Weekend Legal Updates

Saturday & Sunday, 11th & 12th June 2022

Legal Awareness :- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Part – XVl   SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO CERTAIN CLASSES

Article – 332 Reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assemblies of the States.

  1. Seats shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, [except the Scheduled Tribes in the autonomous districts of Assam], in the Legislative Assembly of every State.
  2. Seats shall be reserved also for the autonomous districts in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Assam.
  3. The number of seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly of any State under clause (1) shall bear, as nearly as may be, the same proportion to the total number of seats in the Assembly as the population of the Scheduled Castes in the State or of the Scheduled Tribes in the State or part of the State, as the case may be, in respect of which seats are so reserved, bears to the total population of the State.
    • [(3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (3), until the taking effect, under article 170, of the re-adjustment, on the basis of the first census after the year [2026], of the number of seats in the Legislative Assemblies of the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland, the seats which shall be reserved for the Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly
      of any such State shall be, –
      1. (a) if all the seats in the Legislative Assembly of such State in existence on the date of coming into force of the Constitution (Fiftyseventh Amendment) Act, 1987 (hereafter in this clause referred to as the existing Assembly) are held by members of the Scheduled Tribes, all the seats except one.
      2. (b) in any other case, such number of seats as bears to the total number of seats, a proportion not less than the number (as on the said date) of members belonging to the Scheduled Tribes in the existing Assembly bears to the total number of seats in the existing Assembly.]
    • [(3B) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (3), until the re-adjustment, under article 170, takes effect on the basis of the first census after the year [2026], of the number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Tripura, the seats which shall be reserved for the Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly shall be, such number of seats as bears to the total number of seats, a proportion not less than the number, as on the date of coming into force of the Constitution (Seventy-second Amendment) Act, 1992, of members belonging to the Scheduled Tribes in the Legislative Assembly in existence on the said date bears to the total number of seats in that Assembly.]
  4. The number of seats reserved for an autonomous district in the Legislative Assembly of the State of Assam shall bear to the total number of seats in that Assembly a proportion not less than the population of the district bears to the total population of the State.
  5. The constituencies for the seats reserved for any autonomous district of Assam shall not comprise any area outside that district
  6. No person who is not a member of a Scheduled Tribe of any autonomous district of the State of Assam shall be eligible for election to the Legislative Assembly of the State from any constituency of that district:
    • [Provided that for elections to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Assam, the representation of the Scheduled Tribes and non-Scheduled Tribes in the constituencies included in the Bodoland Territorial Areas District, so notified, and existing prior to the constitution of Bodoland Territorial Areas District, shall be maintained.]

