Today’s Legal Updates

Monday, 12th September 2022

Legal Awareness :- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Part – V THE UNION

CHAPTER- II  PARLIAMENT  (Conduct of Business)

Article – 99 Oath or affirmation by members.

Every member of either House of Parliament shall, before taking his seat, make and subscribe before the President, or some person appointed in that behalf by him, an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule.

Today’s Legal Updates :-

  1. On Monday the Delhi High Court imposed costs of ₹1 lakh on a lawyer who filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking identification of officers of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) who allegedly harassed Delhi’s liquor vendors.  (Narinder Khanna v Govt of Delhi and Ors)
    • the Court noted, nor has he given details of any kind of such harassment and based upon the so-called press releases/statements made in the press, he wants a roving inquiry to be done by this Court. The present petition is nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of law and the petitioner wants a roving inquiry to be done by this Court based upon vague and absurd allegations.
    • the Court ordered, It is made clear that if the amount is not paid within 30 days from today, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, New Delhi District will recover the amount as arrears of land revenue and shall transfer the same to the Army War Widows Fund with intimation to the Registrar General of this Court. The Registrar General shall monitor the recovery as ordered by this Court. The Petitioner shall appear before the Registrar General for reporting compliance on 18.10.2022.
  2. On Monday the Delhi High Court has held that the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution is not absolute and can be subjected to reasonable restrictions imposed by the State.  (St Stephens College v. University of Delhi and Anr)
    • The Petitioner-College is, therefore, directed to follow the admission policies for the year 2022-2023 as formulated by Respondent No.1 (Delhi University). Further, in accordance with the subsequent communication dated 24.05.2022, the Petitioner-College must withdraw its Admission Prospectus and issue a Public Notice declaring the amended admission procedure.
    • the judges said, Regulations can be framed to prevent maladministration as well as for laying down standards of education, teaching, maintenance of discipline, public order, health, morality, etc.
    • the Court said, As a corollary, it could not have been the intent of the Constituent Assembly to allow minority institutions to implement its protectionist measures for the betterment of the minority community, and then extend this protection to the non-minority community. Such an interpretation of the provision under Article 30(1) would only defeat the purpose of the constitutional provision, which is to bring minority communities at par with the non-minority communities.
  3. On Monday the Madras High Court said Expressing its displeasure at the Tamil Nadu government’s inaction over ridding the three main waterbodies in Chennai of encroachments, that encroachments were a “direct reflection of the government’s failure” to provide basic housing to the poor. (Kasturibha and Indira Nagar Residents Forum v The Secretary)
    • the High Court said, Encroachments are a direct reflection of the failure of the government to provide the basic need of shelter to the poor.
    • As Mahatma Gandhi said, be the change that you want to see.
  4. On Monday the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended elevation of three additional judges as permanent judges of the Karnataka High Court.
    • Justice Mohammed Ghouse Shukure Kamal
    • Justice Rajendra Badamikar
    • Justice Khazi Jayabunnisa Mohiuddin
  5. On Monday the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the names of nine judicial officers for elevation as judges of the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
    • Gurbir Singh
    • Deepak Gupta
    • Amarjot Bhatti
    • Ritu Tagore
    • Manisha Batra
    • Harpreet Kaur Jeewan
    • Sukhvinder Kaur
    • Sanjiv Berry
    • Vikram Aggarwal
  6. On Monday the Karnataka High Court refused to quash a complaint and chargesheet against a doctor accused of participating in the forceful sex change of a minor. (Dr Anith Patil v State of Karnataka)
    • Justice Suraj Govindaraj held in the order, The petitioner in the present matter is a Doctor, who is alleged to have conducted the sex change operation, and the other offences have not been alleged against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner though has contended that the petitioner has not performed the operation, I am of the considered opinion that this cannot be a matter which can be decided in a proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. that is a matter which is required to be left for trial.
