Decree: State Mandated to Fulfill its Obligation

In a conclusive decree, the Allahabad High Court mandated the State to disburse Rs. 5,26,000 to the petitioners in acknowledgment of their medical bills and vouchers, marking a significant stride in advocating for justice and support for acid attack survivors.

 

Posthumous Recognition: Late Senior Advocate and Former BJP President Satyabrata Mookherjee Honored with Padma Bhushan

In a poignant posthumous tribute, the late Senior Advocate and former President of the West Bengal Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Satyabrata Mookherjee, was honored with the Padma Bhushan, India's distinguished third-highest civilian award in Public Affairs, on Thursday.

Legal Expertise and Legacy: Satyabrata Mookherjee's Illustrious Career

Satyabrata Mookherjee, acknowledged as an authority in company laws, left an indelible mark on the legal landscape. The father of the former West Bengal Advocate General, SN Mookherjee, he pursued his education at Calcutta University and earned a bar-at-law degree from Lincoln's Inn in London. Notably, he served as a Union Minister of State in the Commerce and Chemical Ministries during the tenure of Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

Transition to Politics: From Additional Solicitor General to Lok Sabha Contender

Mookherjee's multifaceted contributions extended beyond the legal domain. Initially serving as an Additional Solicitor General (ASG) until 1999, he later transitioned into politics. Successfully contesting the Lok Sabha elections from the Krishnagar constituency as a BJP candidate, Mookherjee became a prominent figure in Indian politics.

Leadership in West Bengal BJP: Presidency and Tenure

Adding to his political journey, Satyabrata Mookherjee assumed the role of President of the BJP's West Bengal State unit from 2008 to 2009, showcasing his leadership within the party's organizational framework.

A Life Remembered: Padma Bhushan Acknowledges Lifetime Achievements

The Padma Bhushan, conferred posthumously on Satyabrata Mookherjee, serves as a testament to his lifetime achievements, spanning legal prowess, political contributions, and leadership roles. This recognition honors a man whose legacy continues to resonate within the realms of law and public service.

 

Trailblazing Legacy Honored: Late Supreme Court Judge Justice M Fathima Beevi Conferred Posthumous Padma Bhushan

In a significant tribute to a trailblazing figure in India's judicial history, the late Justice M Fathima Beevi, the first woman to ascend to the bench of the Supreme Court, was posthumously honored with the prestigious Padma Bhushan on Thursday. Recognized for her contributions to Public Affairs, Justice Beevi, who passed away at the age of 96 in November last year, left an enduring legacy as a groundbreaking jurist.

Early Years and Legal Pursuits: Journey of Justice M Fathima Beevi

Born in Kerala in 1927, Justice Beevi's journey into law was nurtured by her father's encouragement. In 1950, she achieved a remarkable feat by securing the top position in the Bar Council exam, earning the distinction of being the first woman to receive a Bar Council gold medal. Beginning her legal career as an advocate in Kerala, she steadily climbed the ranks, eventually attaining the position of a district and sessions judge in 1974. In 1980, she joined the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, further solidifying her legal acumen, and in 1983, she assumed the role of a High Court judge.

Historic Milestone: First Woman Supreme Court Judge in Asia

In a historic achievement in 1989, Justice Beevi etched her name in history by becoming the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court of India. This groundbreaking moment not only marked her as the initial Muslim woman in the higher judiciary but also positioned her as the first woman Supreme Court judge in Asia.

Post-Retirement Contributions: Diverse Roles in Public Service

Following her retirement in 1993 from the judiciary, Justice Beevi continued her contributions to public service. She served as a member of the National Human Rights Commission and later assumed the role of the Governor of Tamil Nadu. Notably, her tenure as Governor was marked by principled decision-making, including the rejection of mercy petitions in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.

Padma Bhushan Recognition: Honoring a Stalwart in Indian Judiciary

The posthumous conferment of the Padma Bhushan on Justice M Fathima Beevi serves as a fitting acknowledgment of her pioneering role in shaping India's judiciary, breaking gender barriers, and leaving an indelible mark on legal history. This recognition pays homage to a jurist who paved the way for future generations and demonstrated unwavering commitment to justice and public service.

 


Weekly Legal Updates

January 15, 2024- January 21, 2024

 

Ensuring Initial Suit Viability Crucial for Granting Interim Relief: Pronouncement by Supreme Court

In a recent legal pronouncement, the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Dipankar Datta, and Aravind Kumar emphasized the essential prerequisite of prima facie satisfaction on the maintainability of a suit before considering the grant of interim relief. The court highlighted that when a party challenges the maintainability of a suit, citing legal impediments, any decision to provide interim relief must be preceded by the court's formation and recording of a preliminary satisfaction regarding the suit's viability.

Caution Against Assumption-Based Interim Protection

The judgment underscored the impropriety of a court refraining from establishing prima facie satisfaction on maintainability while proceeding to grant interim protection based on the assumption that the issue will be addressed as a preliminary matter under Rule 2 of Order XIV, CPC. The court emphasized that such a practice would constitute an improper exercise of power.

Judicial Protocol for Unmaintainable Suits

The court clarified that if, during the hearing of an application for interim relief, it finds the suit barred by law or otherwise not maintainable, it cannot dismiss it outright without framing a preliminary issue after the submission of the written statement. However, the court has the authority to express its opinion on the matter as grounds for denying interim relief.

Recognition of Exceptional Circumstances

Acknowledging the potential existence of extraordinary situations where a determination on maintainability might lead to delays causing irreparable harm, the judgment recognized that in such instances, the court may issue an appropriate order. This action must be justified, ensuring its necessity to prevent irreparable harm, injury, or undue hardship to the party seeking relief, and to avoid rendering the proceedings fruitless due to the court's non-interference.

Top of Form

 


 Calcutta High Court Introduces SARTHAC Portal for Holistic Criminal Case Oversight

In a groundbreaking move, the Calcutta High Court unveiled a state-of-the-art portal designed exclusively for monitoring criminal cases falling under the High Court's jurisdiction. The initiative was announced on Monday, marking a significant advancement in the court's technological infrastructure.

SARTHAC: Revolutionizing Case Administration

The newly introduced portal, named Systemized Administration & Regulation of Tendering and Handling All Court Cases (SARTHAC), had its origins in 2016 when it was initially developed and launched by the State Government. Originally conceived as an interface facilitating online access to appellate side writ pleas filed before the High Court, SARTHAC has now undergone expansion to include robust monitoring functionalities for criminal cases.

Dignitaries Preside Over Inauguration Ceremony

Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam presided over the inauguration ceremony, graced by the presence of Justice Debangshu Basak and Law Minister Moloy Ghatak. The introduction of SARTHAC marks a pivotal step towards adopting a more comprehensive and streamlined approach to overseeing both appellate and criminal side cases within the purview of the Calcutta High Court.


 Landmark Guidelines by Karnataka High Court for Preliminary Inquiries in Criminal Cases, with Special Emphasis on Juvenile Rights

The Karnataka High Court has recently released comprehensive guidelines instructing trial courts and special courts to conduct specific preliminary inquiries when an accused is presented for the first time in a criminal case. These inquiries are designed to ascertain the accused's juvenile status, mental well-being, and compliance with legal requirements. Justice C M Joshi, presiding as a single judge, underscored the significance of these inquiries, emphasizing that irrespective of their offense, individuals falling under the category of children must be treated accordingly.

Key Directives in the Issued Guidelines

The guidelines put forth by the Karnataka High Court encompass various crucial aspects, including:

(a)  Magistrate Verification: Directing the Magistrate or presiding officer of the Special Court to verify the age of the accused, ensuring they are not a minor.

(b) Documentary Proof: Mandating the production of documentary proof of age when the accused falls within the age range of 18 to 22 years.

(c)  Oral Inquiry: Advocating for an oral inquiry during the initial presentation of the accused, covering crucial aspects such as age verification, potential ill-treatment by the police, notification of family members, reasons for arrest, place of arrest, and existing ailments.

(d) Timely Juvenility Determination: Emphasizing the prompt ascertainment of the juvenility of the accused for facilitating effective rehabilitation.

Contextual Origin and Implementation of Guidelines

These directives were issued in the context of a specific appeal where the accused faced charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The accused, alleged to have engaged in a physical relationship with a minor under false promises of marriage, was acquitted during the trial.

Judicial Critique and Bail Granting

During the appeal, the Karnataka High Court granted bail to the accused under Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court criticized the failure to raise the defense of juvenility during the trial and emphasized the significance of statements made before the trial court over relying solely on scientific evidence for establishing guilt.

Outcome of the Appeal and Court Concerns

Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, considering the accused's juvenile status at the time of the offense. The court expressed concern about the extended detention beyond permissible limits under the Juvenile Justice Act, highlighting the need for meticulous adherence to juvenile rights in the criminal justice system.


 Kerala High Court Advocates Leniency Towards Normal Errors in Recent Evidence Ruling

In a recent judgment delving into the nuances of evidence presentation, the Kerala High Court emphasized that discrepancies stemming from normal errors in observation and memory, attributed to the passage of time, should not be deemed as substantial deviations impacting the essence of a case.

Bench Ruling on Conviction Challenge Under Section 302 of IPC

A division bench, comprising Justice P B Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John, deliberated on a case involving a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant contested the conviction and sentence, challenging their legal validity.

Prosecution Narrative and Conviction Basis

The prosecution contended that a work-related dispute had generated animosity between the accused and the deceased, ultimately leading to the accused stabbing the deceased in the restaurant kitchen where they were employed on 22.08.2016. The Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused, prompting the High Court to examine the sustainability of the conviction and sentence.

Defense's Challenge to Circumstantial Evidence

The appellant's counsel argued that the prosecution's evidence was primarily circumstantial, given the absence of direct witnesses to the incident. Furthermore, it was asserted that the testimony of certain witnesses (PWs 1 to 3), linking the accused to the incident, relied on hearsay and should be deemed inadmissible.

Legal Arguments and Counterarguments

The respondent, relying on Section 6 of the Evidence Act and the principle of res gestae, countered that the hearsay rule did not apply in this context. The court thus had to navigate through the legal complexities surrounding the admissibility of evidence.

Court's Scrutiny and Acknowledgment of Variations

Upon scrutinizing the testimonies, the court acknowledged variations in the accounts of PWs 1 to 3 regarding the precise timing of the incident. However, it underscored that such variations were typical errors stemming from observation and memory and were not indicative of deliberate misrepresentation. Referencing the precedent set in State of Uttar Pradesh v. MK Anthony (1984), the court emphasized the need to avoid a hyper-technical approach that would lead to the rejection of evidence for trivial discrepancies that do not impact the crux of the case.

Verdict and Dismissal of the Appeal

Consequently, the court accorded weight to the prosecution's evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment serves as a testament to the court's inclination towards a pragmatic assessment of evidence, acknowledging the inevitability of normal errors in testimonies over time.

 

Calcutta High Court Affirms Human Dignity in Conviction Cases, Orders Review of Early Release Plea

In a recent judgment echoing the sanctity of individual dignity, the Calcutta High Court, in a single-bench decision by Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, proclaimed that the right to a life of dignity, enshrined in Article 21, remains intact even for individuals with a criminal conviction. The court directed the Sentence Review Board (SSRB) to reconsider a plea for the premature release of a convict, underscoring that a person, despite being convicted, should not be subjected to double punishment.

Petitioner's Challenge and Flawed SSRB Constitution

The petitioner, advocating for the early release of her husband serving a life sentence, contested the SSRB's rejection of her plea. Alleging flaws in the SSRB's constitution and asserting inconsistency with the positions taken by the Supreme Court and other High Courts on remission, the petitioner sought redress from the court.

Comprehensive Rejection Grounds Scrutinized

Acknowledging the petitioner's plea, the court delved into the rejection grounds provided by the SSRB. Noting that the petitioner's husband had spent over two decades in custody, the court emphasized the contemporary objective of punishment as reformative rather than retributive. It highlighted that the SSRB failed to consider various factors outlined by the Apex Court for rehabilitation and release, beyond the nature of the crime and the risk of reoccurrence.

Critique of "Cryptic" Police Report and Necessity for Substantial Opposition

The court scrutinized the police report, a pivotal basis for denying remission, and labeled it as "cryptic," primarily fixated on the past nature of the crime. While acknowledging the opposition from the victim's family, the court stressed the imperative for substantial reasons to oppose the release plea, aligning with the principles of justice and fairness.

Judicial Mandate for Reassessment and SSRB Reconstitution

Concluding that the petitioner should not endure further punishment after two decades of imprisonment, the court directed the SSRB to reevaluate the plea within one month. Notably, the court flagged the improper constitution of the SSRB and mandated a reconsideration, emphasizing the inclusion of specified criteria in the review process.

 

Allahabad High Court Affirms Legal Heirs' Entitlement Over Nominee in Retiral Benefits Case

In a significant legal pronouncement, the Allahabad High Court, in the case of Rajni Rani vs. State of UP and others, upheld the stance laid down by the Supreme Court in Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta (2009). The court clarified that the role of a nominee in the context of retiral benefits for a deceased government employee is that of a custodian, and the benefits should ultimately be conferred upon the legal heirs.

Petitioner's Claim for Retiral Benefits

The petitioner, Rajni Rani, sought retiral benefits following the demise of her ex-husband, despite his remarriage. However, the court dismissed her claim, highlighting the legal principles governing the distribution of such benefits.

Nominee as Custodian, Not Ultimate Beneficiary

Drawing upon the Supreme Court precedent, the Allahabad High Court emphasized that a nominee designated by a government employee function as a custodian of the benefits and is not the ultimate beneficiary. The court underscored the necessity to distribute the benefits in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, recognizing the legal heirs as the rightful recipients.

Rights of Lawfully Wedded Wife Upheld

In this specific case, the court affirmed the rights of Shri Usha Devi, the deceased employee's lawfully wedded wife, as the legal heir entitled to the retiral benefits. The court rejected arguments of abandonment and emphasized the importance of recognizing the rights of the lawful spouse in accordance with established legal principles.

Dismissal of Writ Petition

Consequently, the writ petition filed by Rajni Rani was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court. The judgment serves as a reinforcement of the legal framework governing retiral benefits, highlighting the precedence of legal heirs' entitlement over the role of a nominee in such cases.

 

Calcutta High Court Reverses 1987 Conviction in Decades-Old Suicide and Cruelty Case

In a recent groundbreaking development, the Calcutta High Court granted an appeal filed by Bimal Paul, overturning his 1987 conviction on charges related to cruelty towards his wife and abetment of her suicide. The judgment, delivered by Justice Subhendu Samanta, brings closure to a case that had persisted for decades.

Judicial Perspective on Allegations of Cruelty

Justice Samanta asserted that the deceased's wife's involvement in soil preparation for the family's pottery business did not amount to torture under the offense of abetment of suicide. The court took into consideration the impoverished circumstances of the potter's family, engaged in manual labor for crafting earthen pots. It emphasized that financial difficulties experienced by the family may have led to disagreements, but such circumstances could not be labeled as torture.

Poverty Noted as Contributing Factor

The judgment explicitly stated, "The poverty in the family of the potter may have raised some difference of opinion between their family members. It is true that they used to prepare earthen pot by manual labour. The deceased being a member of the family was also employed for preparation of soil. Such fact cannot be said to be torture upon her."

Origins of the Case: Suicide and Allegations of Cruelty

The case originated from the suicide of Bimal Paul's wife in April 1985, with allegations of ill-treatment, physical abuse, and denial of basic necessities by the deceased's family. The trial court had convicted Paul under Sections 498A (cruelty) and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Defense Arguments and Judicial Scrutiny

In his defense, Bimal Paul argued that there were contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and that the evidence presented did not prove the allegations of cruelty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Calcutta High Court, after careful consideration, found no direct evidence supporting the infliction of cruelty by Paul on his deceased wife. The court also raised concerns about the initial information provided to the police by the appellant's family and questioned the timing of the complaint filed by the deceased wife's family, hinting at potential concoction.

Quashing of Conviction and Sentence

Based on these observations, the Calcutta High Court quashed and set aside the 1987 conviction along with the five-year imprisonment sentence imposed on Bimal Paul. The judgment not only vindicates the appellant after decades of legal battles but also sheds light on the complexities of interpreting cruelty in the context of socio-economic conditions and familial disputes.

 

Kerala High Court Bridges Legal Gap, Allows Registrar to Record Talaq Without Court Order

In a recent landmark judgment, the Kerala High Court, in the case of Neyan Veettil Behsana v. Local Registrar for Births and Deaths & Marriages, tackled a significant legal gap concerning the registration of divorces obtained through talaq under Muslim personal law. Justice PV Kunhikrishnan ruled that Registrars for Births, Deaths, and Marriages are not obligated to demand a court order to record such divorces, provided they comply with personal law.

Recognition of Legal Void in Existing Rules

The court observed a crucial omission in the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008, stating that these rules lacked provisions for registering divorces obtained under personal law. This deficiency, according to the court, disadvantaged divorced Muslim women, hindering their ability to remarry until the entry in the register of marriage was removed through a court order.

Equal Burden on Law-Abiding Muslim Couples

Emphasizing fairness, the judgment asserted that law-abiding Muslim couples who registered their marriage under the 2008 Rules should not bear the burden of this legal void. Justice Kunhikrishnan argued that Registrars, empowered to register marriages, inherently possessed the authority to record divorces obtained under personal law without waiting for court orders.

Call for Legislative Action

Acknowledging the lacuna in the 2008 laws, Justice Kunhikrishnan suggested that the legislature address this issue. The judgment arose from a petition by a woman seeking the recording of her divorce, initially refused by the Registrar citing the absence of provisions in the 2008 Rules.

Application of General Clauses Act Principle

Applying the principle in Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the court held that Registrars could register talaq-based divorces without requiring court orders. The judgment directed the Registrar to consider the petitioner's application to record her divorce, provided the husband confirmed the divorce, and ordered the necessary entry in the Register of Marriage.

 

Supreme Court Divided on Retroactive Application of Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act

In a significant development, the Supreme Court delivered a divided verdict on the retrospective application of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in a petition filed by former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu. The split decision, with Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela Trivedi presenting divergent views, adds complexity to the interpretation of this crucial legal provision.

Background and Introduction of Section 17A

Section 17A was introduced in 2018 and mandates prior approval for police officers conducting inquiries into alleged offenses by public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case in question involves offenses alleged against Naidu that predate the 2018 amendment. Naidu sought to quash the investigation, arguing that it lacked prior approval under Section 17A.

Justice Bose's Position on Retroactive Application

Justice Aniruddha Bose held that the mandate for prior approval under Section 17A should apply retrospectively. He emphasized that the section does not distinguish between offenses committed before or after its introduction, asserting that its mandate applies once an inquiry begins. Justice Bose rejected the argument that a letter in June 2018 initiated the process, stating that mere requests for an inquiry did not constitute the commencement of the investigation.

Justice Trivedi's Disagreement and Perspective on Retroactivity

Justice Bela Trivedi disagreed with Justice Bose, viewing Section 17A as substantive and not merely procedural. She argued against retroactive application, stating that it would defeat the legislative purpose of penalizing dishonest public servants. Trivedi asserted that the amendment was intended to apply prospectively. She relied on Standard Operating Procedures issued in 2021, suggesting that an inquiry starts from the date of a relevant letter.

Impact on Naidu's Case

While Justice Bose invalidated the steps against Naidu under the Act due to the absence of prior approval, Justice Trivedi held that the absence did not vitiate the proceedings or justify quashing the FIR. The split verdict leaves the issue open, indicating the divergence in perspectives on the retrospective application of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The decision adds complexity to the legal landscape surrounding corruption investigations involving public servants.

 

Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Rigorous Standard for Summoning in Murder Case

In a significant ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has set a stringent test for summoning in a murder case, underscoring that the power under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) cannot be exercised solely based on the accused being named by the complainant. Justice Pankaj Jain emphasized the imperative of satisfying the "more than prima facie case" test before proceeding against the accused. The decision, rendered in the case of Geeta Devi and another v. State of Punjab and another, stressed that the evidence on record must meet this criterion before summoning individuals accused of murder.

Judicial Emphasis on Stringent Criteria

Justice Jain, in the judgment, highlighted the necessity of adhering to a rigorous standard before invoking Section 319 of the CrPC. The court emphasized that the mere inclusion of an individual's name by the complainant is insufficient to warrant summoning, requiring a level of evidence that establishes a case "more than prima facie" against the accused.

Precedents and Procedural Adherence

The decision relied on established precedents, including the court's stance in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab [2014]. The 2014 case underscored the importance of adhering to the prescribed procedure after an accused has been discharged, reinforcing the need for a thorough evaluation of evidence before summoning the accused in a criminal case.

Case Specifics: Geeta Devi and Another v. State of Punjab and Another

The judgment was delivered in the context of the case of Geeta Devi and another seeking to quash a summoning order in a murder case. The court's insistence on a robust evidentiary basis for summoning reflects a commitment to ensuring fairness and adherence to legal standards in criminal proceedings.

 


 Madras High Court: Financial Neglect and Exclusion from Service Register by Husband Deemed Cruelty

In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court underscored that a husband's failure to provide financial assistance and the deliberate omission of his wife and children from the Railway Service register constitute acts of cruelty. Justices RMT Teekaa Raman and PB Balaji addressed an appeal filed by a wife challenging a Family Court's decision to grant divorce to the husband on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

Court's Scrutiny of Family Court Decision

Despite the Family Court's observation of the parties living separately and the wife making allegations of an illicit relationship against the husband, the Madras High Court found that none of the reasons cited by the husband were proven according to the law. Instead, the court noted that the wife demonstrated the husband's cruelty by revealing his disinterest in living with them and neglecting financial responsibilities.

Failure to Substantiate Claims of Cruelty by Husband

The court emphasized that the husband, who sought dissolution of the marriage, failed to substantiate his claims of cruelty as required by law. The assertions regarding desertion and the couple living separately for about 12 years were challenged by the wife, who expressed her willingness to reunite with him and requested restitution of conjugal rights.

Court's Critique of Family Judge's Approach

The Madras High Court criticized the Family judge's approach, noting that the judge wrongly granted a divorce by finding a loophole in the wife's failure to prove the alleged illicit relationship. Emphasizing that the husband's cruelty was not proven according to legal standards, the court deemed the dissolution of the marriage order legally unsustainable and set it aside.

 

Patna High Court Upholds Custody of Minor Girl in Shelter Home, Prioritizing Child Welfare Concerns

In a significant ruling, the Patna High Court has highlighted the paramount consideration of a minor girl's welfare in cases involving fears for her safety and concerns related to child marriage. The court emphasized that, when a minor girl expresses apprehensions about her life in parental custody, the court may intervene to place her in a suitable shelter home until she reaches the age of majority.

Legal Context: Petition for Release from Shelter Home

The case, titled Nitish Kumar vs. State of Bihar and others, arose from a petitioner seeking the release of a minor girl from a shelter home. The Child Welfare Committee had placed her under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, due to her age and concerns related to child marriage.

Court's Emphasis on Child Welfare Over Habeas Corpus Claims

The Patna High Court underscored that a husband does not possess an inherent right to claim custody of a minor girl through a writ of habeas corpus alleging illegal detention. Instead, the court prioritized the welfare of the child in such circumstances.

Supreme Court Precedent and Child Marriage Concerns

The court considered the Supreme Court's stance that a child below 18 cannot give valid consent for marriage. Despite the minor girl's expressed desire to live with her husband, the Patna High Court upheld her stay in the shelter home until she reaches the age of majority, citing the serious concerns related to child marriage.

Paramount Consideration of the Child's Welfare

The ruling from the Patna High Court signifies a commitment to prioritizing the welfare and safety of minor children in situations involving potential harm or risks, especially in the context of child marriages. The court's decision aligns with broader legal principles emphasizing the best interests of the child as a guiding factor in such matters.

 

Supreme Court Rules: No Prior Sanction Needed for Public Servant Prosecution in Fake Document Case

In a recent criminal appeal, the Supreme Court made a decisive ruling stating that prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not necessary when a public servant is accused of creating fake documents, as such actions do not fall within the purview of official duty. The case, involving the quashing of criminal proceedings against a public servant by the High Court due to the absence of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC, saw a reversal of the High Court's decision by the Supreme Court.

Scope of Section 197 CrPC Protection

The Supreme Court emphasized that the protection provided by Section 197 CrPC is limited to acts performed in the discharge of official duties. In this context, the court highlighted that the fabrication of records and misappropriation of funds by a public servant do not constitute official duties.