Today’s Legal Updates :-

  1. Today the Allahabad High Court held that if a job advertisement is not adequately circulated, it would prevent a fair opportunity to all prospective candidates and thus violate their fundamental rights. (Ravi Pratap Mishra v. State of UP)
    • the division bench observed, We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned single-judge as in terms of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, an advertisement has to be issued for inviting the applications giving fair opportunity to all the candidates.
  2. The Supreme Court reiterated that a child has the right to love and affection of both parents and to have access to both their parents.  (Himanshu Chordia vs Arushi Jain)
    • the Court said, We have no doubt that the child needs both parents and the child would be equally happy, if not happier, in the company of the mother as well. The child would perhaps be happiest if he could have both his parents. Unfortunately, the parents are unable to resolve their differences and stay together. Be that as it may, the child has a right to access both parents, and get the love and affection of both parents. Whatever be the differences between the spouses, the child cannot be denied company of his father.
    •  the Court added, No pressure should be put on the child. As the COVID-19 situation in the country has improved and life has more or less normalised, the parties may in future approach the Family Court concerned for requisite directions with regard to custody of/access to the child.
    • By an order dated March 4, 2022, the top court referred the parties to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre. The Court also permitted the petitioner to go to Udaipur during the Holi holidays and stay in a hotel. On the day of Holi, he was permitted to take the child out for a few hours in the afternoon, and then return the child to his mother after dinner.
    • The Court also directed that, if the child was agreeable, the petitioner might spend the week end, i.e., March 19 and 20, 2022, with the child, and return the child to the respondent-mother by the evening of March 20, 2022. Pursuant to that, the petitioner took the child out, and also spent two days with the child.
  3. On Saturday the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) advised the lnsurance Regulatory and Development Authority of lndia (IRDA) to issue fresh guidelines on the conduct and responsibilities of insurance agents as regards full disclosure and consequences of non-disclosure of medical conditions of customers. (HDFC Standard Life lnsurance Co Ltd v Vishan Rathore)
    • A fresh guideline needs to be issued, if need, by modifying the proposal form wherein it is clearly brought to the notice of the customer that non-disclosure of medical conditions will lead to repudiation.” (sic)
    • the State Commission had held while allowing the complaint, Hypertension and diabetes are not life-threatening disease. In present they are lifestyle disease.
    • In order to dispel all doubts, we are of the opinion that Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of lndia (IRDA) should take up the matter in the interest of consumers.
    • The appeal was filed by an insurance company against an order of the State Commission in favour of a complainant who submitted that the insurance company repudiated his claim on the ground of concealing material information.
  4. Anand & Anand has elevated four of its lawyers to partnership, the newly elevated partners are Gitika Suri, Udita Patro and Ritika Ahuja, and Twinky Rampal, who has been made an Equity Partner.
  5. The Delhi High Court directed the Adjudicatory Authority (AA) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to fill up vacant posts of Member (Administration), Member (Law) and Member (Finance or Accountancy) within a period of four months.  (Alok Industries vs. Asst. Director, ED)
    • Justice Singh ordered, it is directed that steps shall be taken for filling up all the vacant posts, especially, Member (Administration), Member (Law) and Member (Finance or Accountancy) on an expeditious basis and in any case within a period of four months from today. Insofar as the posts of Administrative Officer and Registrar are concerned, steps shall also be taken to fill the said posts on an expeditious basis.
    • Insofar as the posts of Administrative Officer and Registrar were concerned, steps shall also be taken to fill the said posts on an expeditious basis.
  6. The Himachal Pradesh High Court has asked all judicial officers in the State not to insist on certified copies of bail orders/ interim orders passed by the High Court since it is cumbersome and causes inconvenience to the litigants.
    • the letter said, All trial courts, Presiding Officer(s) are, therefore, requested to accept the downloaded copies of the bail orders/interim orders passed by the High Court, if the same are attested to be true downloaded copy by the counsel, representing the parties. However, before accepting such orders, the orders could be got verified from the High Court website.
  7. The Delhi High Court passed an interim order in favour of One Moto Scooters Trading LLC to prevent it’s ex-licensees from violating it’s Intellectual Property (IP) rights in India.  (One Moto Scooters Trading LLC Vs. Centre Systems Group Internet Content Provider)
    • the Court said, Accordingly, considering the fact that the question of maintainability would require some hearing and that there is an imminent threat of the respondents launching or using the mark ‘ONE MOTO’ in some manner,including by appointment of distributors or commencing manufacturing of automotive products, it is deemed appropriate to restrain the respondents.
    • The petitioner in the case had filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on account of various disputes that arose with the respondents out of the distributorship agreement that permitted the respondents to make use of the Trade Mark and Copyrights pertaining to “One Moto”, “Electa”, “Commuta”, “Ryda”, “Scoota”, “Deliva” and “Byka” in respect of electric vehicles.
    • the Court ordered, It is directed that status quo shall be maintained and the domain name shall remain blocked. Copy of this order shall be communicated to National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) by the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner.