    • I am unable to come to a conclusion that there are no offences which have been made out, there are no grounds which have been made out for quashing of the proceedings, as such, reserving liberty to the petitioner to raise all the defences before the trial Court, the petition stands dismissed.
  7. On Monday the Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the elevation of six judicial officers and two lawyers as judges of the Bombay High Court.
    • judicial officers –
      • Sanjay Anandrao Deshmukh
      • Yanshivraj Gopichand Khobragade
      • Mahendra Wadhumal Chandwani
      • Abhay Sopanrao Waghwase
      • Ravindra Madhusudan Joshi; and
      • Vrushali @ Shubhangi Vijay Joshi
    • lawyers
      • Advocate Santosh Govindrao Chapalgaonkar
      • Advocate Milind Manohar Sathaye
  8. On Monday the Bombay High Court pulled up the Ministry of External Affairs for not taking concrete steps to aid the film producer who sought safe return of his wife and children from Pakistan to India.
    • the Bench asked, Why is there no response? Don’t make him run from pillar to post at the Ministry.
    • the Bench said, Don’t just write, pick up your phone and ask. When the matter was kept today, at that time there should have been a response ready. How long does it take to take instructions? See that this issue is resolved. Speak to the concerned officer and see where the children are. Find out some contact number or email so that there is communication between the petitioner and his children.
  9. On Monday the Varanasi District Court held that a suit filed by Hindu parties seeking worship rights inside the Gyanvapi Mosque was not barred under the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.  (Smt. Rakhi Singh v State of UP)
    • the court order, They want to worship Maa Sringar Gauri and other visible and invisible deities with the contention that they worshipped there till the year 1993 and the plaintiffs are not claiming ownership over the disputed property.
    • Therefore, the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 does not operate as the bar on the suit of plaintiffs. The suit of the plaintiffs is limited and confined to the right of worship as a civil right and fundamental right as well as customary and religious right. I agree with the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.
  10. On Monday the Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition seeking directions to the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD) to collect data for revealing a link between the viewing of pornographic material and the commission of sexual offences. (Nalin Kohli v. Union of India)
    • the Bench observed, NCRB only maintains records and now if we start determining what is a crime, then it will become cumbersome for authorities. It is a thin ice. Now you are looking for a tendency. Whether someone is a serial rapist or addicted to this…there cannot be empirical evidence. How many convictions can you show? Our directions have to be implementable.
    • You will have to tell us what is the viewership. If it is so offensive, then government has enough arsenal to handle this.
    • the plea said, Because there is a whole body of research that unequivocally confirms that the viewing impact of pornographic and sexually explicit material leads to aggressive behaviour towards women and children in general even treating such aggressive sexual acts as normal.
  11. On Monday Outgoing Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, Justice MN Bhandari said that he was most satisfied with the fact that during his tenure at the High Court, the disposal rate of cases remained one of the highest among all high courts in the country.
    • CJ Bhandari said, When I was first appointed as the acting Chief Justice and then elevated as the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, several people told me it was going to be very challenging for me.
    • However, not a single day here was difficult for me, thanks to the immense cooperation I received from the lawyers, my fellow judges, and the staff here.
  12. On Monday the Delhi High Court took suo motu cognisance of recent manual scavenging deaths in the national capital.
    • Police identified the sweeper as Rohit Chandiliya, 32, a resident of JJ Colony in Bakkarwala and the security guard as Ashok, 30, of Jhajjar, Haryana. The Mundka police station received a call around 4pm on Friday of about two people succumbing to sewer gases.
  13. On Monday the Supreme Court said that the High Court had no choice but to do so, given that it was argued that wearing of hijab was an essential religious practice (ERP), in response to an argument that the Karnataka High Court should not have interpreted the Quran for the purpose of deciding the Hijab ban case.
    • the Court said, You went to court and said this is an essential religious practice. What option does the High Court have but to point it out? Now you say High Court cannot do this.
    • Muchhala responded, It is only judicial wisdom to not touch a field in which they have no expertise. High Court when encountered with ERP should have said ‘hands off we cannot look into that’.