Rejection of High Court's Decision

The judgment underscored that the High Court erred in quashing the complaint and chargesheet based on the absence of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The Supreme Court clarified that the protection of Section 197 does not extend to actions involving the creation of fake documents, emphasizing the distinction between official duties and criminal misconduct.

Limitation of Observations

The Court concluded by setting aside the order and clarifying that the observations made in the judgment pertain to the present challenge and do not express an opinion on the merits of the case. The ruling establishes a significant precedent regarding the applicability of prior sanction in cases involving public servants accused of offenses not related to the discharge of official duties.

 

Supreme Court Directs Timely Establishment of Vulnerable Witnesses Deposition Centres Across All Districts

In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court has issued a directive mandating all High Courts to accelerate the establishment of Vulnerable Witnesses Deposition Centres (VWDCs) in every district, with a deadline set for completion by April 30, 2024. This directive is a response to a Miscellaneous Application highlighting the imperative need to create courtrooms dedicated to vulnerable witnesses, aligning with the Supreme Court's decision in the case of State of Maharashtra v Bandu @ Daulat (2018) 11 SCC 163.

Background and Previous Directions

The Supreme Court had previously issued detailed directions in 2021 to facilitate the implementation of VWDCs, recognizing the critical importance of creating a safe and supportive environment for recording evidence from vulnerable witnesses. The recent directive reinforces the commitment to ensuring the timely establishment of such centres across all districts.

Extension of Justice Gita Mittal's Term

In addition to the directive on VWDCs, the Supreme Court extended the term of Justice Gita Mittal, who chairs the committee overseeing the implementation of VWDCs. The extension is intended to allow Justice Mittal to provide an updated status report on the progress of VWDC establishment by the first week of May 2024.

Compliance Orders for High Courts of Odisha and Madras

The Supreme Court emphasized the need for compliance by the High Courts of Odisha and Madras in establishing VWDCs. Justice Mittal was authorized to inform their Registrars General about the matter, reinforcing the urgency and importance of adhering to the established timelines.

 

Landmark Decision by Chhattisgarh High Court: Second Wife's Section 498-A Complaints Deemed Inadmissible

In a groundbreaking judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court has unequivocally stated that complaints or FIRs filed by second wives under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against their husbands and in-laws are not legally sustainable. The court's ruling, stemming from a reference by a Single Judge, offers crucial clarity on the legal validity of such complaints, especially in cases where the marriage is declared null and void.

Bench Scrutinizes Judicial Divergence

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput meticulously examined the conflicting judgments, notably the Supreme Court's decisions in Shivcharan Lal Verma and Rajinder Singh. The court, relying on the principles elucidated in Shivcharan Lal Verma, asserted that convictions under Section 498-A of the IPC are untenable when the marriage is deemed null and void.

Precedence of Shivcharan Lal Verma Upheld

Despite apparent disparities between the two Supreme Court judgments, the division bench underscored the primacy of Shivcharan Lal Verma. In line with the principles set forth in this earlier decision, the court concluded that second wives' complaints or FIRs under Section 498-A IPC lack legal merit. This alignment with the Supreme Court's established principles forms the crux of the Chhattisgarh High Court's landmark ruling.

Referral for Further Proceedings

Having clarified the legal position, the matter has been referred back to the Single Judge for subsequent proceedings, taking into account the clarified stance on the inadmissibility of complaints by second wives under Section 498-A IPC.


 Allahabad High Court Asserts: Criminal Proceedings Resilient Against Civil Disputes Alone

In a recent and significant pronouncement, the Allahabad High Court has underscored the resilience of criminal proceedings, stating that their initiation and progression should not be nullified solely based on concurrent civil disputes between the parties involved. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, delivering the ruling, emphasized that the mere existence of a civil dispute is insufficient grounds for quashing criminal proceedings if the allegations distinctly point towards the commission of cognizable offenses.

Key Highlights Reshaping Legal Dynamics

1. Independence of Legal Processes: The court clarified that the coexistence of a civil dispute does not automatically justify the quashing of criminal proceedings. It emphasized the need to treat both legal processes, civil and criminal, independently.

2. Scrutiny of FIR Allegations: The judgment stressed that challenges to the veracity of FIR allegations should not be entertained during a Section 482 CrPC application. Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) empowers the High Court to exercise inherent powers, preventing the abuse of the court's process.

3. Insight into Case Background: The ruling was prompted by a plea from an accused seeking the quashing of the charge sheet, summoning order, and overall proceedings. The case involved sections 409 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

4. Judicial Determination: The court, in its evaluation, highlighted that the FIR, accusing the applicant of cheating in a contractual matter, sufficiently demonstrated the commission of cognizable offenses. Consequently, the plea to quash the proceedings was dismissed.

 

Madhya Pradesh High Court Safeguards Freedom of Expression in Landmark Social Media Post Case

In a landmark decision, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has asserted that expressing skepticism about the fairness of Legislative Assembly elections in a social media post does not amount to an offense under Section 505(2) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to 'statements conducing to public mischief.'

Background and Legal Challenge

The petitioner, a correspondent, found himself facing an FIR for questioning the integrity of free and fair elections in the Lahar Legislative Assembly Constituency through a social media post. Accused under Sections 505(2) and 188 ('Disobedience to Order duly promulgated by a public servant') of the IPC, the petitioner contended that his post fell within the purview of 'freedom of speech and expression' guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Judicial Endorsement of Freedom of Speech

Justice Anand Pathak, deeming the post protected by the constitutional right to freedom of speech, emphasized its lack of intent to promote enmity or public mischief. Justice Pathak underscored the vital role of freedom of speech in preserving the constitutional ethos and democratic processes.

Critical Observations and Legal Scrutiny

The court, in its evaluation, noted that the social media post did not violate any pertinent laws, incite criminal activity, lead to disorder, or glorify violence. Instead, it fostered public discourse and the expression of opinions critical of the government—an essential aspect for a pluralistic and tolerant society in a democracy.

Procedural Irregularities Addressed

Regarding the charge under Section 188 IPC, the court highlighted procedural irregularities, stating that an FIR could not be directly registered at the police station, necessitating a written complaint from the concerned public servant. Consequently, the court concluded that the FIR against the petitioner was misconceived and not in accordance with prescribed legal procedures.

Legal Victory and Fundamental Rights Upheld

In a resounding conclusion, the Madhya Pradesh High Court granted the plea, absolving the petitioner of all offenses and allegations. This decision reaffirms the protection of fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution and sets a precedent for the safeguarding of freedom of expression in the realm of social media.


 Rajasthan High Court Champions Freedom of Choice in Landmark Habeas Corpus Case

In a significant habeas corpus petition brought forth by a transgender man, the Rajasthan High Court has emphatically affirmed the right of a cisgender woman to choose her life partner and live with him. This ruling came in response to allegations of illegal detention and mistreatment by the woman's father. The Division Bench, consisting of Justices Pankaj Bhandari and Bhuwan Goyal, engaged with the woman and directed that she be safely escorted to her chosen residence under police protection.

Background of Allegations and Legal Challenge

The petitioner, representing the detained woman, contended that the woman's father, a senior government official, had confined her forcibly with the support of the police. The detainee asserted instances of physical and mental abuse, including coercion to marry against her will, which had led to a suicide attempt.

The plea revealed that the detainee and the petitioner had attempted to elope, sparking subsequent events. Both individuals expressed their desire to live together as a couple. The petitioner brought to light the detainee's grievances lodged with state authorities and the National Commission for Women, accusing the police of favoring her father's actions.

Police Accusations and Violation of Rights

The petitioner argued that instead of safeguarding the detainee's rights, the police advised her to reside with her parents. It was asserted that the police, in collaboration with the detainee's father, violated her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Citing legal precedents such as Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India and Supriyo@ Supriya Chakraborty & Anr. v. Union of India, the petitioner underscored the rights of LGBTQIA+ community members to choose their life partners, urging the state to curb harassment and violence against queer individuals.

Judicial Disposition and Protective Measures

Following a directive to produce the detainee, the court disposed of the habeas corpus plea on January 8, 2024. The bench, situated in Jaipur, instructed the police to provide protection if the detainee chose to reside with her chosen partner, marking a significant step towards the recognition and protection of individual autonomy and choice in relationships.

 

Jharkhand High Court Upholds Maintenance Grant, Dismissing Revision Plea Without Marriage Certificate [Ram Kumar Ravi vs State of Jharkhand & Anr.]

In a recent judgment, the Jharkhand High Court reaffirmed a maintenance grant to a woman under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., dismissing a revision application that sought to challenge the order. The court underscored that the requirement for a marriage certificate is not absolute, particularly when substantial evidence indicates cohabitation akin to husband and wife.

Key Points from the Judgment:

1. Documentary Evidence Dispensation: Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary emphasized that the demand for documentary evidence of marriage is not universally applicable in Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings. The court's decision was prompted by a revision application contesting the order from an Original Maintenance Case, where the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 5,000 per month to the wife.

2. Evidence Assessment: The petitioner argued the absence of a valid marriage, presenting a certificate from a temple committee as evidence. However, the court, after scrutinizing witness testimonies and photographic proof showcasing the couple together, concluded that there was consistent affirmation of the marriage by supporting witnesses.

3. Contradictory Positions: The court dismissed the petitioner's plea, citing contradictory statements from the opposing party regarding the applicant's purported previous marriages. The lack of cohesive material challenging the presumption of marriage led the court to reject the argument that the applicant was not married to the petitioner.

4. Income Assessment: Considering the petitioner's disability, the court examined the details provided about the petitioner's income, identifying gaps in the information. The court adjusted the initial income assessment and directed the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 3,000 to the applicant, deeming it a fair and just amount.

5. Court's Final Verdict: Based on the evidence and the absence of compelling reasons to deviate from the trial court's findings, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the maintenance grant. The ruling underscores the court's reliance on substantive evidence, such as witness testimonies and photographic proof, in cases where formal documentation is unavailable or contested.

 


Weekly Legal Updates

January 8, 2024-January 14, 2024


 

Landmark Ruling: Delhi High Court Strengthens E-commerce Accountability for Intellectual Property Protection

Legal Precedent Set in PUMA SE vs. IndiaMART InterMESH Ltd Case

In a groundbreaking verdict, the Delhi High Court underscores the onus on e-commerce platforms to safeguard intellectual property rights, rejecting the concept of 'safe harbor' for platforms facilitating counterfeiting activities.

Judicial Emphasis on Corporate Responsibility

Justice C Hari Shankar, presiding over the case, emphasizes the profit-oriented nature of e-commerce platforms, asserting that they cannot be sanctuaries for infringers. The court articulates the imperative need for these platforms to proactively ensure the protection of intellectual property rights, unequivocally disapproving any procedures that facilitate infringers and counterfeiters for financial gains.

Interim Order and Platform Restraints

In a significant interim order, the court restrains IndiaMART InterMESH Limited, the operator of the IndiaMART e-commerce platform, from featuring any registered trademark of PUMA during the seller registration process. The directive extends to the removal of all listings containing infringing PUMA trademarks. This injunction will endure until a final decision is reached on PUMA's trademark infringement lawsuit against IndiaMART.

PUMA's Case Unveils Counterfeit Challenge

PUMA's legal action sheds light on the prevalence of counterfeit goods with fake PUMA marks on the IndiaMART platform. The court is informed of IndiaMART's lax seller registration process, allowing counterfeiters to pose as legitimate sellers of PUMA products without proper verification.

Judicial Rebuke for Lack of Verification

Justice Hari Shankar contends that the absence of stringent verification procedures implies IndiaMART's complicity in counterfeiting, utilizing its platform as a launching pad for illicit activities. The court underscores that facilitating counterfeiting is a precursor to abetting, emphasizing that providing a platform for such activities also constitutes aiding in the misdemeanor.

Conditional Injunction and Regulatory Measures

The interim injunction against IndiaMART comes with the caveat that it need not be perpetual. IndiaMART has the option to petition for modification by demonstrating to the court that substantial regulatory and protective measures have been implemented to prevent the misuse of its platform by counterfeiters.

 

Legal Precedent: Bombay High Court Upholds Mahr Rights for Remarried Muslim Women Post-Divorce

Landmark Verdict Ensures Unconditional Maintenance Under Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court affirms the entitlement of remarried Muslim women to mahr, a lump sum maintenance amount prescribed by Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (MWPA), even after entering into a subsequent marriage.

Judicial Emphasis on Unconditional Protection

Justice Rajesh Patil, in a decisive single-judge pronouncement, underscores that Section 3(1)(a) of the MWPA does not incorporate the term 'remarriage,' ensuring unconditional protection of maintenance. The judge clarifies that the Act is designed to secure fair provision and maintenance for divorced women, irrespective of their marital status post-divorce.

Rejecting Conditional Absolution

The court argues against introducing a condition in the Act that would absolve the husband's maintenance duty upon the wife's remarriage. Such a condition, according to the judge, could lead to situations where husbands deliberately delay divorce proceedings until the wife remarries. Section 3 of the MWPA defines 'mahr' or dower as the lump sum amount entitled to a divorced Muslim woman.

Legal Response to Maintenance Challenge

The judgment addresses a revision application challenging a maintenance order initially passed by a Magistrate in Chiplun, subsequently upheld and augmented by the Sessions Court at Ratnagiri. The couple, married in 2005, divorced in 2008, and in 2012, the former wife sought maintenance under Section 3(1)(a). The Magistrate initially granted ₹4,32,000 as lump sum maintenance, later increased to ₹9 lakh by the Sessions Court in 2017.

Date of Divorce Crucial

Justice Patil dismisses the argument that the respondent's remarriage should affect the maintenance entitlement. The court asserts that the right to fair and reasonable provision and maintenance is determined at the time of divorce and remains unaffected by any subsequent remarriage. The court deems the lump sum payment of ₹9,00,000 as fair and reasonable, crystallizing the husband's obligation on the date of the impugned order.


 Supreme Court Nullifies Gujarat's Premature Release in Bilkis Bano Gangrape Case

Landmark Decision Undoes Controversial Release Order and Reaffirms Legal Jurisdiction

In a recent and pivotal ruling on the Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India and ors case, the Supreme Court has overturned the Gujarat government's contentious decision to grant premature release to the convicts involved in the notorious Bilkis Bano gangrape case during the 2002 Gujarat riots.

Invalidation of Gujarat's Release Order

Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, presiding over the case, declared the Gujarat government's remission order as devoid of authority, asserting that the proper government empowered to issue such orders was the government of the state where the trial transpired—in this instance, Maharashtra, not Gujarat. The court underscored the insignificance of the crime location, emphasizing the pivotal role of the trial and sentencing venue in remission decisions.

Court Criticism of Deceptive Conduct

The Supreme Court strongly rebuked one convict, Radhyesham, for manipulating facts and deceiving the court, leading to a favorable order in May 2022 that resulted in the premature release of all eleven convicts. The court deemed the May 2022 judgment, obtained through fraudulent means, as legally invalid.

Condemnation of Government Inaction

The court also censured the Gujarat government for neglecting to file a review plea against the May 2022 judgment and accused it of colluding with the convicts to sidestep the jurisdiction of the Maharashtra government in granting remission. The judgment stressed that only the state of Maharashtra possessed the authority to issue remission orders, characterizing Gujarat's actions as an unwarranted encroachment of power.

Rule of Law Prevails

Emphasizing the primacy of the rule of law over individual liberty, the court directed all eleven convicts to report back to jail authorities within two weeks, highlighting the indispensability of adherence to legal procedures for the dispensation of justice.

Background of the Case

The case revolves around the premature release of 11 convicts involved in the gangrape of Bilkis Bano and the murder of her family during the 2002 Gujarat riots. The Gujarat government's remission, granted following the May 2022 judgment, has now been declared as fraudulently obtained and legally null and void by the Supreme Court.


 Jammu & Kashmir High Court Sets Precedent on Press Reporting: Truth Alone Not a Blanket Defense

Landmark Case of Pritam Chand alias Pritam Singh v. Dr. Kamal Saini

In a significant legal development, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has delivered a noteworthy ruling in the case of Pritam Chand alias Pritam Singh v. Dr. Kamal Saini, emphasizing the media's responsibility in reporting. Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul stressed that truth alone cannot serve as a defense when publishing defamatory material against a private citizen without public interest, urging the press to exercise caution and verify content before dissemination.

Cautionary Emphasis on Press Responsibility

The court underscored that, while the press holds the right to expose corruption and irregularities, such reporting should be underpinned by indisputable evidence. It articulated that the publication of defamatory stories should only occur after thorough inquiry, verification from credible sources, and the inclusion of the perspective of the person or authority being scrutinized.

Background of the Legal Precedent

These observations came in the context of the court dismissing a petition filed by a newspaper owner and editor, seeking the quashing of defamation proceedings initiated by a retired police officer, Dr. Kamal Saini. The complaint alleged the publication of false, scandalous, and defamatory news items. Pritam Singh argued that the published news items were based on information obtained under the J&K Right to Information (RTI) Act and represented the truth. However, Justice Koul concluded that the headlines of the articles contradicted the content received, indicating an overarching intention to defame the complainant.

Judicial Findings and Dismissal of the Petition

The court highlighted that the material was not solely based on received information but also incorporated the editor's interpretation and opinion. Such elements, the court determined, cannot be shielded as free speech under Article 19 of the Constitution. As a result, the revision petition seeking to quash the defamation proceedings was dismissed by the court, reinforcing the principle that truth must align with responsible journalism practices to be a valid defense in such cases.

 

Delhi High Court Affirms Special Courts' Jurisdiction Over Former MPs and MLAs

Key Ruling in Manjinder Singh Sirsa v State of NCT of Delhi and Anr

In a significant legal development, the Delhi High Court, in the case of Manjinder Singh Sirsa v State of NCT of Delhi and Anr, issued a ruling on Monday reinforcing the jurisdiction of special courts established under the Supreme Court's directives to adjudicate criminal cases involving Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly (MPs and MLAs). The judgment clarified that these special courts possess the authority to try offences against former MPs and MLAs as well.

Reference to Supreme Court's Directives

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma cited the Supreme Court's order dated August 31, 2020, which explicitly stated that the pendency of a case before the apex court should not hinder the swift resolution of cases against elected representatives, whether current or former.

Collective Reading of Supreme Court Orders

The High Court concluded that a comprehensive reading of the Supreme Court's directives revealed a clear intent - the special courts were constituted to handle cases against legislators, regardless of their current status. Emphasizing the expeditious trial of pending cases against legislators, the judgment clarified that the special courts were not limited to trying offences where the accused was a sitting MP/MLA at the time of the alleged offence.

Context of the Case and Rejection of Plea

The ruling stemmed from a plea by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Manjinder Singh Sirsa, seeking to quash a magistrate's order that rejected his application for the transfer or return of a complaint against him due to a lack of jurisdiction. Sirsa, who ceased to be an MLA after the dissolution of the Delhi Legislative Assembly in February 2020, argued that the allegations against him pertained to the period post-February 16, 2020. However, the High Court dismissed Sirsa's contentions, affirming that as a former MLA, he falls within the jurisdiction of the special court. The court upheld the magistrate's order, asserting that expeditious trial would not cause prejudice to Sirsa.

 

Delhi High Court Upholds Suicide Blame as Grounds for Divorce

Landmark Ruling Affirms Extreme Cruelty in False Suicide Accusations

In a noteworthy decision, the Delhi High Court has recently affirmed that a wife attempting suicide and subsequently blaming her husband and in-laws constitutes extreme cruelty, providing legal grounds for divorce. The Division Bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna emphasized that such actions pose a constant threat of false accusations against the husband and his family.

Rejection of Appeal and Emphasis on Conduct

The court, in rejecting the appeal of a woman challenging the family court's decision to grant her husband a divorce based on cruelty, underscored that the conduct of attempting suicide and shifting blame was severe cruelty. The couple, married in 2007, faced marital discord, and the husband alleged that the wife left the matrimonial home after only four months.

Critical Examination of Suicide Attempt and False Accusations

The wife had filed a police complaint accusing the husband's parents of demanding an exorbitant dowry. Furthermore, she attempted suicide in December 2009, alleging coercion in writing the suicide note. However, during cross-examination, she admitted her husband was not present at home during the suicide attempt.

Persistent Legal Troubles and Judicial Conclusions

The court noted the wife's persistent filing of complaints and appeals, leading to continuous legal troubles for the husband and his family. Concluding that these actions, coupled with unsubstantiated dowry and cruelty allegations, amounted to cruelty on the wife's part, the court upheld the family court's decision.

Justification for Divorce Under Hindu Marriage Act

Considering the limited time the couple spent together during their two years of marriage and the various acts of cruelty, the court affirmed that the husband was subjected to cruelty, justifying divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. This landmark ruling sets a precedent in recognizing false suicide accusations as a form of extreme cruelty in matrimonial disputes.


 Karnataka High Court Strikes Down Exclusive Reservation for Women in Military Nursing Services

Landmark Verdict Deems 100 Percent Reservation Unconstitutional

In a landmark ruling, the Karnataka High Court has declared a provision of the Indian Military Nursing Services Ordinance, 1943, mandating 100 percent reservation for women, as unconstitutional. Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde emphasized that exclusive reservation without justifiable grounds contradicts the principles of inclusion and accommodation, running counter to constitutional values.

Challenge and Legal Argument

The court addressed a challenge by two men against a 2010 notification excluding male candidates from the recruitment of nursing officers in the Indian Army. The petitioners argued that Article 15(3), empowering special provisions for women and children, should not apply to public employment matters, advocating for the application of Articles 14 and 16 instead.

Precedence of Article 16(2) and Limitation on Reservation

Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Indra Sawhney & Ors v Union of India, the court agreed that Article 16(2) takes precedence in public employment matters over Article 15(3). Additionally, it noted that reservation in public employment cannot exceed 50 percent, as established in the same case.

Government's Argument and Judicial Emphasis

The Union of India argued that exclusive reservation for women aimed to address temporary vacancies during war, where male nursing officers would be deployed differently. However, the court emphasized the necessity for a law ensuring equal opportunities for both men and women without violating constitutional guarantees.

Unconstitutional Declaration and Remedial Direction

The court declared the exclusive reservation for women unconstitutional, directing the Union government to consider the petitioners for nursing posts. The ruling clarified that previous appointments under the ordinance remain unaffected by the decision, marking a significant development in the interpretation of reservation principles in public employment.


 Delhi High Court: Article 19(1)(e) Right Inapplicable to Foreign Nationals

Landmark Judgment in Kinadhan Chakma v Union of India and Ors

In a significant legal pronouncement, the Delhi High Court, with Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain presiding, has clarified that foreign nationals do not possess the right to reside or settle in India under Article 19(1)(e) of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the fundamental rights of foreigners or suspected foreigners are confined to the right to life and liberty, as outlined in Article 21 of the Constitution.

Reference to Precedent and Government Discretion

Citing the 1955 Supreme Court judgment in Hans Muller of Nurenburg v Superintendent, Presidency Jail, Calcutta, the bench underscored that the Indian government holds absolute and unlimited power to expel foreigners, with no constitutional provision limiting such discretion.

Habeas Corpus Plea and Legal Status of Detention

The court rejected the habeas corpus plea filed by the family of Azal Chakma, a suspected Bangladesh national apprehended at the Indira Gandhi International Airport in October 2022. Chakma, accused of fraudulently obtaining Indian documents after traveling on a Bangladeshi passport, had his movements restricted under relevant sections of the Foreigners Act of 1946. The court concluded that Chakma's detention was legal, and he would be deported upon confirmation of travel arrangements by the Bangladesh Embassy.

This ruling establishes a precedent reiterating the limited constitutional rights afforded to foreign nationals, emphasizing the discretion of the Indian government in matters of expulsion and immigration control

 

Supreme Court Emphasizes Inclusive Interpretation of Article 30, Examines AMU's Minority Status

Constitution Bench Affirms Diversity in Student Admissions; Deliberates on AMU's Legal Status

In a recent development, the Supreme Court reiterated that the right of minorities to establish and manage educational institutions, as enshrined in Article 30 of the Constitution, does not aim to segregate religious communities. The Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, clarified that institutions with minority status are permitted to admit students from diverse religious backgrounds. This clarification surfaced during the ongoing hearing on Aligarh Muslim University's (AMU) minority status.

Legal Complexities and Background of the Case

The case delves into the complexities of granting minority status under Article 30, particularly examining the eligibility of a centrally-funded university established by parliamentary statute for such designation. Initially referred to a seven-judge panel in February 2019, the matter stems from challenges to AMU's status, previously recognized as a Central University and later reinstated as a minority institution through a 1981 amendment.