    • he same shall be without prejudice to all the claims and counter-claims which the parties may have against each other.
  8. The Delhi High Court stated that even though a newspaper or a press agency may have been constituted by an Act of the parliament, such an organisation engaged in the dissemination of news cannot be seen as carrying out a ‘public function.’ (Prakash Singh vs. Union of India)
    • the Court said, While it may be true that the second respondent had been constituted by an Act by the Parliament of France, it becomes relevant to note that the newspaper or an agency engaged in the dissemination of news cannot be viewed as performing a public function.
  9. The Delhi High Court has held that registration of a First Information Report (FIR) is necessary to issue notices/summons under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) requiring attendance of a person.  (Kulvinder Singh Kohli v State of NCT of Delhi and Ors)
    • the Court said, Summons/notices under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. can be issued by a Police Officer who is making investigation under and in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C., and to set into motion such an investigation there is a pre-requisite of registration of FIR. Without registration of FIR, an investigation cannot be said to have been initiated.
    • The application contained allegations against Kohli and one Harvansjit Singh for offences under Section 153A (promoting enmity between different groups), 501 (printing defamatory content), 504 (intentional insult to provoke peace), 505 (public mischief), 295A (acts intended to outrage religious feelings) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.
    • the Court held, it is found that firstly, the notice under Section 160 of the CrPC. was not issued at the right stage by the respondent no. 3 (police), since, he could not have been said to be conducting investigation under the CrPC. without the registration of FIR for the purpose of issuance of the notice under Section 160 and secondly, the summons/notices were issued without jurisdiction from the concerned authority in SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab to the petitioner residing beyond its own station as well as any adjoining station.
  10. The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against the relatives of a man in a Section 498A case, saying that many a time, relatives living in distant places also meddle in the affairs of a couple and harass the wife. (Rajesh Himmat Pundkar vs State of Maharashtra)
    • The accused pointed out that while the husband lived in Akola district, his parents and a married sister were residing at Amravati district and his younger brother hailed from Pune City. They argued that they didn’t live with the applicant-husband and therefore, the allegations made against them, who are in-laws or relatives of the husband cannot be said to be true.
    • the judges held, Firstly, there is no presumption in law that a relative living at a distance is always innocent, unless proved otherwise. A relative staying away from the husband and wife can and has been seen in many cases meddling in affairs of the married couple and that too of such a nature and to such an extent, as to amount to real harassment.
    • the bench added, Then, up till now, we have found that the allegations made by the complainant wife against all the applicants are specific in nature and if their genuineness is to be tested, it would be possible only at the time of trial and not at this stage. Therefore, just because the remaining applicants are not residing alongwith the husband and the wife, it cannot be said that the allegations made against the in-laws do not disclose any offence.
    • The couple had gotten married in 2007 and had three children. However, in 2017, the wife learnt that the husband was having an extra-marital affair. On confronting him, he assaulted her.
    • As far as the in-laws are concerned, the wife alleged in her FIR that when she informed her husband’s parents and siblings about his extra marital affair, they instead of controlling his conduct, started abusing her. There were also demands of ₹50,000 towards dowry by the in-laws.
  11. The Allahabad High Court held that if a job advertisement is not adequately circulated, it would prevent a fair opportunity to all prospective candidates and thus violate their fundamental rights. (Ravi Pratap Mishra v. State of UP)
    • the division bench observed, We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned single-judge as in terms of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, an advertisement has to be issued for inviting the applications giving fair opportunity to all the candidates.
    • The dispute arose when one Ravi Pratap Mishra was appointed as a clerk in a school. However, when the appointment file was sent to the District Inspector of School for approval, it was refused sanction reasoning that the advertisement was published in a newspaper which had low circulation in the area.
    • The court opined that since the proper procedure for filling of the vacancy was not followed, the order rightly rejected the writ petition as a fair opportunity was not afforded to all the prospective candidates to apply for the post.
  12. The Supreme Court reiterated that a child has the right to love and affection of both parents and to have access to both their parents.  (Himanshu Chordia vs Arushi Jain)
    • the Court said, We have no doubt that the child needs both parents and the child would be equally happy, if not happier, in the company of the mother as well. The child would perhaps be happiest if he could have both his parents. Unfortunately, the parents are unable to resolve their differences and stay together. Be that as it may, the child has a right to access both parents, and get the love and affection of both parents. Whatever be the differences between the spouses, the child cannot be denied company of his father.
    • the Court, No pressure should be put on the child. As the COVID-19 situation in the country has improved and life has more or less normalised, the parties may in future approach the Family Court concerned for requisite directions with regard to custody of/access to the child.

Legal Prudent Fraternity