Weekend Legal Updates

Saturday & Sunday, 12th&13th February 2022



Right to Equality

Article – 14 Equality before law

The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.

Article – 15 Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.

(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to—
(a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or
(b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of the general public.
(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.
(4) Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
(5) Nothing in this article or in sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 shall prevent the State from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30.

Weekend Legal Updates:-

  1. A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court stating that the ₹8 lakh cut-off for inclusion in the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) criteria cannot be implemented for National Eligibility cum Entrance Test post graduate exam 2022-23 (NEET PG 2022) since the EWS issue is pending before the top court and would be taken up for hearing in March, this year.
  2. Former National Stock Exchange (NSE) Managing Director (MD) Chitra Ramkrishna’s bizarre claim of having been guided by a Siddha Purusha/ Yogi dwelling in Himalayas in making her professional decisions did not find favour with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) which barred her from associating with any market infrastructure institution or any intermediary registered with SEBI for a period of three years.
  3. A local court in Lucknow granted bail to Maulana Umar Gautam in an alleged forced religious conversion case. The Court was dealing with a case where a first information report (FIR) was filed against Maulana Umar Gautam under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 for allegedly pressuring a school teacher to convert from her religion.
  4. The Supreme Court stayed an e-auction process in a case from Bihar after noting that the the Debt Recovery Tribunal was not functional in the State. (Chandan Kumar v. State of Bihar)
    • A Division Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant stayed the auction process till the next date of hearing and directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of ₹1 crore with the SBI Stressed Assets Management Branch (respondent) before February 14, 2022, and a further amount of ₹75 lakh on or before March 14, 2022.
  5.  The Karnataka High Court barred students from wearing any attire of religious significance to educational institutions, in an interim order passed earlier this week during the hearing of the Hijab Ban case, be it a hijab or bhagwa shawl, until it disposes of the case.
  6. On Thursday the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court held that an employee in government service cannot claim transfer as a matter of right. (M Kachu Fathima v. Government of Tamil Nadu)
    • Petitioner, a government employee, sought inclusion in transfer counselling and for being placed under priority quota.
    • The High Court refused to interfere reasoning that transfer can never be claimed as a matter of right.
    •  It was held that it was the administration’s prerogative to transfer in public interest
    • Plea claimed that she was eligible to participate in counselling and must be allowed to participate.
    • Further, the Single Judge stipulated that power of judicial review in respect of general transfer counselling policies was limited.
      • the order stated, “This Court is of the considered opinion that transfer itself is an incidental to service, more so, a condition of service. Transfer can never be claimed as a matter of right by the Government employees. Transfers are issued on administrative grounds. It is the prerogative of the public administration to transfer the employee in the public interest and to ensure efficient and effective administration,” 
      • the order said, “When transfer itself is incidental to service, the concession extended the employees to choose the place or post would never provide any cause for moving a writ petition,
  7. On Thursday the Mumbai Bench of National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) held that deficit or non-payment of stamp duty with respect to agreements relied upon by the creditor is immaterial when it comes to initiation of insolvency proceedings against the corporate debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, provided the debt stands proved otherwise.  (Vistra ITCL India Limited v. Satra Properties (India) Limited)
  8. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has barred Anil Ambani and others from dealing in the securities market for siphoning off funds from Reliance Home Finance Limited (RHFL) to other companies.
  9. The Karnataka High Court rejected the bail application of two accused persons who had allegedly sexually assaulted a disabled woman which resulted in the woman giving birth to a child.  (Chikkaiah and Anr. v. State of Karnataka)
  10. A public interest litigation petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking directions to the Central and State governments to implement a common dress code in all registered and State recognized educational institutions across the country.
  11. A local court in Jammu and Kashmir’s Srinagar district has taken cognisance of a complaint filed by one Danish Hassan Dar against former Shia Central Waqf Board chairperson Jitendra Narayan Singh Tyagi (formerly Waseem Rizvi) who had converted from Islam to Hinduism.  (Danish Hassan Dar V/s Jitender Narayan Singh Tyagi)
  12. The Madras High Court quashed a defamation complaint filed against YouTuber Maridhas, while noting that the complainant was not an “aggrieved person.”  (Maridhas vs SRS Umari Shankar)
    • “The complainant has not suffered any legal injury. His reputation has not in any way been lowered. The Party has not authorised the filing of the complaint. If the partymen or the members of DMK had been defamed, then as a member of a definite class of people, the respondent could have maintained the complaint. Such is not the case here. The complainant on his own has filed the complaint. Since he is not a person aggrieved, continuation of the impugned proceedings will amount to an abuse of legal process.”
    • the Court noted, “Admittedly, the complaint was filed neither by DMK nor by Ms.Gayathri Kanthadai. The respondent has filed it in his individual capacity and not on behalf of DMK. The respondent herein claims to be a member and also an office bearer of DMK. There is nothing on record to show that DMK had authorised the complainant to file the impugned complaint,” 
    • “If a recognized political party has been defamed, a complaint by a high ranking functionary like the President or Secretary of the Party would definitely be maintainable in the light of the aforesaid decision. Where the Party alone in contra distinction with partymen has been defamed, others not at the helm of affairs cannot maintain a complaint as they would not be persons aggrieved.”
  13. The Karnataka High Court held that the service of leasing of residential property as a hostel for students and working professionals is exempt from payment of Goods and Services Tax.  (Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish v. Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Karnataka and Ors)
  14. The Karnataka High Court held that a person accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) cannot be granted bail on the ground of technicality, and non-compliance with formalities by police cannot be considered during the bail stage.  (Joswin Lobo v. State of Karnataka)
  15. The Bombay High Court’s Nagpur Bench issued notice to the Maharashtra government, Collector, and Municipal Commissioner of Nagpur on a plea challenging the restrictions imposed on the number of persons allowed to attend wedding venues and functions in Nagpur district.  (Mangal Karyalaya and Lawn Association and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.)
  16. The Delhi High Court has suspended the Executive Committee of Table Tennis Federation of India (TTFI) for six months after finding that national coach indulged in match-fixing during the Olympic qualifiers.  (Ms Manika Batra v Table Tennis Federation of India Through The President and Ors)
  17. A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court against a judgment of the Kerala High Court quashing a First Information Report (FIR) against Jacob Thomas, a former Director General of Police (DGP) in a corruption case. (Sathyan Naravoor v Dr. Jacob Thomas IPS)
  18. The Supreme Court granted parole to an accused person for two days to attend his sister’s wedding.  (Pankaj Som v. State of UP)
    • A Bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari referred to Rule 3(1)(c) of the Uttar Pradesh (Suspension of Sentences of Prisoners) Rules, 2007 which empowers government to suspend the sentence of a prisoner upto a month to enable the prisoner to attend the wedding of his/ her son, daughter, brother or sister.

Legal Prudent Fraternity