Arguments and Clarifications in the Court

Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal, representing the AMU Old Boys' Association, argued in favor of AMU's minority status, emphasizing the right to administer as entrusted to the founders, not exclusively the minority. Chief Justice Chandrachud clarified that Article 30 doesn't mandate minority-only administration, allowing for a board with a Hindu majority.

Scope of the Case and Historical Context

The case involves revisiting the 1968 Azeez Basha case, the subsequent 1981 Amendment Act, and the Allahabad High Court's 2006 decision. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta highlighted that the 1981 Amendment Act didn't restore AMU's minority status but conferred it for the first time. The bench suggested a potential reevaluation of the Azeez Basha judgment's impact on subsequent legal developments and contemplated giving a ruling on AMU's minority status independently of past decisions.

Arguments and Significance of AMU's Role

Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid argued for the petitioner, emphasizing the fundamental rights granted and urging a liberal interpretation of the term "administration." Other advocates highlighted AMU's role in nurturing an educated Muslim middle class and its significance for minority communities.

Continuation of Hearings and Query Raised by Justice Sharma

The case will resume on January 23, following the initiation of final hearings on January 9. During the previous hearing, Justice Sharma raised a query about other centrally-funded universities with minority status. The Court emphasized that educational institutions regulated by statutes are not barred from enjoying minority status. In earlier hearings, Sibal underscored the importance of empowering Muslims through education, drawing comparisons to the educational challenges faced by Scheduled Castes in India.

 

Supreme Court Imposes ₹25 Lakh Costs on Litigant for Abusing Criminal Proceedings in Civil Dispute [Dinesh Gupta vs State of Uttar Pradesh and ors]

Landmark Decision to Curb Malicious Litigation and Forum Shopping

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court, with Justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal presiding, has imposed a substantial cost of ₹25 lakh on a litigant who initiated criminal proceedings in a dispute primarily of a civil nature. The court, expressing strong disapproval, emphasized that unscrupulous litigants exploiting the legal system should face consequences.

Stricter Measures Against Malicious Litigation

The bench highlighted the imperative need to impose strict terms on litigants engaging in malicious litigation marked by concealment, falsehoods, and forum hunting. The court underlined that even actions by the state or government servants participating in such wrongful litigation should face severe reprimand.

Background of the Case and Critique of Jurisdiction Misuse

The case involved the quashing of criminal proceedings related to a cheating and forgery case stemming from a dispute over a share-pledge agreement and loan disbursement. The Allahabad High Court had declined to quash the FIR and summons, leading the appellants to approach the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court criticized the initiation of criminal proceedings in a jurisdiction where the parties were not based, highlighting the misuse of jurisdiction and an apparent quest for personal vengeance rather than seeking true justice. The court emphasized that transforming civil matters into criminal cases unnecessarily burdens the criminal justice system and violates principles of fairness and proper legal conduct.

Recognition of Malicious Prosecution and Imposition of Costs

Noting ongoing arbitration, execution, and enforcement proceedings before the Delhi High Court, the Supreme Court deemed the criminal case a clear instance of malicious prosecution. The court observed that continuing the FIR would constitute an absolute abuse of the court's process.

The imposition of costs was deemed necessary to address the misuse of judicial remedies and preserve public faith in the judiciary. The court directed the litigant to pay the costs equally to the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA).

In conclusion, the court allowed the appeals and quashed the criminal case, sending a clear message against the abuse of legal proceedings for malicious purposes and forum shopping.

 

Allahabad High Court Upholds Unmarried Daughter's Right to Maintenance under Domestic Violence Act

Landmark Ruling Affirms Equality Regardless of Religion or Marital Status

In a recent landmark judgment, the Allahabad High Court has affirmed that an unmarried daughter, regardless of her religion or age, possesses the right to seek maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) [Naimullah Sheikh and another v. State Of UP & Ors].

Judicial Emphasis on Equality and Protection

Justice Jyotsna Sharma, while scrutinizing the provisions of the DV Act, emphasized that any woman subjected to violence in a domestic relationship is entitled to relief under the enactment, irrespective of her age or marital status. Citing Supreme Court judgments, Justice Sharma unequivocally stated that "an unmarried daughter, whether Hindu or Muslim, has a right to obtain maintenance, irrespective of her age."

Case Background and Allegations

The case involved a petition challenging a judicial magistrate's order directing a Muslim man to pay interim maintenance of ₹3,000 each to his three daughters. The daughters alleged mistreatment and physical assault by their father and step-mother following their mother's death in 2015.

Father's Contestation and Court's Examination

The father contested the order, citing old age, infirmity, and lack of income. He argued that his adult daughters were ineligible for maintenance. Justice Sharma, delving into the DV Act's preamble, emphasized its objective to provide "more effective protection to women." The court highlighted that while substantive rights may exist under other laws, the DV Act offers a swifter procedure for obtaining relief.

Interpretation of DV Act and Section 20(1)

Addressing Section 20(1) of the Act, which deals with expenses or losses due to domestic violence, the court affirmed that an aggrieved person, irrespective of factors like dependency, age, or marital status, possesses an independent right to seek monetary relief for incurred expenses and losses. The judgment clarified that while courts should consider other applicable laws in maintenance matters, the DV Act provides independent rights under Section 20.

Conclusion and Dismissal of Petition

Concluding that an unmarried daughter has the right to seek maintenance under the DV Act, the court dismissed the petition, finding no valid grounds to interfere with the magistrate's order. This ruling is significant as it upholds equality and protection for unmarried daughters, setting a precedent for their rights under the DV Act.

 

Jharkhand High Court Affirms Son's Duty to Support Aged Father, Upholding Maintenance Order

Court Stresses Sacred Obligation, Citing Hindu Scriptures and Moral Duty

In a recent pronouncement, the Jharkhand High Court emphasized the sacred duty of a son to support his elderly father, endorsing a family court's decision directing a man to pay maintenance to his aged father [Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Sao V/S The State of Jharkhand and Others].

Judicial Emphasis on Parental Care and Moral Duty

Justice Subhash Chand, while dismissing the plea challenging the family court's order, reiterated the profound importance of parental care, citing Hindu scriptures and the Mahabharat. The Court quoted, "If your Parents are confident, you feel confident, if they are sad, you will feel sad. Father is your God and Mother is your Nature."

Quoting Mahabharat and Emphasizing Duty

Referring to the Mahabharat, the Court highlighted Yudhishthira's response, "the mother is weightier than the earth; the father is higher than the heaven." The judgment emphasized that even if the father has some income, it does not absolve the son of his duty to maintain his parent.

Background of the Case and Family Court Order

The case involved a criminal revision plea where a father sought ₹10,000 monthly maintenance from his younger son, who had been ordered by the family court to pay ₹3,000. The father argued that his elder son supported him, while the younger son neglected him and subjected him to insult and assault.

High Court's Upholding of Family Court's Decision

The High Court upheld the family court's order, noting that the father, despite having some agricultural land, was unable to cultivate it and depended on his elder son. The judgment affirmed the son's sacred duty to support his aged father, even if the latter had some income.


 Punjab and Haryana High Court Asserts Acquitted Individuals' Right to Armed Forces Appointments

Landmark Ruling Recognizes Right of Acquitted Individuals for Armed Forces Roles

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that individuals acquitted of offences of moral turpitude, based on the benefit of doubt, can be considered for appointments in the armed forces [Deepak Kumar v. Union of India and others].

Judicial Emphasis on Discretion and Reevaluation

Justice Jagmohan Bansal emphasized that there is no absolute prohibition on appointing individuals acquitted on the grounds of the benefit of doubt to the armed forces. The judgment was prompted by a case directing the Central government to reconsider the appointment of a man, acquitted under the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) in 2019, as a Constable of the Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP).

Examination of Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Instructions

Examining the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) instructions from 2012, the Court noted that the term 'generally' implies that there is no absolute bar on appointment when acquittal is based on the benefit of doubt. The competent authority, in such cases, has the discretion to evaluate the candidate's suitability.

Case Background and Court's Findings

The petitioner, Deepak Kumar, sought appointment on compassionate grounds after his father's demise, who was a Constable in the ITBP. Kumar faced a rape case in 2018 but was acquitted a year later. Despite disclosing the case during the appointment process in 2022, his appointment letter was canceled based on the acquittal.

Challenging the cancellation, Kumar argued that the prosecutrix and her mother testified that he did not commit the alleged offence. The Court noted that the MHA instructions do not impose an absolute bar on appointing those acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt.

Court's Directive and Considerations for Appointment

Highlighting the stringent yardstick for law enforcement appointments, the Court found that Kumar's antecedents were not thoroughly examined, and the cancellation was solely based on his acquittal. The Court emphasized the need to consider the nature of the offence, the age of the petitioner, and the truthful disclosure.

The judgment quashed the cancellation order, directing the authorities to reconsider Kumar's appointment within four weeks, stating that denial based on mere acquittal would be an indirect punishment for an offence in which he was acquitted. This ruling sets a precedent for the fair evaluation of acquitted individuals for armed forces appointments based on the nature of the acquittal and other relevant considerations.

 


Weekly Legal Updates

January 1, 2024- January 7, 2024

1. Landmark Bombay High Court Decision on Indecent Acts: Evaluating Harassment and Respectfulness.

2. Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Special Advocates for Armed Forces Tribunals

3. Kerala High Court Affirms: Forced Sexual Acts Grounds for Divorce, Constituting Mental and Physical Cruelty [X v. Y]

4. Karnataka High Court Advocates Against Unqualified Medical Practices in Rural Areas [Dr Annaiah N v State of Karnataka & Ors]

5. Justice BR Gavai Assumes the Chairmanship of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee

6. Supreme Court Issues Guidelines on Summoning Government Officials: Emphasis on Dignity and Due Process

7. Delhi High Court Safeguards Right Against Self-Incrimination in Password Revelation Case

8. Supreme Court Takes Cognizance of Alleged Caste-Based Discrimination in Prison Manuals

9. Allahabad High Court Introduces Automated System for Civil Judge Postings

10. Supreme Court Broadens Scope of Police Custody for Admissibility of Statements as Evidence

11. Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Elevation of Registrar General to Calcutta High Court

12. Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Arvind Kumar Verma as Chhattisgarh High Court Judge

13. Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Advocates for Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgeships

14. Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Appointments for Gauhati High Court Judgeship

15. Supreme Court Rejects PIL for Removal of Mathura's Shahi Idgah Mosque

16. Punjab and Haryana High Court Affirms Family Court's Procedural Discretion

17. Senior Advocate A Sudarshan Reddy Appointed as Advocate General of Telangana

18. Delhi High Court Affirms Legal Consequences in Bigamy Cases Despite Adultery Decriminalization

19. Chief Justice Nominates Five Advocates to Supreme Court Legal Services Committee

20. Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Permanent Judgeship for Shri Justice Rahul Bharti in the J&K High Court

21. Supreme Court Collegium Proposes Permanent Judgeship for Shri Justice Abhay Ahuja

22. Nomination of Ms Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi for Permanent Judgeship in Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court


 Landmark Bombay High Court Decision on Indecent Acts: Evaluating Harassment and Respectfulness

Examining Boundaries of Modesty: A Noteworthy Verdict from the Nagpur Bench

The recent adjudication by Justice Anil Pansare of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court in the matter of Mohammed Ejaj Shaikh Ismail vs State of Maharashtra has sparked discussions on the interpretation of outraging a woman's modesty. In a significant ruling, Justice Pansare stressed the importance of distinguishing between offensive behaviors, such as verbal abuse and following, and acts that genuinely shock a woman's sense of decency.

Defining the Limits: Assessing Physical Actions in Relation to Decency

The court specifically highlighted incidents like pushing or shoving, even when considered alongside prior instances of verbal abuse and stalking, may not necessarily cross the threshold of compromising a woman's decency. Justice Pansare underscored the crucial factor of the absence of explicit allegations regarding inappropriate physical contact or touching by the accused.

Legal Scrutiny: Lack of Substantial Evidence Leads to Acquittal

The appellant had faced conviction under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) primarily based on the complainant's testimony. However, the High Court emphasized the inadequacy of relying solely on the victim's statement without substantial evidence to conclusively establish the offense. Consequently, both the Magistrate and Sessions Courts' judgments were overturned, highlighting the imperative need for concrete evidence meeting legal standards in proving such offenses beyond reasonable doubt.


 Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Special Advocates for Armed Forces Tribunals

Legal Challenge Denied: PIL for Special Advocate Appointments Rejected by Supreme Court

In a recent legal development, the Supreme Court rejected a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Ishan Gill against the Union of India, urging the appointment of "experienced" advocates and the swift filling of vacancies in Armed Forces Tribunals nationwide.

Transparent Appointments: Chief Justice Chandrachud Clarifies Process

Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, leading the bench, emphasized the existing open appointment process for all lawyers and clarified that Supreme Court judges oversee the presiding committees responsible for these appointments. CJI Chandrachud stated, "Any lawyer can apply whenever advertising is there... Presiding Committees are headed by Supreme Court judges."

Caseload Concerns Unaddressed: Bench Disinclined to Intervene

Despite the petitioner's concerns regarding only four operational benches out of seventeen in 2021, handling a substantial caseload of 19,000 cases, the bench showed reluctance to intervene. They deemed it inappropriate to demand the exclusive appointment of "experienced" advocates, with CJI Chandrachud stating, "Your petition is wrong. We cannot just say appoint experienced advocates. We have explained ourselves. Dismissed."

Outcome: Petition Dismissed

Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, reinforcing the current transparent appointment process and declining to mandate the exclusive appointment of experienced advocates for the Armed Forces Tribunals.

 

Kerala High Court Affirms: Forced Sexual Acts Grounds for Divorce, Constituting Mental and Physical Cruelty [X v. Y]

Landmark Ruling: Kerala High Court Defines Cruelty in Marital Context

In a significant verdict, the Kerala High Court has established that subjecting a spouse to non-consensual sexual acts amounts to both mental and physical cruelty, providing grounds for divorce in the case of X v. Y. A bench comprising Justices Amit Rawal and CS Sudha delivered this impactful ruling, emphasizing that persistence in objectionable acts, despite a spouse's dissent, constitutes cruelty.

Defining Boundaries: Court Stresses Consent in Marital Intimacy

The court clarified that while perceptions of sexual preferences may differ among spouses, if one party expresses discomfort with certain acts and the other persists, it qualifies as cruelty. The judgment stated, "When a party objects to conduct deviating from normal human behavior or sexual activity, yet is coerced to comply, it's considered both mental and physical cruelty."

Case Background: Allegations of Abuse and Abandonment

This ruling emerged from two matrimonial appeals where a wife contested the family court's rejection of her divorce plea and the subsequent order restoring conjugal rights to her husband. The wife alleged that within a mere 17 days of marriage, her husband subjected her to objectionable sexual acts, including mimicking scenes from explicit movies, and physically abused her for protesting. Furthermore, she claimed abandonment and lack of support after her husband left for overseas employment.

Judicial Scrutiny: Court Criticizes Indecent Line of Questioning

Despite the husband's denial of all allegations and subsequent acquittal in the criminal case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, the court highlighted the wife's detailed account of the abuse during the criminal trial. The court criticized the indecent line of questioning she faced, emphasizing that criminal findings do not bind civil proceedings. Considering the distress caused by the alleged acts, the High Court overturned the family court's decisions, annulling the marriage.


 Karnataka High Court Advocates Against Unqualified Medical Practices in Rural Areas [Dr Annaiah N v State of Karnataka & Ors]

Legal Intervention: Karnataka High Court's Stance on Restraining Unqualified Medical Services in Rural Zones

In a recent case involving Dr. Annaiah N v State of Karnataka & Ors, the Karnataka High Court emphasized the imperative need to curb unqualified individuals providing medical services and exploiting vulnerable populations in rural areas.

Deceptive Practices Unveiled: Paramedical Practitioner Denied Clinic Registration

Justice M Nagaprasanna presided over the case where a paramedical practitioner, holding a Community Medical Service and Essential Drugs (CMS-ED) diploma, sought registration for his clinic. Despite his prolonged portrayal as a practicing "doctor," the Court dismissed his plea, expressing astonishment at the deception.

Judicial Concerns: Ending Misleading Medical Practices in Rural Communities

The Court underscored the urgency to put an end to the practice of unqualified individuals presenting themselves as medical practitioners and taking advantage of rural communities. Justice Nagaprasanna remarked, "It's perplexing how the petitioner claimed to be a practicing doctor for so long. It's time to stop those practicing medicine without proper qualifications and misleading vulnerable rural populations."

Legal Background: Denial of Registration Under Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act

The petition originated from the denial of clinic registration by Karnataka authorities under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007. Despite the petitioner's possession of a CMS-ED paramedical diploma certified by the Central Board of Paramedical Education, Mumbai, the Court deemed this insufficient for registration under the Act.

Legal Evaluation: Paramedical Qualification Falls Short of Criteria

The Court emphasized that the petitioner, being a paramedical practitioner, did not meet the Act's definition of a 'doctor' or a 'private medical practitioner.' Consequently, the Court concluded that he was not entitled to registration, a prerequisite for practicing medicine under the Act.

Judicial Caution: Dismissing Petition Due to Lack of Merit

Expressing concern over the potential practice and prescription of medication by the petitioner without proper qualifications, the Court dismissed the petition for lacking merit. This ruling reinforces the importance of stringent measures against unqualified medical practices, particularly in rural regions.

 

Justice BR Gavai Assumes Chairmanship of Supreme Court Legal Services Committee

Official Appointment: Central Department of Justice Announces Justice BR Gavai as Chairman

In a recent development, Justice BR Gavai has been officially appointed as the Chairman of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, as communicated through a notification issued by the Central Department of Justice on December 29, 2023.

Nomination Process: Central Authority Empowered by Legal Framework

The appointment of Justice Gavai to this prestigious position was carried out by the Central authority, exercising the powers conferred by Section 3A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, in conjunction with Rule 10 of the National Legal Services Authority Rules, 1995. These legal provisions empower the Central authority to nominate individuals to key roles within legal services committees.

Commitment to Legal Aid: Role of Legal Services Authorities

The Legal Services Authorities play a vital role in providing legal aid and support to vulnerable and marginalized sections of society. By overseeing the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, Justice BR Gavai is expected to contribute significantly to ensuring access to justice and legal assistance for those in need. This appointment underscores the commitment to the fundamental principle that justice should be accessible to all, irrespective of socio-economic considerations.


 Supreme Court Issues Guidelines on Summoning Government Officials: Emphasis on Dignity and Due Process

Standard Operating Procedure (SOP): Supreme Court Directs High Courts to Follow Guidelines

In a recent development, the Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra, released a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to guide courts in summoning government officials. This initiative aims to prevent undue humiliation and ensure a fair process for officials summoned during legal proceedings.

Adherence Mandated: High Courts Urged to Follow SOPs

The Supreme Court mandated that all High Courts adhere to these SOPs, emphasizing the importance of avoiding arbitrary summoning of government officials. The guidelines underscore the need for a balanced and respectful approach when dealing with officials during court proceedings.

Balancing Act: Officials' Personal Appearance and Affidavits

Acknowledging the necessity of personal appearances in certain summary proceedings, the Court highlighted that officials need not be summoned if the issues can be adequately addressed through their affidavits. The guidelines outline specific instances where the personal presence of officials might be required, particularly in cases involving factual suppression.

Caution Against Unwarranted Remarks: Attire and Differing Viewpoints

The top court cautioned against making unwarranted remarks on the attire of government officials unless it violates the court's dress code. It emphasized that summoning officials solely based on differences in their viewpoint from that of the court is not justified.

Dignity in Proceedings: Standing and Humiliation

The Supreme Court stressed that government officers should not be made to stand throughout proceedings unless absolutely necessary. Additionally, it warned against remarks aimed at humiliating these officers during court proceedings.

Procedural Considerations: Advance Notice and Video Conferencing

The Court outlined that advance notice must precede summoning officials to allow for adequate preparation. It emphasized a preference for officials' appearances through video conferences to streamline proceedings.

Context of the Guidelines: Resolving a Plea from Uttar Pradesh Government

These guidelines were articulated in the context of resolving a plea from the Uttar Pradesh government against orders from the Allahabad High Court to summon senior government officers. The Supreme Court overturned these orders, emphasizing that frequent summoning of officials contradicts the constitutional scheme.

Constitutional Separation of Powers: Courts Cannot Usurp Executive Functions

The Supreme Court firmly stated that High Courts cannot, in matters concerning retiral benefits of judges, usurp the executive's functions through contempt proceedings or direct the State Government to enact specific rules. This directive aligns with the constitutional separation of powers.

Dissemination of Guidelines: Supreme Court Instructs Registry

Concluding the issuance of guidelines on summoning government officials, the Supreme Court instructed its registry to disseminate the order among Registrars General of all High Courts, ensuring awareness and uniformity in implementation.

 


 Delhi High Court Safeguards Right Against Self-Incrimination in Password Revelation Case

Landmark Decision: Delhi High Court Upholds Constitutional Right in Sanket Bhadresh Modi v. CBI & Anr

In a significant legal precedent, the Delhi High Court, in the case of Sanket Bhadresh Modi v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr, has firmly affirmed an accused person's right against self-incrimination as enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Justice Saurabh Banerjee pronounced this ruling while granting bail to the accused involved in a case related to fraudulent phone calls targeting US citizens.

Background: Accused Denied Bail Over Alleged Scam Involvement and Non-Disclosure of Passwords

The accused, a director of E-Sampark Softech embroiled in a $20 million scam, faced denial of bail by the CBI. The prosecution contended his pivotal role in the scam and his failure to disclose passwords to electronic devices and online accounts.

Judicial Pronouncement: Protection of Constitutional Right

Justice Banerjee emphasized that electronic evidence crucial to the case had already been seized and safeguarded against tampering. While recognizing the accused's obligation to cooperate with the investigation, the Court underscored that the constitutional right against self-incrimination prohibited any coercion to disclose passwords or similar details during an ongoing trial.

Factors Favoring Bail: Limited Influence Over Overseas Witnesses and Presumption of Innocence

Taking into account the accused's limited influence over witnesses residing abroad, the Court identified minimal flight risk and the absence of potential misuse of liberty during interim bail as crucial factors in favor of the accused. Additionally, the Court emphasized that until proven guilty, the accused remains a suspect, maintaining the presumption of innocence until a final verdict—a principle aligned with Article 21 of the Constitution.

Release Order: Preserving Constitutional Rights and Avoiding Prejudgment

In light of these considerations, the Court ordered the release of the accused, emphasizing the paramount importance of preserving constitutional rights and refraining from prejudging the guilt of an individual until a conclusive determination is made through the legal process. This landmark decision reinforces the protection of fundamental rights within the framework of India's constitutional principles.

 

Supreme Court Takes Cognizance of Alleged Caste-Based Discrimination in Prison Manuals

Legal Action Initiated: Supreme Court Responds to Sukanya Shantha vs Union of India Plea

The Supreme Court has commenced proceedings in response to a plea filed by Sukanya Shantha against the Union of India, alleging caste-based discrimination within prison manuals across eleven states and the Union government. A bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, acknowledged the gravity of the issue and sought Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's assistance in examining the matter.

Issue Recognition: Compilation of State Manuals for In-Depth Review

Recognizing the importance of the concerns raised, the Court directed the compilation of State prison manuals into a tabulated chart for thorough review. Solicitor General Mehta, characterizing the situation as 'unacceptable,' emphasized the imperative need for collective action to address this issue effectively.

Plea Highlights Discrimination: Impact on Denotified Tribes and Habitual Offenders

The plea, presented by journalist Sukanya Shantha, shed light on caste-based discrimination prevailing in prison barracks and labor assignments, disproportionately affecting denotified tribes and habitual offenders. The petition urged the eradication of discriminatory provisions entrenched in State prison manuals.

Concerns Raised in Court: Segregation and Discrimination from Entry to Incarceration

Senior Advocate S Muralidhar, representing the petitioner, voiced concerns about reported incidents where Dalits were segregated into separate prisons, while individuals from other castes were held in different areas. He underscored the persistent nature of caste-based discrimination, starting from the moment an individual enters the prison system.

Judicial Action: Notices Issued to Union Government and Eleven States

Having heard the preliminary arguments, the Court issued notices to the Union government and eleven states—Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Punjab, Odisha, Jharkhand, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Maharashtra. This move prompts a closer examination of the alleged caste-based biases within their respective prison manuals. The Supreme Court's intervention reflects a commitment to addressing social inequalities and ensuring fair treatment within the criminal justice system.

 


 Allahabad High Court Introduces Automated System for Civil Judge Postings

Innovative Allocation: Allahabad High Court Implements 'Automatic District Allocation System'

In a pioneering move, the Allahabad High Court has adopted an automated software program, the 'Automatic District Allocation System,' for the allocation of 225 recently recruited civil judges (junior division) to various districts in Uttar Pradesh. This groundbreaking approach signifies a departure from traditional methods, as the allocation list was entirely generated through the software without any human intervention.

Transparent and Impartial: In-House Developed Software Ensures Fair Allocation

The Registrar of the High Court issued a press release emphasizing that the in-house developed software was employed to achieve a transparent and impartial allocation process. This technological advancement aims to eliminate human interference in the assignment of posting stations, ensuring a fair and unbiased distribution of civil judges across districts.

One-Click Generation: Successful Implementation Acknowledged

The press release highlighted the successful one-click generation of the allocation list, a significant milestone in the implementation of the 'Automatic District Allocation System.' This process took place in the presence of Acting Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Anjani Kumar Mishra, the senior judge and chair of the High Court's computerization committee.

Upcoming Notification: Detailed Information on Postings Soon

The press release conveyed that a comprehensive notification containing detailed information about the postings, including the assigned districts for the newly appointed civil judges, will be published shortly. This step is expected to provide clarity and transparency in the deployment of judges to different regions within Uttar Pradesh. The utilization of an automated system represents a progressive step towards enhancing efficiency and fairness in the allocation of judicial positions.

 

Supreme Court Broadens Scope of Police Custody for Admissibility of Statements as Evidence

Landmark Decision: Perumal Raja vs State Rep by Inspector of Police Shapes Interpretation

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court, in the case of Perumal Raja vs State Rep by Inspector of Police, has expanded the scope of police custody for the admissibility of statements as evidence during trials. The division bench, consisting of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti, emphasized a pragmatic interpretation of "custody" under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Pragmatic Approach: Custody Beyond Formal Arrest

The Court highlighted that 'custody' in this context is not confined to formal arrest but includes any form of restriction, surveillance, or control exercised by the police. It explicitly disagreed with a previous decision that required formal police custody for the admissibility of facts obtained from an accused's confessions.

Precedent Reference: Word-of-Mouth Information Considered Submission to Custody

Referring to precedents, including the Constitution Bench decision in State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya, the bench asserted that word-of-mouth information provided to the police can be regarded as submission to their custody, supporting its admissibility under Section 27.

Case Background: Practical Custody in Information Disclosure

This ruling emanated from a case where Perumal Raja, initially arrested in connection with one case, later disclosed information to the police regarding another murder. Although not formally arrested for this specific offense, the information led to the discovery of the victim's remains.

Admissibility of Disclosures: Practical Custody During Statement

The Supreme Court held that disclosures made by the appellant were admissible evidence, considering him practically under police custody when making the statement. The Court emphasized the necessity of a broad interpretation of 'custody' to prevent police delay tactics in filing FIRs and arrests, ensuring the effectiveness of Sections 25 to 27 of the Evidence Act.

Judicial Stand: Dismissal of Appeal Reinforces Inclusive Interpretation

By dismissing the appeal against the conviction and sentence of Perumal Raja, the Supreme Court reinforced the inclusive interpretation of 'custody' for the admissibility of statements made by accused individuals in police interactions. This landmark decision is poised to have far-reaching implications in shaping the admissibility of evidence derived from statements during police interactions, providing clarity on the expansive scope of 'custody' under the law.

 

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Elevation of Registrar General to Calcutta High Court

Judicial Advancement: Registrar General Chaitali Chatterjee Proposed as Judge

In a significant move, the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the elevation of Registrar General Chaitali Chatterjee as a judge in the Calcutta High Court. Initially nominated for elevation by the High Court Collegium on September 26, 2023, Chatterjee's candidacy underwent thorough scrutiny.

Positive Assessment: Unanimous Support from Consultee Judges

The Collegium's resolution, dated January 4, emphasized the unanimous and positive opinions from three consultee Judges, affirming Chatterjee's suitability for the elevated position. The resolution, taking into account the government's input, underscored her commendable professional competence.

Extensive Legal Experience: Over 16 Years in Key Judicial Roles

With a legal career spanning over 16 years post-enrollment at the Bar in 1993, Chatterjee has held pivotal roles as a judicial officer in sensitive postings within the State. Currently serving as the Registrar General at the Calcutta High Court, her authored judgments received praise, earning a high rating of 70 marks from the Judgment Evaluation Committee.

Collegium Acknowledges Omission: Valid Reasons for Another Officer

While endorsing Chatterjee's elevation, the Collegium also acknowledged the omission of another judicial officer detailed in the same proposal. The resolution highlighted that valid reasons were cited by the High Court Collegium for not recommending the officer in question, aligning with their decision.

Addressing Vacancy Concerns: Urgency in Filling Judicial Positions

This recommendation comes at a crucial time when the Calcutta High Court is grappling with a significant shortage, facing 21 vacancies against a sanctioned strength of 72 judges. The urgency and importance of filling these positions are underscored by the Collegium's decision to recommend the elevation of Registrar General Chaitali Chatterjee to the Calcutta High Court bench.

 

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Arvind Kumar Verma as Chhattisgarh High Court Judge

Judicial Advancement: Arvind Kumar Verma Proposed for Chhattisgarh High Court Judgeship

In a significant development, the Supreme Court collegium has recommended the appointment of judicial officer Arvind Kumar Verma as a judge for the Chhattisgarh High Court. The recommendation, originating from the Chhattisgarh High Court collegium in August of the previous year, underwent thorough scrutiny by the Supreme Court collegium.

Thorough Review Process: Meticulous Examination of Relevant Documents

Following consultations with judges acquainted with the operations of the Chhattisgarh High Court, the Supreme Court collegium meticulously reviewed all pertinent documents, including the findings of the Judgment Assessment Committee. The resolution underscored the quality of Verma's authored judgments as 'Very Good,' emphasizing the positive assessment provided by the Chief Justice's Judgment Evaluation Committee.

Consensus and Agreement: Chief Minister, Governor, and Consultee-Judge Support

The resolution further affirmed that the Chief Minister and Governor of Chhattisgarh expressed agreement with the recommendation. Taking into account the consultee-Judge's opinion, the Judgment Assessment Committee's report, and the assessment by the Government of India, the Collegium concluded that Arvind Kumar Verma is suitable for elevation to the Chhattisgarh High Court judgeship.

Addressing Vacancy Concerns: Urgency in Filling Judicial Positions

As of January 1, the Chhattisgarh High Court is functioning with 15 judges, significantly lower than its sanctioned strength of 22 judges. This underscores the urgency to fill these vacancies and enhance the judicial strength in the Chhattisgarh High Court. The collegium's recommendation reflects a commitment to addressing the judicial needs of the state and ensuring the effective functioning of the judiciary.

 

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Advocates for Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgeships

Elevation Recommendations: Advocates Proposed for Punjab and Haryana High Court Judgeships

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the elevation of three advocates as judges in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, demonstrating a commitment to strengthening the judicial bench.

Advocate Recommendations: Harmeet Singh Grewal, Deepinder Singh Nalwa, and Rohit Kapoor

The recommended advocates include Harmeet Singh Grewal and Deepinder Singh Nalwa, whose names were reiterated following the Collegium's earlier recommendation on October 17, 2023. Additionally, the newly recommended advocate Rohit Kapoor's name has been proposed for elevation for the first time.

Reiteration of Names: Grewal and Nalwa Reasserted from October 17, 2023, Recommendation

Initially recommended by the High Court Collegium on April 21, 2023, Grewal and Nalwa's names were reiterated by the Supreme Court Collegium on October 17, 2023, alongside three other advocates. However, only three names, including those of Grewal and Nalwa, were approved by the Central government for appointment.

Revised Recommendations: Reassertion of Grewal and Nalwa, Addition of Rohit Kapoor

In light of the earlier recommendations and the subsequent approval process, the Collegium has once again recommended the appointment of Grewal and Nalwa while proposing advocate Rohit Kapoor's elevation. Notably, the Collegium prioritizes Grewal and Nalwa's appointments over Kapoor's due to their earlier recommendations.

Vacancy Concerns: Need to Address Shortfall in Judicial Strength

With the Punjab and Haryana High Court currently operating with 57 judges against a sanctioned strength of 85 judges, the recommendation to elevate these advocates comes at a crucial time. Addressing the shortfall in judicial strength is essential for the effective functioning of the high court and ensuring timely dispensation of justice.

 


 Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Appointments for Gauhati High Court Judgeship

Elevation Endorsement: Gauhati High Court Set to Welcome New Judges

The Supreme Court Collegium has given its nod for the elevation of a judicial officer and an advocate as judges for the Gauhati High Court, marking a significant step in enhancing the judicial strength of the high court.

Recommended Individuals: Shamima Jahan (Advocate) and Yarenjungla Longkumer (Judicial Officer)

The recommended individuals for elevation are Shamima Jahan, an advocate, and Yarenjungla Longkumer, a judicial officer. The Gauhati High Court Collegium initially proposed these names on May 29 of the previous year. The Supreme Court Collegium, after a meticulous evaluation of the recommendations, including consultations with judges familiar with the affairs of the Gauhati High Court and a thorough examination of all available records, has granted clearance for their elevation as High Court judges.

Resolution Highlights: Suitability for Gauhati High Court Judgeship

The Collegium's resolution emphasized that, after considering opinions from consultee colleagues and conducting an overall assessment of the High Court Collegium's recommendation, both Ms. Shamima Jahan, Advocate, and Ms. Yarenjungla Longkumer, Judicial Officer, are deemed suitable for appointment to the Gauhati High Court judgeship.

Vacancy Concerns: Addressing Shortfall in Judicial Strength

As of January 1, the Gauhati High Court is operating with 23 judges against a sanctioned strength of 30 judges, underscoring the necessity to fill the remaining vacancies. The Collegium's recommendation to elevate these individuals reflects a commitment to addressing the shortfall in judicial strength and ensuring the effective functioning of the Gauhati High Court.

 

Supreme Court Rejects PIL for Removal of Mathura's Shahi Idgah Mosque

The Supreme Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Mahek Maheshwari against the Union of India and Others, seeking the removal of Mathura's Shahi Idgah Mosque. The bench, consisting of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, declined to entertain the appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court's order dismissing the PIL, citing the presence of disputed factual matters as the reason for its decision.

Grounds for Dismissal: Disputed Factual Matters

The Court clarified that its dismissal of the PIL does not impede any party from contesting the validity of any legislation. The Allahabad High Court had previously rejected the PIL, which sought the recognition of the Shahi Idgah Mosque site as Krishna Janmabhoomi and called for the mosque's removal from the disputed land.

PIL Background: Historical Records and Legal Arguments

Advocate Mahek Maheshwari filed the PIL in 2020, contending that historical records support the land's identification as Krishna Janmabhoomi. The plea emphasized the antiquity of Mathura traced back to the Ramayana era, contrasting it with Islam's arrival around 1,500 years ago.

Legal Arguments: Mosque Construction, Hindu Jurisprudence, and Temple Sanctity

The petition argued that the Shahi Idgah did not align with Islamic jurisprudence for mosque construction, claiming it was erected through force. Conversely, under Hindu jurisprudence, a temple retains sanctity even in ruins. The petitioner urged the Court to transfer the land to the Hindu community, establish a trust for the Krishna Janmabhoomi Janmasthan's construction, and conduct a court-monitored Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) excavation of the disputed site.

Ongoing Civil Suit: Similar Reliefs Sought

While a similar civil suit is pending in a trial court seeking comparable reliefs, previous requests for scientific surveys of the site were rejected by lower courts and the Supreme Court. Despite declining an oral stay on the Allahabad High Court's order appointing a court commissioner to inspect the mosque premises, the Supreme Court upheld its decision to dismiss the PIL, citing disputed facts.

 

Punjab and Haryana High Court Affirms Family Court's Procedural Discretion

In a recent ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court clarified that family courts are not bound by the technicalities outlined in the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and can admit evidence as deemed necessary, even if it doesn't strictly comply with the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Distinct Approach: Emphasis on Family Courts Act, 1984

Justices Sudhir Singh and Sumeet Goel emphasized that the Family Courts Act, 1984, aimed to adopt a distinct approach, simplifying evidence and procedure to effectively handle matrimonial disputes. They highlighted that family courts have the authority to establish their procedures in line with fundamental legal principles like natural justice and equity.

Freedom from Stringent Norms: Departure from CPC Provisions

The High Court underscored that the stringent procedural norms of the CPC don't apply to family court proceedings. Section 14 of the Family Courts Act was mentioned to ease the constraints of the Indian Evidence Act.

Case Dismissal and Procedural Discretion: Upholding Family Court's Decision

While dismissing a husband's challenge against a family court order rejecting his objections to his estranged wife's affidavit, the Court maintained that family courts possess discretion to accept material they consider essential for resolving matrimonial disputes, even if it doesn't strictly adhere to evidence laws.

Discretionary Authority: Admission of Evidence Without Strict Adherence

Addressing the husband's argument regarding the CPC and Indian Evidence Act violations, the High Court noted that family courts have the authority to consider additional evidence without rigid adherence to these statutes.

Flexible Approach: Order VIII, Rule 1-A CPC Isn't Obligatory

The Court specifically mentioned that Order VIII, Rule 1-A CPC isn't obligatory, especially in Family Court Act proceedings, granting family courts the discretion to admit evidence without a formal application, while emphasizing the need for reasoned orders in exercising this discretion.

Final Decision: Upholding Family Court's Authority

Ultimately, the High Court upheld the family court's decision and dismissed the husband's appeal, affirming the family court's authority to apply its procedural discretion in admitting evidence for the efficient adjudication of matrimonial disputes.

 

Senior Advocate A Sudarshan Reddy Appointed as Advocate General of Telangana

The Governor of Telangana, Tamilisai Soundararajan, has appointed Senior Advocate A Sudarshan Reddy as the Advocate General of the State, recognizing his legal expertise and contribution to the field.

Previous Role: Additional Advocate General (2011-2014)

Reddy brings a wealth of experience to the role, having previously served as the Additional Advocate General of Telangana from 2011 to 2014. His legal career, which began in 1985, has seen him represent clients before District courts and the High Court, specializing in civil and criminal law.

Legal Education and Contribution: Teaching and Lecturing

In addition to his advocacy, Reddy has actively contributed to legal education. He has been involved in teaching courses at Osmania University and served as a part-time lecturer at the Post Graduate College of Law, showcasing a commitment to nurturing the next generation of legal professionals.

Comprehensive Legal Background: Civil and Criminal Law Focus

With a comprehensive background in civil and criminal law, Sudarshan Reddy's appointment as Advocate General positions him to play a key role in legal matters impacting the state of Telangana. His wealth of experience and legal acumen are expected to contribute significantly to the legal landscape of the region.

 

Delhi High Court Affirms Legal Consequences in Bigamy Cases Despite Adultery Decriminalization

The Delhi High Court has emphasized that the absence of a law criminalizing adultery does not grant individuals immunity to secretly enter into second marriages while their first marriage is subsisting. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma highlighted that the lack of a specific law against adultery does not permit marrying someone else in secrecy during an existing marriage and later contend that the first partner must prove the second marriage's invalidity.

Legal Repercussions: Bigamy Cases and Accountability

The Court stressed that the inability of a spouse to prove the performance of essential marriage rituals in the summoning stage of a bigamy case should not be manipulated to escape legal repercussions. It emphasized that exploiting such a loophole to evade legal consequences contradicts principles of fairness and justice.

Challenges in Evidence Gathering: Burden on Spouse

Acknowledging the difficulty in proving secret second marriages, the Court clarified that requiring a wife to prove beyond reasonable doubt, at the summoning stage, the ceremonies of her husband's second marriage would burden her excessively. It highlighted that expecting a woman to gather evidence of her husband's clandestine second marriage during the first marriage would be unreasonable and impractical.

Case Context: Sessions Court Ruling Challenge

The observations were made while addressing a case involving a woman challenging a Sessions Court ruling that set aside a magistrate's court summoning her husband, his alleged second wife, and his parents under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalizes bigamy.

Court Decision: Upholding Summons in Bigamy Case

The petitioner presented income affidavits, a wedding photograph, and the child's birth certificate as evidence of her husband's second marriage. The High Court set aside the Sessions Court's decision, upholding the magistrate's order to summon the accused in the case.

 

Chief Justice Nominates Five Advocates to Supreme Court Legal Services Committee

Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud has appointed five advocates as members of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, following the recommendation made by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) through a gazette notification dated December 23, 2023.

Notable Appointees: Senior Advocates and Advocates Included

The nominated advocates include Senior Advocates Vibha Datta Makhija, Siddhartha Dave, and Aparajita Singh, along with Advocates Mohammad Shoeb Alam and K Parameshwar Krishnaswamy.

Objective and Function: NALSA's Legal Aid Initiatives

The NALSA, established under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, aims to offer free legal aid to marginalized sections of society and organize Lok Adalats for amicable dispute resolution.

Leadership in NALSA: CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice Sanjiv Khanna

CJI DY Chandrachud serves as the Patron-in-Chief, while Justice Sanjiv Khanna functions as the Executive Chairman of NALSA. Additionally, on December 29, 2023, Justice BR Gavai was nominated as the Chairman of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, succeeding the Supreme Court's former senior-most puisne judge, Justice Khanna.

 

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Permanent Judgeship for Shri Justice Rahul Bharti in the J&K High Court

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of Shri Justice Rahul Bharti, currently serving as an Additional Judge, as a permanent Judge of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. This proposal stems from the unanimous endorsement made by the Collegium of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh on August 21, 2023.

Evaluation Committee: Thorough Assessment of Judgments

A dedicated Committee, composed of two Judges of the Supreme Court appointed by the Chief Justice of India, has meticulously evaluated the judgments authored by Shri Justice Rahul Bharti. The Committee's assessment deems the quality of his judgments as “Good” and “fairly reasonable.”

Collegium Decision: Proposal for Permanent Judgeship

Based on the comprehensive evaluation, the Collegium has resolved to propose the appointment of Shri Justice Rahul Bharti, currently serving as an Additional Judge, to assume the role of a permanent Judge in the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. This recommendation aims to fill one of the existing vacancies in the High Court.

 


 Supreme Court Collegium Proposes Permanent Judgeship for Shri Justice Abhay Ahuja

The Supreme Court Collegium has proposed the appointment of Shri Justice Abhay Ahuja, currently serving as an Additional Judge, to be appointed as a permanent Judge of the High Court of Bombay. This nomination is based on the unanimous endorsement received from the Collegium of the High Court of Bombay on September 4, 2023.

Consensus from State Authorities: Agreement from Chief Ministers and Governors

Furthermore, the Chief Ministers and Governors of Maharashtra and Goa have expressed their agreement with the aforementioned recommendation, further solidifying the nomination of Shri Justice Abhay Ahuja for a permanent Judgeship in the High Court of Bombay.

 

Nomination of Ms Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi for Permanent Judgeship in Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of Ms Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi, currently serving as an Additional Judge, to be appointed as a permanent Judge of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. This recommendation aligns with the endorsement made by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh on November 18, 2023, supporting Ms Justice Kazmi's permanent appointment.

Judicial Evaluation Committee: Assessment of Judgments

Moreover, a committee comprising two judges of the Supreme Court, appointed by the Chief Justice of India following the 2017 Resolution of the Supreme Court Collegium, has conducted a thorough evaluation of the judgments delivered by Ms. Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi. The committee has assessed the quality of her judgments as "good" and "reasonably well written."

This nomination is a significant step towards reinforcing the judicial strength of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladak

 


Weekly Legal Updates

December 27, 2023- December 31, 2023

1.    Meghalaya High Court's Stance on Narcotics Offenses and Bail: Balancing Legalities Against the Menace of Drug Trafficking

2.    Equitable Treatment in Polygamous Marriages: Madras High Court's Verdict on Cruelty

3.    Justice Shree Chandrashekhar Appointed as Acting Chief Justice of Jharkhand High Court

4.    Landmark Development: Presidential Approval Secured for Electoral Oversight Reforms

5.    Landmark Judicial Pronouncement: Delhi High Court Affirms SFIO's Investigative Authority

6.    Judicial Stand Against Social Boycott: Calcutta High Court's Decree in Ranajit Mondal vs State of West Bengal

7.    Judicial Intervention in Matrimonial Disputes: J&K High Court's Landmark Verdict in Subhash Chander v. State of J&K

8.    Supreme Court Collegium Nominates Chief Justices for High Courts: Leadership Transitions Envisioned

Meghalaya High Court's Stance on Narcotics Offenses and Bail: Balancing Legalities Against the Menace of Drug Trafficking

The Meghalaya High Court recently rendered a significant ruling in the case of Rupa Gurung v. State of Meghalaya, shedding light on the complexities of granting bail in narcotics offenses under Section 37 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Justice W Diengdoh presided over the case, denying bail while emphasizing the pervasive issue of drug trafficking in the region.

Legal Landscape: Section 37 of the NDPS Act

While Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not expressly prohibit the grant of bail, the Court, in this instance, emphasized that bail should be cautiously considered when there is clear evidence of the accused's involvement and drug seizure.

Menace of Drug Trafficking: A Societal Concern

Justice Diengdoh underscored the growing menace of drug addiction, especially among the youth, and acknowledged law enforcement's efforts in combating drug trafficking. The Court expressed concern that primary orchestrators of drug peddling often manage to evade capture, necessitating a robust legal response.

Legal Interpretation: Seizure as Grounds for Bail Denial

The Court asserted the importance of halting the availability of narcotics, emphasizing that even a hint of the accused's involvement, particularly when coupled with direct seizure, should warrant the continuation of the legal process.

Case Specifics: Seizure of Contraband and Bail Denial

In the case at hand, the accused were apprehended based on a tip-off about illegal contraband being transported. The police discovered the contraband in the accused's undergarments while they were traveling in a cab. The Court, considering this incriminating material, dismissed the bail plea filed by the accused's wife.

Legal Precedent: Distinguishing from Previous Cases

The Bench made a crucial distinction from a previous case where bail was granted due to the absence of recovered contraband from the accused. In the current scenario, where incriminating material was seized, the Court deemed it necessary to withhold bail.

Equitable Treatment in Polygamous Marriages: Madras High Court's Verdict on Cruelty

The Madras High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Mukmuthu Sha v. Mohammed Afrin Banu, emphasizing the requirement for equal treatment among wives in polygamous marriages under Islamic law. A panel of Justices RMT Teeka Raman and PB Balaji upheld a family court's decision that granted dissolution of marriage due to cruelty.

Islamic Law and Polygamy

The Court acknowledged that Islamic law permits a husband to practice polygamy but emphasized the mandate for equal treatment among all wives. Any disparity or unequal treatment is deemed cruel under this interpretation.

Family Court's Decision Upheld

The Bench upheld the family court's decision in Tirunelveli, which granted the dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty. The Court scrutinized the circumstances leading to the dissolution and assessed the husband's conduct toward his first wife.

Allegations of Cruelty

The first wife alleged torture and harassment by the husband and his family, especially before he entered into a second marriage. The Court noted instances of inadequate care during pregnancy, deliberate cruelty, scolding for attire while pregnant, and harassment after a miscarriage.

Unequal Treatment and Marital Obligations

The judgment emphasized the husband's failure to treat his first wife equally and fulfill his marital obligations toward her. The Court highlighted the husband's obligation to support his wife, even when she is with her parents. The failure to do so, coupled with subsequent marriage, was deemed acts of cruelty.

Legal Outcome

After reviewing the evidence, the Court concluded that the husband's unequal treatment and failure to maintain his first wife justified the dissolution of marriage. The judgment upheld the family court's decision, dismissing the husband's appeal.

 

Justice Shree Chandrashekhar Appointed as Acting Chief Justice of Jharkhand High Court

Appointment Details

The Central government has officially announced the appointment of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar as the Acting Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court. This appointment comes into effect from December 29, 2023, succeeding the retirement of Justice Sanjaya Kumar Mishra on December 28.

Professional Background

Judicial Career

 

Landmark Development: Presidential Approval Secured for Electoral Oversight Reforms

In a significant milestone, the President of India has granted approval to the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service, and Term of Office) Bill, 2023. This legislation aims to streamline the appointment process and terms of service for the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other Election Commissioners (ECs), addressing a legal void identified by a Supreme Court ruling.

Legislative Journey: From Rajya Sabha Introduction to Lok Sabha Approval

Introduced in the Rajya Sabha on August 10 by Minister of State for Law & Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal, the bill successfully navigated the legislative process. It secured passage in the Rajya Sabha on December 12 and later garnered approval from the Lok Sabha on December 21.

Reforming the Selection Process: Prime Minister-Led Committee

The legislation establishes a selection committee to oversee the appointment of the CEC and ECs. Chaired by the Prime Minister, this committee will also include a Union Cabinet Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.

Concerns and Caution: Potential Impact on Electoral Independence

Despite the legislative success, concerns have been raised by former Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Nariman. He cautions that the bill, if enacted, might bestow undue influence on the executive branch in appointing the CEC and ECs, potentially compromising the integrity of free and fair elections. Justice Nariman asserts that the proposed appointment process could pose a significant hurdle to achieving genuinely impartial elections.

 

Landmark Judicial Pronouncement: Delhi High Court Affirms SFIO's Investigative Authority

In a significant legal development, Justice Amit Sharma of the Delhi High Court delivered a ruling on the investigative authority of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO). The court affirmed that the SFIO retains the authority to investigate offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and is empowered to conduct 'further investigations' in accordance with legal provisions, referencing the case of RK Gupta and Others v. Union of India Through Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Another.

Challenges to SFIO's Investigation: Bhushan Power and Steel Limited Case

The petitioners in this case sought to invalidate the SFIO's investigation report on the activities of Bhushan Power and Steel Limited, challenging subsequent proceedings and the prosecution sanction granted by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Additionally, they contested the SFIO's complaint and the trial court's summons.

Court's Clarifications: SFIO's Investigative Authority and Compliance with Legal Framework

Addressing the concerns raised, the Delhi High Court clarified that the SFIO is not restricted from probing IPC offenses or conducting 'further investigations' in adherence to the law. The court based its interpretation on a thorough examination of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and related legislative provisions.

Central Government Approval: Section 219(d) of the Companies Act, 2013

Regarding the necessity of prior Central government approval under Section 219(d) of the Companies Act, 2013, the court noted that such authorization was not mandatory for the first petitioner, classified as 'Key Managerial Personnel' under Section 2(51) of the Act.

Summons and Procedural Lapses: Court's Decision

The court declined to annul the summoning order passed by the trial court, emphasizing that procedural lapses do not automatically invalidate the cognizance taken for the second petitioner. The investigations were deemed within the ambit of Section 219 of the Companies Act.

SFIO's Report under Companies Act, 2013: Equivalent to a Police Report

Highlighting the status of the SFIO's report under the Companies Act, 2013, the court determined it to be equivalent to a police report within the Act's framework. The officer submitting the investigation report is considered an officer-in-charge of a police station, despite this not being explicitly stated in the Act.

Interplay Between Laws: SFIO's Authority Affirmed

In conclusion, the Delhi High Court asserted that based on the interplay between the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Companies Act, the SFIO is not prohibited from investigating offenses under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

 

Judicial Stand Against Social Boycott: Calcutta High Court's Decree in Ranajit Mondal vs State of West Bengal

In a landmark case, the Calcutta High Court, led by Justice Jay Sengupta, issued a significant decree in the matter of Ranajit Mondal vs State of West Bengal. The court emphasized the crucial necessity for stringent action against social boycott imposed upon an individual or their family, declaring such practices incompatible with the principles of a civilized society. This pronouncement was made through an order dated December 27.

Background and Unacceptable Practices: Justice Sengupta's Assertion

Addressing a plea related to a man facing social ostracization due to his objection to an illegally constructed temple near his property, Justice Sengupta insisted that the administration must take decisive action against any form of social boycott. He unequivocally stated that such practices are unacceptable in a society governed by civility.

Resolution Through Legal Avenues: Court's Guidance on Property Disputes

The court underscored that parties involved in property disputes should seek resolution through the civil court and refrain from resorting to vigilante justice. Justice Sengupta emphasized the importance of upholding the rule of law.

Petitioner's Grievance and Legal Recourse: Civil Suit and Injunction Order

The petitioner, alleging disturbance to their peaceful possession and enjoyment of property, initiated a civil suit against certain individuals (respondents), resulting in an injunction order from the civil court. The respondents, allegedly breaching the injunction order, persisted in violating it and initiated a social boycott against the petitioner and local residents.

Legal Response and Maintenance of Peace: State Counsel's Information

In response to the situation, the State counsel informed the Court that while a civil dispute was ongoing, authorities had initiated proceedings under Section 107 (Security for keeping the peace) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to maintain peace in the area.

High Court's Directives and Vigilance Measures: Ensuring Compliance

Acknowledging the injunction order against the private respondents, the High Court issued directives for the police to maintain vigilant surveillance in the area. The court mandated frequent police patrols and visits to the region as part of the surveillance measures to prevent any breach of peace and ensure compliance with the civil court's order.

Conclusion: Social Harmony Upheld through Judicial Intervention

In disposing of the plea, the Calcutta High Court took a decisive stand against social boycott, reinforcing the principles of social harmony and the supremacy of legal processes in addressing disputes.

 

Judicial Intervention in Matrimonial Disputes: J&K High Court's Landmark Verdict in Subhash Chander v. State of J&K

In a recent legal development titled Subhash Chander v. State of J&K, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh took a decisive stance on the misuse of criminal proceedings as a means to settle matrimonial disputes. Presided over by Justice Rajnesh Oswal, the court, during the hearing, underscored the inappropriate use of criminal avenues to harass individuals embroiled in marital conflicts. The judgment specifically emphasizes the need to curb the abuse of legal processes in sensitive matters such as matrimonial disputes.

Background of the Dispute: Allegations and Marital Discord

The case centered around an FIR filed in 2017, where relatives of a man faced allegations under various sections of the Ranbir Penal Code. The petitioners contended that the respondent-wife's actions were geared towards causing harassment. The marital discord originated from differences arising from their meeting on a matrimonial site and subsequent marriage, which lacked support from the man's family.

Petitioner's Narrative: Allegations of Apathy and Demands

The petitioners detailed that the wife exhibited apathy towards her husband and his family shortly after the marriage, eventually leaving without justifiable cause. When attempts were made to reconcile, she imposed demands that involved the husband residing with her at her parental home, leaving behind his elderly parents and children from a previous marriage. Compliance with her demands allegedly led to mistreatment and confinement of the husband, prompting his family to seek legal intervention.

Counter-Allegations and Legal Defense

In response, the wife alleged ill-treatment and abuse by her husband and in-laws regarding dowry. The legal counsel representing the accused vehemently argued against their implication, citing a lack of evidence supporting the allegations.

High Court's Deliberation and Quashing of Proceedings

After careful consideration, the High Court concluded that the accusations primarily targeted the husband rather than the accused petitioners. As the husband had not filed the petition before the court, the court ordered the quashing of proceedings against the petitioners alone.

Legal Precedent: Court's Stand Against Misuse of Legal Mechanisms

This ruling signifies the J&K High Court's firm stance against the misuse of legal mechanisms, particularly in the context of matrimonial conflicts. The judgment aims to protect individuals from undue harassment through the exploitation of the legal system, reinforcing the court's commitment to fairness and justice in such sensitive matters.

 

Supreme Court Collegium Nominates Chief Justices for High Courts: Leadership Transitions Envisioned

Under the leadership of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, the Supreme Court Collegium, comprising Justices Sanjeev Khanna and BR Gavai, has unveiled recommendations for the appointment of Chief Justices (CJs) in multiple High Courts. The resolutions, recently disclosed on the official website, outline the following proposed appointments:

ü Elevating Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava: Chief Justice for Rajasthan High Court

Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, currently serving as a Judge at the Rajasthan High Court, is recommended for the prestigious position of Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court.

ü Justice Arun Bhansali's Nomination: Chief Justice for Allahabad High Court

Justice Arun Bhansali, another luminary from the Rajasthan High Court, has been proposed to take on the role of Chief Justice of the esteemed Allahabad High Court.

ü Justice Vijay Bishnoi's Advancement: Chief Justice for Gauhati High Court

Justice Vijay Bishnoi, a distinguished Judge at the Rajasthan High Court, is recommended to assume the crucial position of Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court.

ü Justice Sheel Nagu's Ascension: Chief Justice for Punjab and Haryana High Court

Justice Sheel Nagu, currently serving at the Madhya Pradesh High Court, has been put forward for the pivotal role of Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

ü Justice BR Sarangi's Nomination: Chief Justice for Jharkhand High Court

Justice BR Sarangi, a sitting Judge at the Orissa High Court, is recommended to assume the responsibilities of Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court.

Significant Step in Leadership Transitions: Resolutions Unveiled

The resolutions, now publicized, mark a noteworthy progression in the process of leadership transitions within these High Courts. The proposed appointments signify the collegium's confidence in the capabilities and judicial acumen of the nominated justices to assume the vital role of Chief Justices, contributing to the continued pursuit of justice and fairness within the legal landscape.

 


Weekly Legal Updates

December 20, 2023 - December 26, 2023

1.    Land Restitution Verdict: J&K High Court Orders Compensation for Displaced Families

2.    Supreme Court Caution: Scrutiny of Eyewitness Testimony in Murder Case

3.    Landmark Supreme Court Verdict Establishes Primacy in Food Safety Legislation

4.    Rajasthan High Court: Victim's Role in Bail Proceedings Examined

5.    Punjab and Haryana High Court's Custody Emphasis: Child Welfare Prevails

6.    Allahabad High Court's Prohibition: Firearms Restricted in Court Premises

7.    Jammu and Kashmir High Court's Scrutiny: Delayed Detention Orders Under the Microscope

8.    Bombay High Court: Maratha Candidates' Eligibility in EWS Upheld

9.    Delhi High Court Affirms Convicts' Right to Parenthood

10. Allahabad High Court's Jurisdiction Clarification: SC/ST Act in Private Spaces

11. Delhi High Court Affirms Exemption of Solicitor General's Legal Advice from RTI Disclosure

12. Delhi High Court Acknowledges Mental Cruelty in Allegations on Husband's 'Manhood'

13. J&K High Court Affirms Minor's Exemption from Perjury Charge in False Sexual Assault Claims

14. Delhi High Court Affirms Unilateral Withdrawal from Mutual Divorce Pact as Mental Cruelty

 

Land Restitution Verdict: J&K High Court Orders Compensation for Displaced Families

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently issued a landmark directive compelling the Union Ministry of Defence to settle long-standing rental dues totaling ₹2.49 crores. This ruling pertains to twenty-four families, classified as Displaced Persons (DPs) from Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (PoK), who had their land unlawfully seized by the Indian Army in 1978 [Case: Saroop Singh and Ors. V/S Union of India and Ors.].

 Historical Context and Unlawful Occupation

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, in his judgment, highlighted the Army's occupation of the land allocated to displaced persons in 1953 without adherence to legal procedures or providing compensation since 1978. The case revolves around descendants of PoK displaced persons who were allotted 224 Kanals and 10 Marlas of land in 1953, subsequently taken over by the Indian Army in 1978. Despite previous committees determining a rental compensation of ₹2.49 crores from 1978 to 2009, the payment was never executed, leading the displaced persons to approach the High Court in 2018.

Government's Unlawful Acquisition Condemned

The Court emphatically declared the government's acquisition of the land as illegal and unconstitutional, stressing that once land is allocated for DP rehabilitation, it cannot be seized without due compensation or following lawful procedures. The ruling mandated that if the government intends to retain the land, it must undergo legal land acquisition processes, including compensation payment.

Constitutional Rights Upheld

In its conclusion on December 14, 2023, the High Court affirmed that the Union of India has been illegally occupying the land since 1978, highlighting the violation of constitutional rights of the petitioners and the failure to adhere to legal procedures. With reference to Article 300A of the Indian Constitution, safeguarding the right to property, the Court asserted that displaced persons cannot be deprived of this right without due legal process, implying an obligation for compensation in land acquisition.

Court's Directives and Timelines

Consequently, the High Court issued directives for authorities to release the pending ₹2.49 crores in rental compensation within a month, subject to verification of lawful claimants. Additionally, it mandated the estimation and payment of subsequent rents under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, within one month. The Court warned of a 6 percent per annum interest if the due compensation is not paid within the specified timelines.

 

Supreme Court Caution: Scrutiny of Eyewitness Testimony in Murder Case

In a pivotal case, Chhote Lal vs. Rohtash, Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal of the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to overturn the conviction of accused individuals, which included charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murder. The Court underscored the imperative need for meticulous examination of the appellant's testimony, who, as the father of the deceased, served as a crucial eyewitness. The caution emanated from his vested interest and historical animosity with the accused group.

Case Background and Ongoing Feud

Rooted in a dispute originating in 1986 concerning access to a public road, a longstanding animosity between rival groups erupted into the murder of Ram Kishan, followed by the retaliatory killing of Kishan Sarup. The FIR for this incident was filed on 05.11.2000. While the trial court convicted six out of ten accused individuals, the High Court overturned their conviction, setting the stage for the appellant's challenge in the Supreme Court.

Appellant's Challenge and Norms of Appellate Courts

The appellant contested the High Court's acquittal, arguing against the customary practice of appellate courts generally upholding trial court convictions, especially when backed by eyewitness testimony.

Scrutiny of Appellant's Credibility

Upon meticulous review, the Supreme Court noted that although the appellant was the sole eyewitness, he did not witness the actual killing of his son, Kishan Sarup. The Court brought attention to the absence of details explaining why the witness did not intervene to protect his son during the assault, raising doubts about the credibility of the appellant's claim that threats from the accused prevented him from intervening. Discrepancies also surfaced in the appellant's FIR statement regarding the weapons used, further complicating the case.

Judgement and Benefit of Doubt

The Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, both through circumstantial evidence and the eyewitness account. The incomplete chain of events and doubts surrounding the credibility of the eyewitness prompted the Court to support the High Court's decision, granting the benefit of doubt to the accused individuals. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision in favor of the accused persons.

 

Landmark Supreme Court Verdict Establishes Primacy in Food Safety Legislation

In a significant ruling on December 14, the Supreme Court underscored the unequivocal dominance of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSA) over the provisions of the now-repealed Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (PFA). This assertion holds particularly true when penal consequences overlap between the two legislations, establishing a crucial precedent in food safety legislation.

Case Overview: Manik Hiru Jhangiani vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

A Division Bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol heard the case involving the appellant, a Director of M/s. Bharti Retail Limited, accused of misbranding in a shop under the purview of the former PFA. The PFA was repealed on August 5, 2011, and the State Food Laboratory's report on purchased biscuit packets was received on January 4, 2011.

Section 97(4) of FSSA

Despite the repeal of PFA, Section 97(4) of the FSSA allowed the continuation of PFA offenses within three years from the commencement of FSSA. A charge sheet was filed on August 12, 2011, under PFA against the appellant, leading to a legal challenge asserting that sub-section (4) of Section 97 of FSSA did not permit the continuation of PFA-related offenses.

Court's Scrutiny and Observations

The Supreme Court examined the disparity in penalties for the same offense under both acts. Section 16(1)(a) of PFA prescribed imprisonment, while the corresponding provision in Section 52 of FSSA outlined penalties, excluding imprisonment. Delving into the definition of 'misbranded food' in Section 3 of FSSA, effective since May 28, 2008, the Court pondered the priority between imprisonment under PFA and penalties under FSSA when both statutes could be applicable.

Legislative Primacy Affirmed

Referring to Section 89 of FSSA, the Court clarified that in case of inconsistency between PFA and FSSA provisions, FSSA would take precedence. Emphasizing that Section 52 of FSSA overrides PFA, especially when both acts prescribe penalties for misbranding, the Court ruled in favor of imposing penalties under FSSA.

Judgement and Implications

The Court, in its ruling, quashed the pending criminal proceedings against the appellant, solidifying the dominance of FSSA in cases involving overlapping penal consequences. It clarified that this decision would not hinder FSSA authorities from utilizing Section 52 in accordance with the law.

Legal Hierarchy in Food Safety Regulations

This case establishes a critical legal hierarchy, affirming the precedence of FSSA over PFA in matters of concurrent penal actions related to food safety regulations. The ruling provides clarity on the legislative landscape, ensuring a unified and paramount approach to addressing food safety offenses.

 

Rajasthan High Court: Victim's Role in Bail Proceedings Examined

In a recent ruling, the Rajasthan High Court, in the case of Pooja Gurjar & Others v. State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor, delved into the pivotal question of a victim's role in bail proceedings, shedding light on exceptions in specific rape cases where the informant's presence is deemed mandatory.

 Case Background

A division bench comprising Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Pankaj Bhandari meticulously considered whether the victim or complainant should be considered an indispensable party in bail applications under various sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This ruling challenged a standing order from September 15, necessitating the victim's impleadment as a party-respondent, a directive that emanated from observations made by a single judge in a previous case. Disagreeing with this stance, another single judge referred the matter to a larger bench for consideration. The lawyers representing both the accused and the State argued against the mandatory involvement of the victim in bail applications.

Court's Scrutiny of CrPC Provisions

The Court, after meticulous scrutiny of CrPC bail provisions, underscored the absence of a mandatory requirement for the victim's involvement in such petitions. However, it drew attention to specific rape offenses under Sections 376AB, 376DA, and 376DB of the Indian Penal Code, where Section 439(1A) of CrPC mandates the informant's presence during bail application hearings.

Standing Order vs. Right to Personal Liberty

The Court highlighted the inherent conflict between the standing order and the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It expressed concerns about logistical challenges in notifying numerous victims and acknowledged the difficulties in identifying and notifying victims in criminal cases. Referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Jagjeet Singh & Ors. vs. Ashish Mishra & Monu & Anr, which acknowledged victims' participatory rights in criminal proceedings, the High Court clarified that this didn't imply substituting the State as the prosecuting agency but underscored the importance of the victim's involvement in the process.

Legislative Intent and Access to Justice

The Court observed that the legislature didn't explicitly mandate the victim's impleadment in all cases, emphasizing potential delays and Article 21 violations if the victim's details were unknown to the accused. Recognizing the State's responsibility to prosecute offenders and ensure access to justice, the Court noted that none of its members supported the single judge's view that led to the standing order.

Victim's Right to be Heard

Ultimately, the Court rejected the notion of the victim's mandatory involvement in bail applications, asserting the victim's right to be heard at every stage without necessarily being deemed a necessary party. This ruling provides clarity on the delicate balance between victims' rights and the efficient administration of justice in bail proceedings.

 

Punjab and Haryana High Court's Custody Emphasis: Child Welfare Prevails

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case of Jaspreet Singh v. Roopali Dhillon, highlighted the crucial principle that a strained relationship between parents does not inherently render them unfit as caregivers for their child. Justice Archana Puri emphasized that in custody cases, the paramount consideration is the well-being of the minor child, surpassing the statutory rights of the parents.

Court's Assertion on Parental Relationship and Fitness

The court order emphasized that societal norms and subjective perceptions of individuals being 'bad' in a relationship context do not necessarily translate to being unfit as parents. Justice Puri underscored the need to separate relationship dynamics from parenting abilities, recognizing that the latter is a distinct aspect that should be evaluated independently.

Case Background

The case originated from a father's plea for interim custody of his minor daughter, contested by the mother after marital discord. The child had been residing with the mother, prompting the father to file for custody under the Guardian and Wards Act.

Court's Observations on Custody Decision Criteria

The High Court stressed that custody decisions should not be solely based on legal rights but should primarily prioritize the child's best interests. It acknowledged that amidst parental disputes, extreme allegations might arise, emphasizing the importance of evaluating such claims based on actual proven misconduct that directly impacts the child's welfare.

Child's Age and Primary Support

Taking into account the child's age, the Court deemed the mother as crucial in her growth, suggesting that she could be the child's primary support and mentor at this stage of development.

Child's Welfare Paramount

The Court ruled in favor of the child continuing to reside with the mother but increased the father's visitation rights to twice a month. The judgment urged both parties to foster a supportive environment during these meetings for the child's benefit.

Child's Well-being Prevails

This ruling from the Punjab and Haryana High Court signifies a commitment to prioritizing the child's welfare over parental conflicts. It emphasizes that parental discord, in itself, does not implicate the parenting abilities of individuals and underscores the need to assess custody decisions with a focus on the child's best interests.

Allahabad High Court's Prohibition: Firearms Restricted in Court Premises

In a recent ruling in the case of Amandeep Singh v State, the Allahabad High Court took a decisive stance on the issue of permitting firearms within court premises, citing concerns about potential threats to public safety and the integrity of the justice system.

Judicial Emphasis on Public Safety

Justice Pankaj Bhatia, in delivering the ruling, underscored the significant threat to public safety associated with allowing lawyers or litigants to carry firearms within court premises. The Court highlighted the clear prohibitions outlined in Rule 614-A of the General Rules (Civil) and prior directives from the High Court against carrying arms.

Breach of Public Peace and Credibility of Justice System

Expressing concerns over the disruption of public peace and the potential jeopardy to the credibility of the justice system, the ruling emphasized that carrying arms within any part of the court premises would be considered a breach of public peace or safety under Section 17(3)(b) of the Arms Act.

Background of the Case

The case centered around a young lawyer charged with carrying arms in the court premises, resulting in the revocation of his arms license. Despite the petitioner's plea of ignorance and assurance against repeating the action, the Court dismissed his plea.

Right to Carry Arms: Not a Fundamental Right

Additionally, the Court clarified a crucial point by stating that the right to carry arms is not a fundamental right under the Constitution. It emphasized that possessing an arms license is a privilege granted by the State, not an inherent right.

Court's Directives and Instructions

As a directive, the Court instructed district judges and judicial officers in Uttar Pradesh to file cases under the Arms Act against individuals, including lawyers, found carrying arms within court premises. They were further mandated to promptly seek the cancellation of such arms licenses through the district magistrate or licensing authority.

Sensitization and Dissemination of Order

Consequently, the Court directed its Registrar General/Senior Registrar to disseminate the order to all concerned judicial officers, the Secretary of the Home Department, State of U.P., as well as the Bar Councils. The aim was to sensitize lawyers about refraining from carrying arms in court premises and to ensure the strict implementation of the ruling.

 

Jammu and Kashmir High Court's Scrutiny: Delayed Detention Orders Under the Microscope

In a recent ruling in the case of Tariq Ahmad Wagay vs UT of Jammu and Kashmir, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh undertook a meticulous examination of delayed preventive detention orders, emphasizing the need for a clear and proximate connection between a detenue's past conduct and the timing of the detention order.

Justice MA Chowdhary's Emphasis on Proximate Connection

Justice MA Chowdhary, while invalidating a detention order executed in May 2023 against Tariq Ahmad Wagay, emphasized the crucial requirement for a live or proximate connection between a detenue's past conduct and the timing of the detention order. The Court observed that the absence of an explanation for the delay between an incident in 2021 and the detention order issued in 2022 rendered the order untenable.

Legal Precedents and Necessity for a Logical Nexus

Citing precedents such as Rajinder Arora v. Union of India and Sama Aruna Vs State of Telangana & Anr, the Court underscored the need for a prompt and logical nexus between past conduct and the necessity for detention. It emphasized that stale incidents should not serve as the basis for detention.

Concerns Over Unexplained Delay and Lack of Urgency

Expressing concerns over the unexplained five-month delay in executing the December 2022 detention order, the Court questioned the urgency of the detention's necessity. Highlighting the fundamental need for urgency in preventive detention cases, the Court emphasized that prolonged and unexplained delays could cast doubt on the authority's genuine satisfaction regarding the necessity for detention.

Authority's Omission and Lack of Due Diligence

The Court noted the detaining authority's failure to provide all the material to the detenue on which the detention order was based. This omission hindered the detenue from making a comprehensive representation against the order, leading to its invalidation. The Court also acknowledged the detenue's counsel's argument about the detenue's bail in the 2021 drug case, highlighting the detaining authority's apparent oversight and lack of due diligence.

Relief for the Detenue

Consequently, the High Court granted relief to the detenue by allowing the writ petition to quash the detention order based on the grounds of delayed execution, lack of urgency, and the authority's failure to provide essential materials for representation. This ruling underscores the court's commitment to ensuring the legality and procedural fairness of preventive detention orders.

 

Bombay High Court: Maratha Candidates' Eligibility in EWS Upheld

In a recent ruling in the case of Akshay Chaudhari v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., the Bombay High Court addressed the eligibility of Maratha candidates applying under the Socially and Economically Backward Class (SEBC) for government jobs in the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category.

Overturning MAT Order

A division bench of Justices Nitin Jamdar and Manjusha Deshpande overturned the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's (MAT) February 2023 order, which opposed the State government's decision to allow SEBC candidates to apply under the EWS category. The High Court criticized the MAT for straying from established legal principles and adversely impacting numerous candidates, leading to the overturning of the MAT order.

Background and Supreme Court's Annulment

The judgment was delivered concerning petitions filed by over a hundred Maratha candidates and the State government against the 2023 MAT order related to posts in various State departments. Following the Supreme Court's annulment of provisions in the Maharashtra SEBC Act 2018 providing Maratha reservation, the State extended EWS quota benefits to SEBC candidates. The government resolutions enabling SEBC candidates to apply under EWS were challenged before the MAT by applicants who had initially applied under EWS.

MAT Decision Challenged in High Court

The MAT's decision to disqualify SEBC (Maratha) candidates who had applied under EWS was contested in the High Court by the disqualified candidates. The petitioners argued that the MAT erred in holding that government resolutions couldn't have retrospective application.

High Court's Critique and Ruling

The High Court accepted the appeals, noting the MAT's overextension of its authority in the service dispute. It criticized the order for disrupting the recruitment process and disregarding the integration of SEBC seats into the general category after the SEBC Act was deemed unconstitutional. Additionally, the High Court highlighted that the MAT's decision created an unfair situation by disqualifying Maratha candidates applying under EWS, despite their higher scores.

Annulling MAT Order

Consequently, the High Court annulled the MAT order, affirming the eligibility of Maratha candidates applying under EWS with a merit-based approach, ensuring equitable consideration. This ruling provides clarity and upholds the rights of Maratha candidates seeking opportunities in the EWS category.


 Delhi High Court Affirms Convicts' Right to Parenthood

In a recent ruling in Kundan Singh v The State Govt of NCT Delhi, the Delhi High Court reinforced the fundamental right to parenthood and procreation, safeguarded under Article 21 of the Constitution, extending this right to convicts as well.

Balanced Approach by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma emphasized that while the right to parenthood is not absolute, it must be considered in the context of the convict's parental status and age. This balanced approach aims to maintain a delicate equilibrium between individual rights and broader societal concerns. The Court underscored that despite incarceration limiting various facets of married life, the denial of parole should be evaluated in terms of its impact on the convict's future, aligning punishment post-conviction with the goal of reform.

Background of the Case: Kundan Singh's Plea

The case involved Kundan Singh, serving a life sentence for murder, who petitioned the Court after spending 14 years in jail. At 41 years old, Singh, along with his 38-year-old wife, sought permission for medical tests and wished to conceive a child through In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF). Singh's plea for parole was rejected, citing the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, which didn't explicitly consider parenthood as a ground for parole.

Inclusive Interpretation of Constitutional Rights

Justice Sharma highlighted that the absence of specific provisions in prison rules shouldn't hinder a Constitutional court from considering such relief. The Court acknowledged Singh and his wife's genuine desire to preserve their lineage, granting Singh a four-week parole under specified conditions to fulfill their aspirations. This decision underscores the judiciary's intent to interpret constitutional rights inclusively, especially when faced with novel circumstances or challenges.

Upholding Rights in Unconventional Circumstances

The ruling affirms the right to parenthood as a fundamental right, even for convicts, and sets a precedent for considering such rights within the framework of the Constitution. This approach ensures a more humane and nuanced perspective on the rights of individuals within the criminal justice system.

 

Allahabad High Court's Jurisdiction Clarification: SC/ST Act in Private Spaces

In a recent ruling in Bhaiya Lal Singh v. State of UP, the Allahabad High Court provided crucial clarification on the jurisdiction of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) concerning verbal abuse based on caste within private spaces.

Background of the Case: Caste-based Verbal Abuse

The case involved a school owner accused of caste-based verbal abuse and intimidation, stemming from alleged disputes over examination results. The complainant accused the accused of using caste names and threatening him within the complainant's house.

Public View Requirement

Justice Shamim Ahmed highlighted a pivotal aspect that verbal abuse using caste names against members of SC/ST communities does not constitute an offense under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act if the incident occurs within a private dwelling where no outsiders are present. The Court noted that for an offense under the SC/ST Act, the act of humiliation or harassment must occur in a place visible to the public.

Lack of Corroboration and Discrepancies

The Court observed discrepancies in the complaint and a lack of corroboration from independent witnesses, casting doubt on the veracity of the allegations. Examining other charges like unlawful assembly and criminal intimidation, the Court noted inconsistencies and a lack of substantial evidence to support these claims.

Quashing of Cognizance and Summoning Order

Consequently, the Court quashed the trial court's cognizance and summoning order, dismissing the entire case and related criminal proceedings against the accused. This ruling provides clarity on the applicability of the SC/ST Act in private spaces and emphasizes the importance of public visibility for offenses under the Act.


 Delhi High Court Affirms Exemption of Solicitor General's Legal Advice from RTI Disclosure

In a recent ruling in Union of India and Anr v Subhash Chandra Agrawal, the Delhi High Court affirmed that legal counsel provided by the Solicitor General of India to the Government of India and government departments is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act of 2005 (RTI Act).

Fiduciary Relationship and Exemption Clause

Justice Subramonium Prasad emphasized the fiduciary relationship between the Solicitor General and the government, referring to the Union of India – Law Officer (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1987, and Supreme Court judgments. The Court highlighted the fiduciary responsibility of the Solicitor General to act in the best interest of the Union and other departments, classifying legal advice under the exemption clause of Section 8(1)(e).

Overturning of CIC Order

The ruling overturned a Central Information Commissioner (CIC) order from 2011, initiated by Subhash Chandra Agrawal, who sought the note/opinion of the then Solicitor General of India regarding cases related to the allotment of 2G spectrum.

Court’s Observations on Public Interest

Justice Prasad, considering the argument under Section 8(2) of the RTI Act, clarified that Agrawal failed to demonstrate any public interest served by obtaining the details of the Solicitor General's advice. Without a tangible public interest, the Court declined to apply Section 8(2) to disclose exempted information.

Exemption Upheld

Consequently, the Court set aside the CIC order, ruling that the information sought falls within the exemption clause of Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The decision affirms the confidentiality of legal advice provided by the Solicitor General and aligns with the fiduciary relationship and responsibilities associated with such legal roles.

 

Delhi High Court Acknowledges Mental Cruelty in Allegations on Husband's 'Manhood'

In a recent case presided over by a Division Bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna, the Delhi High Court recognized that subjecting one’s husband to an impotency test, accompanied by accusations of dowry demands, extramarital affairs, and labeling him as a womanizer, is sufficient to inflict severe mental agony and trauma.

Unfounded and Humiliating Allegations

The Court expressed its concern, emphasizing that making unfounded, defamatory, and humiliating allegations that publicly tarnish a spouse's image amounts to extreme cruelty. In this case, the wife's actions were deemed severe enough to justify granting divorce.

Persistent Disputes and Varied Allegations

The judgment addressed an appeal filed by a woman challenging a family court's decision granting divorce to her husband on grounds of cruelty. The couple married in 2000 and had a son but faced persistent disputes from the outset. Allegations ranged from claims of physical abuse by the mother-in-law to assertions of extramarital affairs, dowry demands, and impotency leveled against the husband by the wife. The husband underwent an impotency test, where he was found fit.

Conflicting Statements and Admissions

The Court noted the wife's conflicting statements and admissions, acknowledging that the husband underwent the impotency test, despite initial claims to the contrary. Additionally, the Court cited the wife's admission during cross-examination that her husband provided for her and their child without making any dowry demands.

Upholding Family Court Decision

Consequently, the Court upheld the family court's decision, affirming that the husband was subjected to severe mental cruelty, justifying divorce under Section 13 (1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. This ruling underscores the judiciary's recognition of the detrimental impact of baseless and damaging allegations on the mental well-being of a spouse in matrimonial disputes.

 

J&K High Court Affirms Minor's Exemption from Perjury Charge in False Sexual Assault Claims

In a recent ruling, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh affirmed that minors, under 18 years of age, cannot face perjury charges for making false rape or sexual assault allegations under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

Section 22(2) of the POCSO Act

Justice Rajnesh Oswal clarified that Section 22(2) of the POCSO Act specifically prohibits penalizing a child for providing false information in cases related to rape or sexual assault. The Court elucidated that this provision ensures that no punishment is imposed on a child if false information or a false complaint is made.

Background of the Case: False Sexual Assault Allegations

The case involved a 17-year-old girl who accused an individual of sexually assaulting her in 2020. Inconsistencies arose during the trial, leading to the accused's acquittal in 2021. The prosecutrix and her parents did not support the prosecution's case, and the trial court did not initiate criminal action for perjury against them.

Protection of Minors

The High Court noted that the prosecutrix, being a minor during the incident, could not be prosecuted for perjury as she was protected under Section 22(2) of the POCSO Act. The Court highlighted the lack of evidence to establish that the witnesses willfully provided false information during the trial.

Protection Upheld

The High Court emphasized that deliberate and conscious false statements must be proven to prosecute a witness for perjury, a criterion unmet in this case. Consequently, the appeal brought by the government challenging the trial court's decision was dismissed by the High Court, affirming the protection provided to minors under the POCSO Act.

 

Delhi High Court Affirms Unilateral Withdrawal from Mutual Divorce Pact as Mental Cruelty

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court affirmed that unilaterally backing out from a previously agreed-upon divorce settlement constitutes mental cruelty toward the other spouse. The division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna emphasized the implications of such actions and their impact on the mental well-being of the other spouse.

Background of the Case: Failed Mutual Consent Divorce

The case involved a woman appealing against a family court's decision to grant her husband a divorce based on grounds of cruelty. The couple, married in December 2001, separated after thirteen months, and later decided to pursue a divorce through mutual consent. However, the wife unilaterally withdrew from the agreement, prompting the husband to file for divorce.

Lack of Concrete Evidence

The High Court scrutinized the case and observed that despite the wife's allegations of her husband's extramarital relationships, she admitted during cross-examination that she lacked concrete evidence to support these claims. The Court concluded that the wife's actions portrayed an inability to resolve differences maturely, resulting in public humiliation for the husband and causing him mental distress.

Divorce Upheld on Grounds of Cruelty

The Court upheld the family court's judgment, affirming the divorce granted to the husband on grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The wife's appeal was dismissed by the Court, reinforcing the principle that unilaterally backing out from a mutual divorce pact without justifiable cause constitutes mental cruelty.

 


Weekly Legal Updates

13 December 2023 – 19 December 2023


1. Allahabad High Court Affirms Admissibility of 1991 Hindu Suit for Gyanvapi Premises

2. Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Change in Terminology from 'Central Government to 'Union Government'.

3. Delhi High Court: Insolvency Professionals Not Categorized as 'Public Servants' Under PC Act

4. Delhi High Court Directs CISF to Amend Rules, Open Constable/Driver Positions to Women

5. Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) (Second Amendment) Bill, 2023, Approved by Lok Sabha

6. Chhattisgarh High Court Rejects Abetment Allegations in Love-Linked Suicide Case

7. Madras High Court Excludes Reservation for Government-Appointed Law Officers

8. Supreme Court Validates Unstamped Arbitration Agreements

9. Delhi High Court Raises Concerns on Surrogacy Industry Expansion

10. Delhi High Court Affirms: Amazon's Echo Devices Extend Beyond Traditional Functions

11. Calcutta High Court: Presumption of Abetment to Suicide Not Automatic in Brief Marriages

12. Karnataka High Court Ensures Informed Abortion Rights for Rape Survivors

13. J&K High Court Stresses Timely Execution in Preventive Detention Cases

14. Supreme Court Establishes Timelines for Grounds of Arrest Notification in Money Laundering Cases

15. Provisional Participation Granted in MP Civil Judge Exam Amid Eligibility Dispute

16. High Court Criticizes Casual Invocation of Special Laws in Police Allegations Case


 

Allahabad High Court Affirms Admissibility of 1991 Hindu Suit for Gyanvapi Premises

In a recent development, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agrawal of the Allahabad High Court has affirmed the admissibility of a 1991 civil suit filed by Hindu worshippers. This suit seeks access to worship in the Gyanvapi mosque's current location, asserting rights over the Gyanvapi compound as an integral part of a temple. The court's conclusion is significant as it rejects claims that the suit is barred by the Places of Worship Act (Special Provisions) Act of 1991.

Background of the Case

The case revolves around the Gyanvapi mosque and Kashi Vishwanath temple in close proximity in Varanasi. The Hindu party contends rights over the Gyanvapi compound, asserting its integral connection to the temple. The Anjuman Intezamia Masajid Committee, overseeing the mosque, challenged the suit's validity, joined by Muslim parties like the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf and UP Sunni Central Waqf Board. They argued that the suit is prohibited under the Places of Worship Act.

Dismissal of Muslim Parties' Arguments

Justice Agrawal dismissed the arguments presented by Muslim parties, asserting that the suit is not barred by the Places of Worship Act. The Hindu side strongly defended the suit's validity, emphasizing that it predates the aforementioned Act, thereby justifying its admissibility.

Procedural Changes and Fresh Hearings

Previously under the purview of Justice Prakash Padia until August, the cases faced a jurisdictional shift under Chief Justice Pritinker Diwakar due to concerns over continued hearings despite the change. This decision was maintained despite objections from the Muslim side, citing identified procedural issues. Subsequently, Justice Rohit Ranjan Agrawal took charge of the case, initiating fresh hearings from September 12 onwards.

 

Delhi High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Change in Terminology from 'Central Government' to 'Union Government'

In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a change in the terminology from 'Central Government' to 'Union Government' in legal documents and official communications. The bench, led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna, emphasized the interchangeable use of these terms and deemed the matter non-urgent, highlighting the court's focus on more pressing issues.

Comparisons with Common Terminology

The Court drew a parallel between the linguistic concern raised in the PIL and the common reference to the Supreme Court of India as the 'Apex Court.' It underlined the interchangeable nature of these terms in various contexts, leading to the dismissal of the plea. The Court assured a detailed order on the matter later.

Constitutional Arguments by the Petitioner

The petitioner, an 84-year-old social activist, argued that India, being a "Union of States," constitutionally eliminates the concept of a 'Central Government.' They contested the use of 'Central Government,' claiming it implies a hierarchy where State Governments are subservient, contrary to the Constitution's intent.

Emphasis on 'Union' vs. 'Centre' in Constitutional Interpretation

Highlighting that the Constitution has avoided the explicit use of 'Centre' or 'Central Government' until recent amendments, the plea emphasized the significance of 'Union' versus 'Centre' in portraying a federal versus unitary governance impression. The petitioner referred to statements by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Dr. BR Ambedkar, asserting that 'Union of States' aligns better with the founders' vision of an indivisible federation.

 


 Delhi High Court: Insolvency Professionals Not Categorized as 'Public Servants' Under PC Act

In a recent ruling (Dr Arun Mohan v. Central Bureau of Investigation), the Delhi High Court declared that Insolvency Professionals (IPs) or Resolution Professionals (RPs) cannot be considered "public servants" under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela Dismisses CBI's Argument Regarding Public Character of IPs

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) contention that the duties of these professionals, as outlined in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), should be viewed as having a "public character" aligning with the PC Act's definition of "public servant."

Lack of Inherent "Public Character"

The Court emphasized that while IPs or RPs may perform roles similar to public duties, such responsibilities don't inherently denote a "public character." It reasoned that despite certain overlaps in duties with aspects of public service, it doesn't warrant categorizing these individuals as "public servants" under Section 21 IPC or Section 2(c) PC Act.

Deliberate Exclusion in IBC

Highlighting the deliberate exclusion of IPs from the scope of 'public servants' in Section 232 of the IBC, the Court emphasized that this omission wasn't accidental but a conscious choice made by the legislature. The Court deemed this omission a purposeful decision rather than an oversight.

Case Origin and Quashing of FIR

The case originated from a plea by Arun Mohan, an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) for FR Tech Innovations Private Limited, who was accused of conspiracy and bribery. Mohan argued that IPs under the IBC should not be classified as public servants, rendering the FIR by the CBI invalid.

Court's Conclusion

Agreeing with Mohan's stance, the Court quashed the CBI's FIR, asserting that Insolvency Professionals fall outside the definition of 'public servants' as per the PC Act. This judgment provides clarity on the legal status of IPs and RPs concerning their classification as public servants under anti-corruption laws

 

Delhi High Court Directs CISF to Amend Rules, Open Constable/Driver Positions to Women

In the case of Kush Kalra v Union of India & Ors, the Delhi High Court has directed the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) to revise its regulations within six months, allowing the inclusion of women in positions such as constable/driver and driver-cum-pump operator. Currently, these roles are exclusively open to men.

Court Expresses Dissatisfaction with Lack of Clarity

Despite the CISF's previous indication of efforts to modify their rules, no concrete timeline for the inclusion of women in recruitment was provided to the Court. The Bench, led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna, expressed dissatisfaction with the ambiguity surrounding the amendments. The Central Government Standing Counsel, Rajesh Gogna, acknowledged the absence of a clear schedule for the rule changes.

Advocate Highlights Delay in Rule Amendments

Advocate Charu Wali Khanna, representing the petitioner Kush Kalra, emphasized the delay since the CISF's commitment to amending the rules over six months ago. The petitioner initiated the case in 2018 upon noticing CISF advertisements exclusively inviting male candidates for these specific positions.

Firm Directive from the Bench

The Bench, unimpressed by the lack of clarity and delay, firmly directed the CISF to effect the amendments within the stipulated six-month period. A compliance review has been scheduled for July 15, 2024. The argument presented was that given the recruitment of women in other CISF roles, there was no reasonable justification for excluding them from these particular job profiles.

 

Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) (Second Amendment) Bill, 2023, Approved by Lok Sabha

The Lok Sabha has passed the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) (Second Amendment) Bill, 2023, amending the CGST Act of 2017. The legislation, introduced by the Central government, addresses recommendations from Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, conveyed through the Registrar of the Supreme Court.

Amendment Aimed at Tribunal Reforms

CJI Chandrachud pointed out discrepancies between service terms and the Tribunal Reforms Act, prompting the proposed amendment. The Bill's primary objective is to broaden the eligibility criteria for judicial members of the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunals (GSTAT). Under the proposed changes, advocates with a decade of experience can now qualify, expanding beyond the previous limitation to former High Court judges, district judges eligible for High Court appointments, or members of the Indian Legal Service with specific experience criteria.

Age Limit and Tribunal Membership Criteria

The Bill introduces a minimum age of 50 years for Tribunal membership or presidency. Furthermore, it extends the age limit for the Tribunal President from 67 to 70 years and for members from 65 to 67 years. These changes align the provisions of the CGST Act with the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, facilitating administrative processes for the operationalization of GSTAT at the earliest.

The passage of this Bill signifies a step towards streamlining the composition and functioning of Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunals in accordance with the latest legal and administrative reforms.

 

Chhattisgarh High Court Rejects Abetment Allegations in Love-Linked Suicide Case

In a recent development, the Chhattisgarh High Court tackled the issue of culpability in suicide cases arising from diverse factors such as failed love affairs, academic stress, or legal repercussions.

Landmark Judgment by Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, in a solitary judicial decree on December 7, underscored the unjustifiability of holding individuals accountable for abetment in scenarios like a lover's suicide post-breakup, a student resorting to self-harm after academic setbacks, or a litigant taking their life following an adverse legal verdict.

Case Details and Allegations

The case in question revolved around a 24-year-old woman and her brothers facing accusations of abetting the suicide of her former lover. The deceased, in a suicide note, implicated the woman and her brothers for allegedly driving him to end his life due to their actions subsequent to the termination of their relationship.

Insufficient Evidence and Legal Scrutiny

Despite the gravity of the accusations and testimonies from the deceased's acquaintances and family, the court deemed the evidence supporting abetment charges against the woman and her brothers as insufficient. The court specifically noted that the statements were hearsay, relying solely on the deceased's communicated thoughts, and lacked substantial proof of instigation or provocation leading to suicide.

Analysis of Suicide Note and Ruling Outcome

Furthermore, the court meticulously examined the suicide note, acknowledging the anguish expressed by the deceased towards the woman for betraying their love. However, the court concluded that the note did not indicate any deliberate efforts by the accused to compel the deceased towards suicide.

Legal Outcome: Charges Quashed

Consequently, based on the absence of substantial evidence indicating the accused's direct involvement in the suicide, the court dismissed the charges against them, exonerating them from the case.

 

Madras High Court Excludes Reservation for Government-Appointed Law Officers

The Madras High Court delivered a significant ruling, clarifying that government-appointed law officers, distinct from civil servants, do not fall within the purview of the reservation policy outlined in Article 16(4) of the Constitution. Emphasizing the absence of a master-servant relationship between these officers and the government, the court underscored that merit should be the sole criterion governing their appointments.

Origins of the Ruling: 2017 PIL Dismissal

This ruling emanated from the dismissal of a 2017 Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by local leader Thol Thirumavalavan. The PIL sought the implementation of reservations for women, Scheduled Castes (SC), and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in the appointment of law officers in the Madras High Court and subordinate courts in Tamil Nadu. The petitioner argued that even temporary positions warranted constitutional reservation, drawing parallels with Telangana's provision for such quotas.

Legal Contention and Counterarguments

Representing Thirumavalavan, Advocate M Palanimuthu contested the Appointment of Law Officers Rules, 2017, denouncing them as arbitrary. In opposition, the Advocate General for the State government, R Shunmugasundaram, refuted the PIL's claims. He argued that law officers should not be equated with government employees, asserting that their roles did not constitute civil posts. According to the Advocate General, these officers were engaged for specific legal expertise, functioning as professional practitioners.

Trust-Based Relationship and Government's Duty

The court highlighted the trust-based relationship between lawyers and their clients, emphasizing the government's duty as the custodian of public interest. It asserted the government's obligation to appoint highly proficient individuals to represent public interest, thereby advocating for a merit-based approach in the selection of law officers.

Rejection of Government Orders and Reservation Application

The court dismissed reliance on government orders that provided reservations even for contractual employees, clarifying that such provisions applied exclusively to actual government employees, not to law officers engaged on a contractual basis. Consequently, the court affirmed that reservation policies, whether vertical or horizontal, did not extend to the appointment of law officers by the government, as their engagement did not constitute civil service.

 

Supreme Court Validates Unstamped Arbitration Agreements

In a recent landmark ruling, a seven-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court provided clarity on the status of unstamped arbitration agreements. Contrary to a prior decision in the NN Global Mercantile Pvt Ltd v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd & Ors case, the Court declared that while unstamped agreements are inadmissible under the Stamp Act, they do not become void from their inception. The Court underscored that the deficiency in stamp duty is rectifiable, overturning the earlier five-judge bench ruling.

Shift in Determination Authority

The pivotal decision established a shift in authority for determining the stamping status of arbitration agreements. The Court emphasized that this responsibility now falls within the domain of the arbitral tribunal, invoking the doctrine of competence-competence. This doctrine asserts the tribunal's authority to rule on its own jurisdiction.

Chief Justice's Summary and Jurisdictional Clarity

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, summarizing the lead judgment, affirmed that unstamped agreements are inadmissible but not void. Importantly, the stamping status is not subject to Sections 8 or 11 of the Arbitration Act; instead, it falls under the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.

Corollary of Competence Doctrine and Court's Role

The Court elaborated on the corollary of the competence doctrine, stating that courts should verify the existence of an arbitration agreement. However, the detailed assessment of stamp duty payment should be left to consider merits and evidence. This interpretation ensures adherence to the Stamp Act without undermining the Arbitration Act.

Landmark Verdict and Bench Composition

This groundbreaking verdict, delivered by a bench led by CJI Chandrachud, addressed the validity of arbitration agreements within unstamped documents. The decision followed a referral of the issue from a five-judge Constitution Bench to the seven-judge bench.

Case Origins and Complex Legal Journey

The case originated from a 2014 Karnataka High Court ruling, initially upholding a lease deed incorporating an arbitration agreement. However, a three-judge Supreme Court Bench overturned this decision in 2020. The case involved a charitable trust and appellants in a lease agreement dating back to 1996, leading to disputes over a security deposit and breaches. The High Court's decision to appoint an arbitrator, despite stamp duty concerns, was overturned in 2020, leading to subsequent legal proceedings including a curative petition filed in 2021.

 

Delhi High Court Raises Concerns on Surrogacy Industry Expansion

In a recent hearing, the Delhi High Court expressed reservations regarding the proliferation of the surrogacy industry in India, cautioning against its potential transformation into a multi-billion-dollar enterprise.

Judicial Bench Emphasizes Court-Initiated Surrogacy Law Changes

Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna, comprising the Division Bench, underscored that modifications to surrogacy laws were initiated by court directives, with a specific emphasis on the Supreme Court's involvement in the matter.

Judicial Skepticism on Industry Encouragement

Acting Chief Justice Manmohan questioned the necessity of further court intervention in encouraging the surrogacy industry, particularly stating, "Encouraging this industry [surrogacy] isn't necessary here. You [petitioners], based in Canada, can't establish an industry here. This could potentially evolve into a US$ 2.3 billion industry. It's not a scenario where we should press the government for action."

Petition Against Surrogacy Law Amendment

These observations were made in response to a petition filed by a couple challenging the March 14, 2023, notification amending the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act 2021.

Ban on Donor Surrogacy

The notification, modifying Form 2 under Rule 7 of the Surrogacy Rules, 2022, prohibited donor surrogacy.

Petitioning Couple's Case and Impact

The couple, both Indian residents, filed the petition due to the wife's poor ovarian reserve, seeking surrogacy involving oocyte donation. Their plea involved the transfer of embryos created from donor oocytes and the husband's sperm into a surrogate mother's uterus. The March 14 notification, introducing the ban on donor surrogacy, had a significant impact on their case.

Judicial Intent and Future Consideration

The Bench announced its intention to further deliberate on the matter on January 15, aligning with the listing of similar petitions challenging the surrogacy law amendments.

 

Delhi High Court Affirms: Amazon's Echo Devices Extend Beyond Traditional Functions

In a recent verdict, the Delhi High Court declared that Amazon's Echo Dot and Echo Show devices surpass the conventional categorization of speakers or monitors, being recognized as convergence devices offering diverse functionalities. The decision emphasized the multifunctional capabilities of these devices, leading to a determination of specific Customs Duty exemptions.

Judicial Bench and Amazon's Argument Acknowledgment

Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma acknowledged Amazon's plea for distinct customs duty exemptions, taking note of the devices' versatile capabilities.

Concurrence with Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8517

The Court agreed with Amazon's assertion that eleven devices from its Echo Dot and Show series fall within Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8517, encompassing "apparatus for transmission or reception of voice, images, or other data, including communication in wired or wireless networks."

Overturning Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) Decision

This ruling reversed a decision by the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) that had denied Amazon's request to categorize these devices under CTH 8517.

Critique of AAR's Narrow Interpretation

The High Court criticized the AAR's narrow interpretation of the devices' primary functions, emphasizing their role in data transmission, multitasking through voice commands, and real-time interaction with Amazon services.

Rejection of Limited Definitions

It rejected the AAR's description of the devices merely as loudspeakers or monitors, asserting that such definitions did not encapsulate their status as convergence devices. The Court also dismissed the AAR's argument that these devices would function solely as speakers without internet connectivity.

Highlighting Technological Convergence

The Court underscored that these gadgets epitomized technological convergence by combining various technologies to replace multiple devices, serving communication, information, and entertainment purposes.

Echo Show Capacities Beyond Monitors

Regarding Echo Show devices, the Court noted their capacity for video content playback, video calling, and messaging—functions that extend beyond the capabilities of conventional monitors.

Categorization and Customs Duty Exemptions

Consequently, the High Court disagreed with the AAR's categorization, ruling that the eleven devices rightfully fell under CTH 8517. The Court affirmed, "The Echo Show 5, Echo Dot 4th Generation, and Echo Dot 4th Generation with Clock are deemed eligible for exemptions as per SI. No. 20 of the Notification dated June 30, 2017, amended by Notification dated February 1, 2021.

 

Calcutta High Court: Presumption of Abetment to Suicide Not Automatic in Brief Marriages

In a significant judgment in the case of Krishnapada Mahato versus State of West Bengal, the Calcutta High Court clarified that the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, which implies abetment to suicide in cases of a woman's death within seven years of marriage, does not automatically implicate the husband or in-laws.

Section 113A and Conditions for Presumption

Section 113A suggests that if a married woman dies by suicide within seven years of marriage and experiences cruelty during this period, there can be a presumption of abetment against the husband and in-laws.

Prima Facie Evidence Requirement

Justice Rai Chattopadhyay elucidated that this legal presumption applies only when there is prima facie evidence showcasing cruelty endured by the wife. Merely the act of suicide within seven years of marriage is not sufficient to trigger this legal presumption unless there is prima facie evidence indicating that the accused subjected her to cruelty.

Background and Appeal

This judgment emanated from an appeal filed by Krishnapada Mahato challenging his 2012 conviction, alongside his family, for his wife's demise. The trial court had convicted them under sections 498A (cruelty) and 306 (abetment to suicide) of the Indian Penal Code.

Defense Arguments and Witness Credibility

In their defense before the High Court, the appellants highlighted that most witnesses turned hostile during the trial, and there was scarce evidence supporting the guilt of the accused-appellants.

High Court's Observations and Criticism

The High Court acknowledged these arguments, noting that prosecution witnesses, excluding medical professionals and police, lacked substantial knowledge of any conflict or hostility between the victim and the appellants. Justice Chattopadhyay criticized the trial court's assumptions and guesswork regarding the victim's suffering, highlighting the absence of substantial oral evidence corroborating the prosecution's claims.

Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof

The Court stressed the principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt and emphasized that the FIR alone couldn't establish the facts.

Acquittal and Insufficiency of Evidence

In light of these observations, the Court acquitted the appellants, underscoring the insufficiency of oral evidence and the absence of substantial proof to determine the guilt of the accused persons.

 

Karnataka High Court Ensures Informed Abortion Rights for Rape Survivors

The Karnataka High Court has recently issued directives to guarantee the prompt and informed awareness of abortion rights for rape survivors. These measures aim to eliminate the necessity for court permissions for late-stage abortions, thereby alleviating mental trauma experienced by survivors and their families [X v State].

Justice's Emphasis on Early Information

Justice Suraj Govindaraj, in permitting the termination of a 24-week-old pregnancy of a 17-year-old rape survivor, emphasized the crucial need to inform rape survivors about their abortion rights at an early stage.

Preventing Legal Hassles Through Early Information

The Court underscored that timely information about abortion rights could prevent situations like the survivor's father approaching the High Court. It highlighted the broader issue at hand, seeking to alleviate the mental and emotional distress faced by survivors and their families.

Addressing Delayed Expression of Abortion Wishes

The judge noted that survivors often express the desire to terminate pregnancies after the filing of an FIR or much later during investigations, causing mental anguish and trauma to both the survivor and their family.

Court-Issued Guidelines for Rape-Induced Pregnancies

To address these concerns, the Court issued specific guidelines for cases where rape results in pregnancy:

i)              Immediate medical examination post-registration of a sexual offence to determine pregnancy status, gestation period, physical and mental condition of the survivor, and the possibility of a medical termination of pregnancy.

ii)            Information to be provided to the Child Welfare Committee or District Child Protection Unit about the survivor's pregnancy, followed by counselling for the survivor and her family about legal options, including termination, and its implications.

iii)          Counselling conducted in a language understood by the survivor, with suitable translators if needed, ensuring that queries are answered in a familiar language.

iv)            Tissue samples of the foetus to be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for DNA analysis if termination occurs.

v)             Follow-up checks to ensure the well-being of the survivor, both physically and mentally.

Government Intervention and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)

The Court directed the Karnataka government's Director General of Police and Principal Secretary of Health to formulate a detailed standard operating procedure (SOP) for such cases, to be created by a committee of experts. This SOP will be disseminated among relevant authorities, hospitals, etc.

Compensation Considerations and Acknowledgment of Impact

Additionally, the Court emphasized the provision of compensation to survivors and their families through legal service authorities, taking into account the circumstances of each case. In allowing the abortion plea, the Court recognized the significant impact on the minor survivor's future and her mental and physical well-being if the pregnancy continued.

 

J&K High Court Stresses Timely Execution in Preventive Detention Cases

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, in the case of Owais Syed Khan v/s UT of J&K & Ors., has recently ruled that an unsatisfactory and unexplained delay in executing a preventive detention order renders it legally unsustainable.

Justice's Emphasis on Urgency in Preventive Detention

Justice Sanjay Dhar underscored that preventive detention is typically employed in urgent cases to immediately restrain individuals from engaging in activities detrimental to public order or security.

Doubts Raised by Delayed Execution

The Court reasoned that delayed execution of preventive detention orders raises doubts about the necessity of detaining the person in question. The judgment stated, "The presence of unsatisfactory and unexplained delays in executing a detention order significantly questions the genuine satisfaction of the detaining authority. This casts doubt on whether the authority was truly convinced about the necessity of the detainee's confinement."

Setting Aside a Preventive Detention Order

This decision came about as the Court set aside a preventive detention order issued on April 8, 2022, but executed only on March 14, 2023.

Legal Unsustainability Due to Lack of Explanation

In the absence of any explanation from the respondents regarding the substantial delay in execution, the Court deemed the detention order legally unsustainable.

Judicial Response to Plea and Prolonged Delay

Responding to a plea filed by Owais Syed Khan, contesting his detention due to an eleven-month delay in execution, the Court asserted that the prolonged delay indicated no substantial need for detention under preventive laws.

Nullification of Detention Order and Immediate Release

Consequently, the High Court nullified the detention order and directed the immediate release of the detainee, provided he wasn't required in any other ongoing case. This ruling underscores the critical importance of timely execution in preventive detention cases to ensure the legitimacy of the detention order.

 

Supreme Court Establishes Timelines for Grounds of Arrest Notification in Money Laundering Cases

The Supreme Court, in the case of RK Arora vs Director of Enforcement, has recently clarified that informing an individual arrested under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) about the grounds of arrest within 24 hours of detention complies with Section 19 of PMLA and Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution.

Procedural Safeguards Under Section 19 of PMLA

Section 19 of the PMLA entails certain procedural safeguards for authorized officers making arrests under anti-money laundering laws. It necessitates the prompt communication of arrest reasons to the detainee, stated as "as soon as may be."

Judicial Interpretation of Timeliness

The bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma interpreted the phrase "as soon as may be" as meaning "as early as possible" or "within a reasonably convenient" timeframe. They specified this timeframe as 24 hours from the time of arrest.

Legal Obligations for Notification

The Court's judgment emphasized that promptly informing the arrestee about the grounds of arrest, orally at the time of arrest, and providing a written communication within 24 hours, fulfills legal obligations under both PMLA and Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

Examination of Enforcement Directorate's (ED) Actions

In a case where the Enforcement Directorate (ED) arrested the appellant, the Court examined if ED's action of initially handing over the document detailing the grounds of arrest, taking it back after obtaining an endorsement and signature without furnishing a copy to the arrestee, rendered the arrest illegal.

Conclusion on Legal Compliance

The Court concluded that oral notification of arrest reasons during apprehension, coupled with a written communication within 24 hours, meets the legal requirements. Citing the precedent set in the Vijay Madanlal case, a three-judge Supreme Court judgment, the bench affirmed that informing the arrested individual about the grounds of arrest suffices for compliance with Section 19 of PMLA and Article 22(1) of the Constitution. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the arrested appellant had been duly informed about the reasons for his arrest.

 

Provisional Participation Granted in MP Civil Judge Exam Amid Eligibility Dispute

A dispute over the eligibility criterion mandating three years of law practice for the civil judge examination in Madhya Pradesh led to relief for aspiring candidates, as per the case of Monika Yadav and others versus the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and another.

Bench's Directive for Provisional Participation

Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan's bench directed that all affected aspirants, even those who hadn't approached the court, should be provisionally permitted to engage in the examination and selection process.

Relief Following High Court's Assurance

This relief came following the representation made by the counsel representing the Madhya Pradesh High Court, assuring that the requirement for three years of advocacy practice would not be enforced for the time being. The Supreme Court duly noted and recorded this statement.

Legal Challenge Against Rule 7(g)

The plea before the bench comprised law students seeking provisional permission to appear in the upcoming civil judge examination in Madhya Pradesh. Their challenge was against Rule 7(g) of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules of 1994, which necessitated three years of legal practice for entry-level positions in the state's lower judiciary.

Previous Denial by Madhya Pradesh High Court

Previously, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had denied provisional application for the exam, prompting the petitioners to approach the apex court.

Assurance from the High Court and Disposal of the Case

The Supreme Court, after issuing a notice in the matter earlier, received assurance from the High Court on Friday. Consequently, the petitioners were allowed to withdraw their petitions with liberty to challenge the rule's validity before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Timeline for Resolution by Madhya Pradesh High Court

It was informed that the High Court aims to resolve the case by the end of February 2024, a detail shared with the apex court. In light of this development, the Supreme Court decided to dispose of the case accordingly.

 

High Court Criticizes Casual Invocation of Special Laws in Police Allegations Case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently scrutinized the nonchalant application of specialized legislations such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) by the police in a case involving allegations of officers supplying arms to Naxalites.

Concerns Over Ad Hoc Inclusion and Misuse of Special Acts

The Court raised concerns over the ad hoc inclusion of UAPA and PMLA charges during the ongoing investigation in a 2011 case, prompted by a letter from the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP). Justice Jagmohan Bansal highlighted the misuse of these special Acts without a proper understanding of their scope.

Judge's Emphasis on the Paradoxical Approach

The judge emphasized, "The invocation of these special Acts via a mere letter from the SSP showcased a paradox: serious allegations against the erring police officials juxtaposed with a lax approach, resulting in their acquittal. Besides UAPA and PMLA, the Arms Act, 1959 provisions were also invoked."

Background of the Case

In 2011, several Punjab policemen faced Indian Penal Code (IPC) charges for allegedly facilitating the sale of arms and ammunition to Naxalites. Subsequently, UAPA Section 16 and PMLA charges were added during the investigation.

Outcome of Previous Proceedings and Acquittal

After facing both departmental and criminal proceedings, leading to dismissal, the accused officers were acquitted in 2019. However, only some were reinstated while others remained excluded from service.

Court's Directives for Case Review and Reinstatement

Two officers, not reinstated, filed writ petitions seeking relief. On December 8, the High Court directed the Punjab government to review their cases for potential reinstatement. The Court highlighted disparities in treatment, noting that all officers faced similar allegations and departmental punishment. Despite acquittal, only a few were reinstated. Therefore, the Court instructed the State to reconsider the petitioners' cases in line with relevant rules and prior reinstatement orders.

Three-Month Deadline for State Compliance

The State was given a three-month deadline to comply, and both petitions were concluded with these directives. The case underscores the need for careful consideration and adherence to legal procedures when invoking specialized legislation in criminal cases.

 


Weekly Legal Updates

06 December 2023 – 12 December 2023

Weekly Legal Updates: December 6 – December 12

1.   Bombay High Court Upholds Tax Amendments, Rejects Serum Institute's ChallengeTop of Form

2.   Kerala High Court Stresses Fairness in Bail Conditions to Safeguard Rights

3.   Supreme Court Affirms 'Group of Companies' Doctrine in Indian Arbitration

4.   Delhi High Court Upholds Child Protection, Rejects Settlements in Kidnapping Cases

5.   Kerala Consumer Forum Protects Students: Institutes Cannot Withhold Fees for Dissatisfaction

6.   Punjab & Haryana High Court Penalizes School for Erroneous CBSE Marks: Upholding Student's Future

7.   Delhi High Court Upholds Women's Right as Karta in Hindu Undivided Families

8.   Kerala High Court's Guidelines for Protecting Digital Evidence in Cases of Sexual Offenses

9.   Rajasthan High Court Upholds Marriage Registration Rights for Foreign Nationals

10.                 Supreme Court Refrains from Ruling on J&K Bifurcation Law Validity, Awaits Statehood Restoration

11.                 Proposed Amendments to Election Commissioners' Law to Align with Judiciary

  

Bombay High Court Upholds Tax Amendments, Rejects Serum Institute's Challenge

Case Overview

In the case of Serum Institute of India Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors., the Bombay High Court dismissed the petition filed by Serum Institute of India (SII) challenging the 2015 amendments to the Finance Act. The amendments, which added sub-clause (xviii) to Section 2(24), redefined taxable "income."

Court's Decision

Validity of Amendments Upheld:

Justices KR Shriram and Neela Gokhale upheld the validity of the 2015 amendments, emphasizing the court's reluctance to interfere in economic policy matters.

Limited Judicial Intervention in Economic Policy:

The court highlighted that matters of economic policy are best left to the legislature's expertise. It stressed that judicial interference in economic legislation is limited and occurs only when the presented view is impossible to adopt.

No Irrationality Found in the Amendment:

The court found no substantiation to deem the amendment irrational. The amendment, effective from 2016, brought subsidies, grants, incentives, waivers, concessions, and reimbursements by Central or State governments under taxable income for an assessee.

Impact on Serum Institute's Incentives:

Serum Institute sought incentives under Maharashtra's 'Package Scheme of Incentives of 2013,' but due to the Finance Act amendment, these incentives became subject to taxation. SII argued against the unintended retroactive impact of the amendment.

Constitutional and Revenue Considerations:

SII contended that taxing incentives indirectly encroached upon the State's revenue, violating the constitution. The court supported the government's stance, stating that taxation matters rested exclusively with the Parliament.

Judicial Deference to Legislative Judgment:

The court emphasized judicial deference to legislative judgment on social and economic policies. It highlighted the potential disruptions to the economy and weakening of legislative authority if fiscal statutes were overturned.

Consideration of Ramifications:

While upholding constitutional mandates, the court stressed the need for a careful consideration of the ramifications of intervening in legislative judgments concerning fiscal matters.

Significance

The court's decision underscores the principle of limited judicial intervention in economic policy matters, affirming the authority of the legislature to make decisions on taxation and fiscal policies. It also highlights the importance of considering the broader economic implications before challenging fiscal statutes.


 

Kerala High Court Stresses Fairness in Bail Conditions to Safeguard Rights

 

Case Overview

In a case involving a petitioner accused in a drug possession case, the Kerala High Court emphasized the importance of fairness in setting bail conditions to safeguard the fundamental rights of the accused.

Court's Ruling

Violation of Fundamental Rights:

Justice PV Kunhikrishnan ruled that excessively strict conditions on default bail, preventing the accused from fulfilling them, violate their fundamental rights.

Objective of Bail Conditions:

The court clarified that when setting bail conditions, the primary objective should be to ensure the accused's presence at trial and cooperation with the investigation. Bail conditions should not obstruct the statutory right to bail.

Case Background:

The petitioner was granted default bail due to an incomplete investigation within the stipulated time. However, the trial court imposed stringent conditions, requiring the petitioner to provide a close relative as surety and original property title deeds.

Impossibility to Meet Conditions:

The petitioner found it impossible to meet these conditions due to a lack of willing relatives and financial constraints.

Invalidation of Stringent Bail Conditions:

The High Court invalidated the stringent bail conditions imposed by the trial court, stating that such arbitrary impositions infringe upon the constitutional rights of the detenue.

Direction for Easing Burden:

The court directed that tax receipts could be presented instead of original property title deeds, providing a more reasonable alternative and easing the burden on the accused.

Legal Significance

The court's ruling underscores the principle that bail conditions should be fair, reasonable, and should not impede the accused's statutory right to bail. It emphasizes the need for courts to consider the practical challenges faced by the accused in meeting bail conditions and to ensure that such conditions are not unduly burdensome. This decision reaffirms the importance of protecting the constitutional rights of individuals in the criminal justice system. Also see https://www.thelawgicalstudies.com/tls-daily-practice-streak/tls-ca-practice-streak

Supreme Court Affirms 'Group of Companies' Doctrine in Indian Arbitration

 

Case Overview

The Supreme Court's Constitution Bench, in the case of Cox and Kings vs SAP Pvt Ltd, affirmed the applicability of the "group of companies" doctrine in Indian arbitration proceedings.

Key Points

Doctrine Application:

The "group of companies" doctrine binds a company not initially involved in an arbitration agreement if it belongs to the same corporate group as the signatories, assuming they intended for the non-signatory to be bound.

Judicial Bench:

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices Hrishikesh Roy, PS Narasimha, JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra constituted the Constitution Bench for this ruling.

Factors for Application:

The court emphasized that non-signatories, due to their relationship and commercial engagement with the signatories, aren't distant from the dispute under arbitration. Mutual intent and commercial involvement were considered key factors in applying this doctrine.

Consideration of Aspects:

The Court considered various aspects, including whether the doctrine should be incorporated into the Arbitration Act, its persistence based on the principle of 'single economic reality,' its interpretation of implied consent or intent to arbitrate, and whether principles like alter ego or piercing the corporate veil can justify its use without implied consent.

Importance of Consent:

The Court stressed that consent is crucial in arbitration, and individuals cannot be forced into it. Courts must ascertain if a non-signatory intended a legal relationship with the signatory and agreed to be bound by the arbitration agreement.

Balanced Approach:

While highlighting that arbitration is contractual, the Court urged a balanced approach, respecting the decision not to include someone in the agreement while considering those showing intent to be bound.

Limitations of the Doctrine:

The Court noted the limitations of the doctrine, indicating that it alone isn't enough to determine a party's binding status, and courts must establish the existence of a group of companies first.

Affirmation of Doctrine:

Ultimately, the Court affirmed the doctrine's application, including both signatories and non-signatories within the same group of companies as parties to the contract based on their actions.

Legal Significance

This ruling provides clarity on the applicability of the "group of companies" doctrine in Indian arbitration, emphasizing the importance of mutual intent and commercial involvement in determining the inclusion of non-signatories within the same corporate group as parties to the arbitration agreement.

Also see: https://www.thelawgicalstudies.com/tls-daily-practice-streak/tls-legal-clat-practice-streak

 

Delhi High Court Upholds Child Protection, Rejects Settlements in Kidnapping Cases

Case Overview

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Smt. Rubina & Ors v The State (Govt of NCT Of Delhi) & Ors, emphasized the seriousness of cases involving child kidnapping or trafficking and rejected the plea to terminate criminal proceedings against the accused individuals.

Key Points

Gravity of Offenses:

The Court highlighted the gravity of cases related to child kidnapping or trafficking, emphasizing that such offenses cannot be dismissed through settlements between perpetrators and the child's parents.

Ethical and Legal Concerns:

The Court expressed ethical and legal concerns regarding settlements in cases involving minors, stating that treating a minor as a commodity through such settlements cannot be condoned.

Specific Case Details:

The case involved the abduction of a minor girl and her brother in 2020. While the boy was returned to the parents, investigations revealed that the girl was allegedly kidnapped and sold to other individuals.

Accused's Plea:

The accused individuals sought to quash the case, citing their settlement with the parents and expressing a desire to legally adopt the child. They claimed unawareness of the kidnapping.

Court's Rejection:

The Court rejected the plea for a "humanitarian approach," asserting that it contradicts criminal jurisprudence and societal expectations of holding perpetrators accountable for serious offenses.

Concerns About Commodification:

Emphasizing the alarming notion of "commodifying children," the Court underlined the ethical violation inherent in treating a child's custody as a transaction.

Adherence to Legal Principles:

The Court maintained that adherence to legal principles is crucial, even in challenging situations, and rejected the idea of siding with those outside the law.

Message to Society:

Allowing settlements in cases involving serious crimes against children could send a detrimental message to society, implying that such offenses could be disregarded or mitigated through private agreements.

Dismissal of Petition:

The petition seeking to quash proceedings was dismissed by the Court, reaffirming the commitment to protecting children's rights and dignity through legal means.

Legal Significance

This ruling establishes the Delhi High Court's stance on cases involving child kidnapping or trafficking, emphasizing the importance of legal principles over settlements to ensure accountability for serious offenses against minors. The decision underscores the societal impact of such crimes and the need to prioritize child protection over private agreements.

 

Kerala Consumer Forum Protects Students: Institutes Cannot Withhold Fees for Dissatisfaction

Case Overview

A recent ruling by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Ernakulam, Kerala, highlighted that coaching institutes lack the authority to withhold fees from students who choose to leave a course midway due to dissatisfaction with the provided services. The case, titled Zeba Salim v VLCC Healthcare Limited, involved a student who enrolled in a cosmetology course at the VLCC Institute in Kochi.

Key Points

Consumer Forum's Concerns:

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission expressed concerns about unethical practices within coaching institutes and emphasized the importance of fairness in the education sector. The forum highlighted that institutes should not have the right to retain fees when students withdraw from a course due to dissatisfaction with the services.

Case Background:

The complainant enrolled in a cosmetology course at the VLCC Institute in January 2021. Subsequent advanced courses were disrupted by COVID-19. Despite transitioning to online classes after testing positive, the institute failed to continue classes for additional courses for which fees had been collected.

Refund Request and Unsuccessful Attempts:

The complainant requested a refund, and the institute suggested purchasing VLCC products instead. After multiple unsuccessful attempts to secure a refund, the complainant filed a petition before the Legal Services Authority.

Precedent and Consumer Protection:

The consumer forum considered the precedent set by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in a similar case, emphasizing the need to protect students and parents from unfair retention of fees by coaching institutes.

Forum's Ruling:

The forum ruled in favor of the complainant, citing severe deficiencies in service and unfair trade practices by the institute. The institute was directed to refund the course fees and pay compensation for mental distress, inconvenience, physical hardships, and service deficiencies, along with additional costs.

Legal Significance

This ruling establishes the importance of protecting consumers, especially students and parents, from exploitative practices by coaching institutes. It emphasizes the principle of fairness and prevents institutes from unjustly withholding fees when students choose to discontinue a course due to dissatisfaction with the services provided. The decision sets a precedent for consumer protection in the education sector.


 

Punjab & Haryana High Court Penalizes School for Erroneous CBSE Marks: Upholding Student's Future

Case Overview

The Punjab & Haryana High Court imposed a fine of ₹30,000 on a school for erroneously assigning zero marks to a Class X student in her Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) exams. The case, titled Riya v. State, highlighted the adverse consequences faced by the student and the unnecessary litigation expenses incurred due to the school's error.

Key Points

Error in Exam Results:

The school mistakenly swapped marks between two students with identical names, preventing the petitioner from participating in her Class XII board exams.

Legal Intervention:

The student sought rectification of her exam results and a revised marks certificate through legal intervention.

School's Non-Cooperation:

Despite the student's efforts and CBSE intervention, it was revealed that the school failed to submit the revised marks within the stipulated time on the online portal. The school claimed to have forwarded the application to the Board but took no further action.

Court's Observations:

The Court noted the school's non-cooperation and disregard for the issue, even after being served a notice. The school's negligence hindered the petitioner's academic progression.

Imposition of Penalty:

Considering the adverse impact on the student's academic future, the Court imposed a penalty of ₹30,000 on the negligent institution. The penalty was directed to be paid to the CBSE for involving it unnecessarily in the litigation.

CBSE Decision Overturned:

The Court overturned CBSE's decision to dismiss the petitioner's request for marks rectification. The Board was instructed to declare a new result for the petitioner.

Legal Significance

This case underscores the responsibility of educational institutions to ensure accuracy in exam results and rectify errors promptly. The Court's decision to penalize the school for its negligence serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding students' academic rights and preventing unnecessary legal proceedings. The ruling emphasizes the duty of schools to cooperate in addressing errors that impact students' futures.

 

Delhi High Court Upholds Women's Right as Karta in Hindu Undivided Families

Case Overview

The Delhi High Court affirmed that women have the right to assume the role of Karta (head) in a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The case, titled Manu Gupta v Sujata Sharma & Ors, addressed a dispute over the appointment of the Karta within a family.

Key Points

Background:

The case originated from a dispute over the appointment of the Karta in a Hindu Undivided Family following the demise of all sons of DR Gupta.

Claimants:

Sujata Sharma, the eldest granddaughter of DR Gupta, asserted her right to be the next Karta. However, her claim faced opposition from male relatives, including Manu Gupta, who self-proclaimed as the Karta.

Legal Amendments:

The Court considered the amendments made in the Hindu Succession Act in 2005, ensuring equal inheritance rights for Hindu men and women.

Key Legal Question:

The Court deliberated on whether acknowledging a woman as a coparcener, with equal inheritance rights, could pave the way for her assuming the role of Karta in managing the family property.

Court's Verdict:

The Court concluded that seniority by age and coparcenary status were the sole requisites to become a Karta. The amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act granted women equal coparcenary rights, allowing them to assume the position of Karta.

Equal Rights for Daughters:

The Court highlighted that, according to Section 6 of the Act, a daughter of a coparcener is deemed a coparcener by birth, similar to a son. This extends to encompass all rights, including the right to be a Karta.

Dismissal of Notions:

The Court dismissed claims that a female Karta's husband might exert indirect control over her father's family HUF, labeling such notions as narrow-minded.

Court's Declaration:

The Court declared Sujata Sharma as the Karta to represent the HUF of DR Gupta & Sons before the Competent Authority, dismissing the appeal.

Legal Significance

This ruling holds significance as it reinforces the equal rights of women in Hindu Undivided Families, particularly in assuming the role of Karta. The Court's interpretation of the legal amendments underscores the need to embrace societal changes and move away from traditional gender-based restrictions within family structures.

Also See: https://www.thelawgicalstudies.com/tls-daily-practice-streak/tls-legal-net-practice-streak

 

Kerala High Court's Guidelines for Protecting Digital Evidence in Cases of Sexual Offenses

Case Overview

The Kerala High Court issued pioneering guidelines to protect digital evidence, particularly containing sexually explicit content, in cases of sexual offenses. The initiative stemmed from a plea by a victim involved in the 2017 actress assault case, highlighting the vulnerability of women and children to sexual offenses and the need for stringent protocols.

Key Points

Background:

The case originated from a plea by a victim involved in the 2017 actress assault case, expressing concerns about unauthorized access and potential dissemination of sensitive content from the memory card containing evidence.

Court's Concerns:

Justice K Babu emphasized the vulnerability of women and children to sexual offenses and the subsequent recovery of electronic records containing explicit material by law enforcement agencies. The court noted the absence of specific guidelines for the secure handling of such sensitive electronic evidence.

Failure of the System:

Observing the system's failure in protecting the victim's rights and fundamental liberties, the court ordered a fact-finding inquiry concerning unauthorized access, copying, and transmission of content from the memory card.

Guidelines for Law Enforcement Agencies:

Emphasized cautious seizure, meticulous documentation, secure storage, and stringent accountability measures for electronically seized material.

Guidelines for Courts:

Focused on maintaining meticulous registers, ensuring secure storage, regulating access, and ensuring the destruction of evidence upon case finality.

Guidelines for Examining Authorities:

Highlighted protocols for maintaining comprehensive registers, secure handling of sealed packets, precautions during examination, and meticulous documentation of any extractions or copies made.

Direction to Authorities:

The court directed the registry to distribute copies of the judgment to the Kerala Chief Secretary, State Police Chief, and District Judges for immediate implementation.

Government Involvement:

Urged both Central and State governments to formulate rules ensuring the secure handling of such sensitive electronic evidence.

Legal Significance

The guidelines set by the Kerala High Court are groundbreaking in addressing the secure handling of digital evidence, particularly in cases of sexual offenses. These guidelines provide a framework for law enforcement agencies, courts, and examining authorities to follow stringent protocols, ensuring the protection of victims' rights and the prevention of unauthorized access or dissemination of sensitive content.

 

 

Rajasthan High Court Upholds Marriage Registration Rights for Foreign Nationals

Case Overview

The Rajasthan High Court recently issued a ruling stating that denying marriage registration solely based on one spouse being a foreign national is impermissible. The case, titled Ashwani Sharad Pendese vs Registrar of Hindu Marriages, involved a plea challenging the refusal of marriage registration by the Registrar of Hindu Marriages due to the husband's foreign nationality.

Key Points

Denial of Marriage Registration:

The Registrar of Hindu Marriages denied the couple's marriage registration based on the husband's foreign nationality.

Judicial Response:

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand addressed the plea and emphasized the sacred nature of marriage, highlighting its emotional, mental, and psychological significance.

Legal Basis:

Referring to the Hindu Marriage Act, the judge pointed out the absence of provisions prohibiting the registration of marriages involving foreign national Hindus under the Act of 1995.

Fundamental Rights for Foreigners:

The court held that fundamental rights, specifically the right to equality (Article 14) under the Indian Constitution, extend to foreigners.

While certain rights are exclusive to Indian citizens, Articles 14 and 21 apply to "any person," encompassing both citizens and non-citizens.

Intent of the Founders:

The court stressed the founders' intent to safeguard fundamental rights for all individuals, regardless of citizenship, distinguishing between rights for "citizens" and those for "any person."

Violation of Right to Equality:

Considering the marriage registration application's format, which does not mandate both spouses to be Indian citizens, the court deemed denying registration based on nationality a violation of the couple's right to equality.

Directive for Amendment:

In response, the court issued a general mandate to amend guidelines and application formats for marriage registration.

The directive aimed to eliminate the insistence on Indian citizenship, allowing couples, upon providing valid proof of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act or the Special Marriage Act, to register their marriages without discrimination based on nationality.

Legal Significance

The court's ruling establishes that marriage registration cannot be denied solely based on the nationality of one spouse, emphasizing the principles of equality enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The directive to amend guidelines aims to ensure fair and non-discriminatory practices in the registration of marriages involving foreign nationals, aligning with constitutional values and protecting individuals' fundamental rights.

 

Supreme Court Refrains from Ruling on J&K Bifurcation Law Validity, Awaits Statehood Restoration

Case Overview

The Supreme Court recently declined to pass judgment on the legality of the 2019 law dividing Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) into two Union Territories (UTs). The decision comes in light of the government's assurance of reinstating statehood to J&K. The case pertained to petitions challenging the government's revocation of Article 370, which granted special status to the former State of J&K.

Key Points

Court's Position:

The Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, along with Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, and Surya Kant, refrained from deciding on the permissibility of reorganizing J&K into two UTs.

Government's Assurance:

Considering the government's assurance of restoring statehood to J&K, the Court found it unnecessary to rule on the reorganization of the region into Ladakh and Jammu & Kashmir UTs under Article 3 of the Constitution.

2019 Actions Upheld:

The Court upheld the Central government's 2019 decision to revoke Article 370, which granted special status to J&K.

The Parliament had enacted the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, leading to the bifurcation of the State into the Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.

Status of Ladakh:

The Court affirmed Ladakh's status as a Union Territory, citing the provisions of Article 3 that allow creating a UT by separating a territory from any state.

Concerns on Constitutional Powers:

The Court reserved the decision on whether Parliament can nullify a region's statehood by converting a State into one or more Union Territories.

Concerns were raised about the impact on federalism and representative democracy.

Election Commission's Directive:

Acknowledging the absence of an elected government in J&K, the Court directed the Election Commission to conduct legislative assembly elections in J&K by September 30, 2024, without postponement until statehood restoration.

Call for Statehood Reinstatement:

The Court emphasized the need for statehood reinstatement at the earliest opportunity, considering the absence of an elected government in J&K.

Legal Implications

The Court's decision to refrain from ruling on the legality of the bifurcation law and its emphasis on statehood restoration signal a cautious approach, taking into account the evolving situation in J&K. The reservation on constitutional powers and the call for early statehood reinstatement indicate a nuanced stance, recognizing the complex constitutional and political dimensions involved in the matter.

 

Proposed Amendments to Election Commissioners' Law to Align with Judiciary

Overview

The Central government has proposed amendments to the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Bill, 2023. The amendments aim to align the service conditions of Chief Election Commissioners (CECs) and Election Commissioners (ECs) with those of Supreme Court judges. The original bill, presented in the Rajya Sabha on August 10, outlined provisions related to the appointment, removal, and service conditions of CECs and ECs.

Key Amendments

Search Committee Leadership:

The amendment substitutes the term 'Cabinet Secretary' with the 'Minister of Law and Justice' to lead the search committee responsible for forming a panel of candidates for the Selection Committee's assessment.

Service Conditions:

The proposed revision aligns the salaries, allowances, and service conditions of the CEC and ECs with those accorded to Supreme Court judges, departing from the initial provision that mirrored the conditions of Cabinet Secretaries.

Removal Process:

The amendment proposes a removal process for the CEC similar to that of Supreme Court judges. It mandates a recommendation from the CEC for the removal of ECs.

Rule-Making Authority:

The amendment grants the President the authority to establish rules defining the service conditions of the CEC and ECs, departing from the initial provision that mirrored conditions applicable to the Cabinet Secretary.

Legal Protection:

The proposed clause 15A provides legal protection, barring any civil or criminal proceedings against the CEC or ECs for their official actions or words during their tenure.

Background and Context

The bill was introduced following a Supreme Court verdict that identified a legal void in the appointments of Election Commissioners.

The Supreme Court's March 2, 2023 judgment suggested a committee chaired by the Prime Minister for appointments, with members including the Chief Justice of India and the Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha.

The Court emphasized the importance of free and impartial elections for upholding the rule of law and urged the establishment of a permanent secretariat for the Election Commission funded through the Consolidated Fund of India to ensure independence.

Implications

The proposed amendments seek to enhance the independence and align the service conditions of Election Commissioners with the judiciary. The changes reflect considerations for the impartiality and integrity of the election process, addressing the legal void identified by the Supreme Court and incorporating its recommendations.

 Also See:https://www.thelawgicalstudies.com/tls-daily-practice-streak/tls-legal-j-practice-streak



 


Weekly Legal Updates

29 November 2023 – 05 December 2023


This Week’s Weekly Legal Updates Include:

 

     Bombay HC Denounces PIL based on Social Media Information:


Supreme Court Sets Precedent for Money Laundering Cases and Conspiracy Charges:

 

Bombay High Court Rules Attendance Optional for Child Victims in POCSO Appeals:

 

High Court of Jammu & Kashmir Halts Issuing Caste Certificates for Saini Community:


Manipur High Court Questions State's Mobile Internet Ban in Peaceful Areas:

 

Karnataka High Court Emphasizes Filling Pollution Control Board Chair Vacancies:

 

MP High Court: CrPC Doesn’t Bar Seeking Relief Under DV Act:

 

Kerala HC urges Protection from Cyberbullying for LGBTQ+ Community:

 

Poorly Printed Bills amounts to Unfair Trade Practice: District Consumer Forum at Kerala:

 

Bombay High Court: Extension of Arbitration Time Allowed Beyond Statutory Limit:

 

Maintenance under DV Act not meant for imprisoning defaulters: Delhi HC:

 

Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2023 passed by Lok Sabha:

 

Kerala High Court Declines 30-Week Abortion Plea for 14-Year-Old Rape Survivor:

Weekly Legal Updates

22 November 2023 – 28 November 2023

This week’s legal updates contain:


All false and misleading Advertisements of Patanjali Ayurved have to stop immediately, Penalty up to Rs. 1 Cr. on each false claim: SC

 

License to operate a Hotel does not permit to host smoking areas or run Hookah Centres: Telangana HC

Voluntarily unemployed spouse can’t burden the other party with one sided responsibility of meeting out expenses: Delhi HC

 

Testimony of a rape victim must be flawless and of exceptional quality: J&K and Ladakh HC

 

SC directs Central Govt. to constitute a fresh Delimitation Commission to ensure proportional representation of SC and ST

 

LAWASIA Conference

Hindu Marriage performed by coercion and without Saptapadi invalidated by the Patna HC

 

Courts authorised to handle PMLA cases holds the authority to try scheduled offences from which PMLA violation originated: Calcutta HC

 

Kerala HC suggested the Parliament to enact comprehensive maintenance law so that destitute women and children are not forced to approach courts to get their monthly allowance

 

PIL contesting guidelines on groundwater extracton filed in Punjab & Haryana HC

 

Statue of Dr. BR Ambedkar in the SC premises

 

NHRC Chairman urged the need for legislation to differentiate between legitimate promises and freebies, cautioned against the misuse of PILs

 

Introduction of FASTER 2.0 and hindi version of e-SCR portal by SC

 

All India Tourist Vehicles cannot function as Stage Carriers: Kerala HC

 

A child needs both parents; neither of them should be seen as adversary for child: Bombay HC

 

Adv Somasekhar Sundrasen appointed as additional judge of Bombay HC

Marital relations don’t eclipse an individual’s right to privacy: Karnataka HC

 

Strict actions against lawyers by Kerala HC for disrupting court proceedings

 

SC rejected the plea to use Gujarati as an additional language in Gujarat’s Courts

 

SC rejects to ban the performance of Pakistani artists in India



Weekly Legal Updates

15 November 2023 – 21 November 2023

This week’s legal updates contain:


Use of Abusive Language Towards Spouse Amounts to Mental Cruelty: Chhattisgarh HC

 

SC praised Justice Kurian for Donating Fees Earned as Mediator


Agreement to Sell does not amount to Transfer of Ownership Rights: SC


Govt is strictly liable to compensate the public for failing to protect them from animal-related incidents: Punjab and Haryana HC

 

Failure to Report Crimes under POCSO qualifies as a Bailabe Offence: Himachal Pradesh HC

 

‘Rape’ to be understood in the right context in cases involving minor victims: Telangana HC

 

Woman receives Rs. 13.77 lakhs as Compensation for Medical Negligence

 

75% Domicile Reservation in Pvt Sector Invalidated by Punjab & Haryana HC

 

Blank Cheque issued voluntarily remains subject to Presumption that it was provided to Discharge a Debt or Liability: Kerala HC

 

Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta appointed as the Acting Chief Justice of Allahabad HC

 

High Courts and Session Courts are empowered to grant Anticipatory Bails even when FIR lodged in another State: SC

 

The Constitution of India to be available in Meetei Mayek Script: Manipur CM

 

List of Available Children for Adoption must be Updated Bi-monthly: SC to authorities

 

Damaging India’s Honour & Dignity would not qualify as a Terrorist Act under UAPA: J&K and Ladakh HC

 

Strict Actions by Bar Council if Advocate producing False Orders in Delhi HC found guilty

 

Section 69 of IEA demands more than the testimony of a witness asserting they saw the attesting witness sign the will.



Weekly Legal Updates

08 November 2023 – 14 November 2023

This week’s legal updates contain:



Section 65B Evidence Act Certificate can be produced at any stage of trial: SC allows prosecution plea in 2008 Bangalore Blasts Case [state of Karnataka v. T. Naseer]

 

Rajasthan HC upholds the Right of Maternity Leave to Surrogate Mothers

 

SC issues guidelines to high courts to monitor early disposal of cases against MPs/MLAs

However, the Supreme Court provided general directions to guide the early resolution of pending cases against MPs and MLAs:

 Three new judges take oath in SC

 State could only prohibit games of chance and not those of skill: Madras HC

 

Mitti Café inaugurated in SC

 

Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, 2023

Key Highlights and Features:

Balanced Regulation and Fairness:

Structured Dispute Resolution and Transparency:

 Parliamentary Panel recommends ‘gender-neutral’ adultery

 

 Rules for protection of properties of children who lost their parents: Delhi HC

SC handbook amended to substitute the term ‘sex worker’ with ‘trafficked survivor’






Weekly Legal Updates

01 November 2023 – 07 November 2023

This week’s legal updates contain:


Electoral Bonds Case:

What are Electoral Bonds?

Did Electoral Bonds Bring Opacity in Funding System?

Electoral Bonds and The Share of Funding:

Witness will not stand totally discredited merely by a contradictory statement given to police: SC

Case Name: Birbal Nath Vs The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal NO. 1587 OF 2008

Bench: Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia

Annual 12k grant to junior OBC Advocates: Kerala HC:

Kerala HC denied anticipatory bail to family accused of cheating woman through fake matrimonial profile (Nijesh Chandran Ors vs State of Kerala & Anr):

Review petition filed in SC challenging same sex marriage verdict:

.

SC to consider whether trans woman can invoke domestic violence Act:

Aggrieved person:

Process for a transgender person to change their gender:

Bombay High Court Ruled:

Undue Advantage of situation by offender disentitles him to the benefit of exception 4 of s.300 IPC: SC

NLU Assam introduced menstrual leave for its female students:

Supreme Court says no hard and fast rule that convict must serve minimum sentence before it can be suspended:

Supreme Court refuses to hear plea by PFI challenging its ban under UAPA; asks it to approach High Court:

Supreme Court seeks Central government response to plea challenging Section 437A CrPC:

National Green Tribunal calls for immediate remedial action in cities with AQI above 200:

NGT’s Pivotal Role in Addressing Air Pollution:

Supreme Court Collegium recommends three High Court Chief Justices for elevation as apex court judges:

Complaints committee inquiring into sexual harassment complaints can put questions to witnesses: Supreme Court (UOI & Ors. v. Dilip Paul):

Recently, the Supreme Court answered an important question can the complaints committee inquiring into sexual harassment complaint put questions to witnesses.

The case before the court concerned by a senior officer at the services selection board in Assam. A complaint was filed by a lady colleague against him and accused him of sexual harassment. Inquiries were conducted including central complaints committee.

Jammu and Kashmir High Court acquits teacher convicted of rape, says conviction cannot stand merely on sentiment (Mohd Maqbool Ganai v UT of J&K):

Search or seizure of digital devices of journalists a serious issue, there must be guidelines: Supreme Court (Foundation for Media Professionals v UOI & Ors):

Judge elevations can't be blocked because Collegium does not accept a name Centre wants: Supreme Court (The Advocates Association Bengaluru v Barun Mitra & Anr):

Mere touch not penetrative sexual assault under POCSO Act: Delhi High Court:



Weekly Legal Updates

27 October 2023 – 31 October 2023


This week’s legal updates contain:

Weekly Legal Updates in Detail


To Hold A Medical Practitioner Liable For Negligence, A Higher Threshold Limit Must Be Met: Supreme Court

1. a duty of care extended to the complainant,

2. breach of that duty of care, and

3. resulting damage, injury or harm caused to the complainant attributable to the said breach of duty.


 

Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari has been designated as the Acting Chief Justice of the Uttarakhand High Court.

 

 The Calcutta High Court stated that a wife's request to live separately from her husband does not necessarily constitute cruelty.

The Calcutta High Court clarified that the right to free speech does not encompass the right to damage someone's reputation in society.

Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression

Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees all citizens the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression.

Some key points regarding this right are:

International Bar Association Annual Conference 2023 will be held in Paris from 29 October.

The key themes include:

International Bar Association

 

NGT Asserts: Celebrations Shouldn't Infringe on Others' Right to Health, Regarding Firecracker Restrictions

National Green Tribunal

Structure:

Powers and Jurisdiction:

NGT by an order, can provide

o   relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental damage (including accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance),

o   for restitution of property damaged, and

o   for restitution of the environment for such area or areas, as the Tribunal may think fit.

An order/decision/award of Tribunal is executable as a decree of a civil court.

The NGT Act also provides a procedure for a penalty for non compliance:

o   Imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years,

o   Fine which may extend to ten crore rupees, and

o   Both fine and imprisonment.

An appeal against order/decision/ award of the NGT lies to the Supreme Court, generally within ninety days from the date of communication.

The NGT deals with civil cases under the seven laws related to the environment, these include:

o   The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974,

o   The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977,

o   The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980,

o   The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981,

o   The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986,

o   The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 and

o   The Biological Diversity Act, 2002.

Any violation pertaining to these laws or any decision taken by the Government under these laws can be challenged before the NGT.

Important Landmark Judgements of NGT

 Supreme Court Orders Appointment of 50-Year-Old as Postal Assistant

Article 142

 

 About Article 142

Uses of Article 142


Advantages of Article 142

For instance:

Disadvantages of Article 142

Latest Developments

 

Allahabad High Court: Liking Obscene Facebook Post Not an Offense, But Sharing or Retweeting Is

Section 67

Punishment for publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form

Chhattisgarh High Court: Wife's Suspicion of Husband Coming Home Late Not Considered Cruelty

Cruelty

 Physical Cruelty

Mental Cruelty

Cruelty under Section 498A Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC)

Cruelty as a ground for Judicial Separation & Divorce

 

 World Psychiatric Association Advocates Eliminating Death Penalty for Mentally ILL and Individuals with Developmental Disabilities

World Psychiatric Association

 

Mercy Petitions

A mercy petition is a formal request made by someone who has been sentenced to death or imprisonment seeking mercy from the President or the Governor, as the case may be.

 The court laid down certain grounds on which clemency power can be claimed by the petitioner for judicial review:

o   If the order is passed without any application of mind.

o   If the order passed is malafide.

o   If the order passed on completely irrelevant considerations.

o   If the order suffers from arbitrariness.

  Ex-Parte Orders In Matrimonial Cases Unjust; Have Socio-Economic and Social Impact: Calcutta High Court

Madhya Pradesh High Court slaps ₹10k costs on Additional District Magistrate for interpreting law as per convenience (29 Oct)

Supreme Court: Education or Religious Faith Does Not Automatically Indicate Witness's Good Reputation

Supreme Court denies bail to Manish Sisodia in Delhi Excise Policy Scam case

 Supreme Court Asserts Ban on Donor Gametes for Gestational Surrogacies Conflicts with Surrogacy Act

Surrogacy Act

  Punjab and Haryana High Court imposes ₹1 lakh costs on lawyer for concealing facts in bail plea

NCLAT Judicial member Justice Rakesh Kumar resigns amidst controversy for defying Supreme Court order

18 suits pending in Krishna Janmabhoomi - Shahi Idgah case: Allahabad High Court tells Supreme Court

Disrespect to national anthem: Mumbai Court dismisses complaint by BJP leader against Mamata Banerjee

A court in Mumbai has dismissed a petition which accused West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee of “disrespecting” the national anthem at an event held in December 2021 in Mumbai.

 The court said :  “No offence is made out.”