      • No denial of these averments by the State, so it’s astounding what they say in their pleadings.
    • Justice Gupta responded, If these were not before the High Court, we can’t take it, but hear the other matters. We can’t hear this on new grounds. Your point is very well taken.
    • Muchhala argued, All these are grounds, there must be uniformity or else there will be disorder. Courts must guard the fundamental rights of dignity. Doctrine of proportionality will also come into play there.
      • We have to see from the view of need for awareness of sensitivity. Cultural and religious diversity can be accommodated…If turban can be allowed, I won’t put it under discrimination but tolerance which can be there for hijab also, that won’t lead to disharmony.
    • Justice Gupta replied, Court is only speaking about freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. They are not saying Articles 25 and 19 are mutually exclusive.
    •  Muchhala went on to ask, What is the crime these little girls are committing? Putting a piece of cloth on their head. Because of this, all rights are denied to them. One who puts hijab must not be looked like a caricature, but with dignity.
    • Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid argued, There is no binary like obligatory and non-obligatory in Islam. What is in Quran is obligatory and what the Prophet interpreted it is also obligatory. This is a critical thing to keep in mind.
      • It is a matter of religion, culture, conscience, culture, dignity.
      • The very elevated ideas given to the country by this very Court cannot be taken away. If I am at the Bar, I have to subscribe to the dress code. But does it mean I cannot wear anything other than this which is important for my culture or religion?
      • Hijab is a screen as per the Quran and it is religion or culture. Ghoonghat is considered very essential in UP or North India.
    • One of the pleas before the top court argued that the High Court “failed to note that the right to wear a Hijab comes under the ambit of ‘expression’ and is thus protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.”
  14. On Monday the Supreme Court issued a slew of directions to compartmentalise a batch of pleas challenging the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA) for ease of advancing submissions by counsel.
    • as projected by various learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matters need to be put in different segments so that the submissions can easily be advanced and confined to the challenges arising in respect of such segments.
    • the judges orally stated, This part of exercises be completed after 2 weeks of the Union’s responses.
  15. On Monday two Aam Aadmi Party (APP) lawmakers and 15 others are staring at jail terms after a Special Court in Delhi, dealing with cases of MPs and MLAs, held them guilty of being part of an assembly, rioting and causing hurt to police personnel at a police station seven years ago.
    • They were found guilty of offences under Sections 147 (rioting), 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty) and 149 (every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence commit­ted in prosecution of common object) of IPC but acquitted of criminal intimidation and damaging property charges.
    • This court is of the view that the prosecution has been able to establish that both the accused persons namely Sanjeev Jha and Akhilesh Pati Tripathi were present at the spot when the crowd turned violent and in fact had played a major role in provoking and instigating the crowd.
  16. On Saturday the Delhi Judicial Academy in New Delhi held Conference Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, Satish Chandra Sharma inaugurated the ‘Conference on Remediation of Environmental Pollution for Protection of Human Rights’.
    • An e-booklet was also released on the occasion with the aim of creating environmental awareness amongst citizens stressing the need for each and every person to act towards reducing environmental pollution.
    • Justice Vibhu Bakhru while addressing the conference stated that the first step to finding a meaningful solution is to realise the enormity of the problem and realise that it can’t be wished away. He termed the conference as a pathbreaking endeavour as it had stakeholders joining in from various fields. He also lauded the efforts of the organisers in their use of technology to reduce the use of paper in the conference.
  17. Senior Advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni will continue as the Advocate General (AG) for State of Maharashtra.
  18. On Monday the Delhi High Court allowed the Disciplinary Authority under the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules to pass order of punishment against a Delhi Police officer, Durga Prasad who was charged with abdication of duty and misconduct during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.  (Durga Prasad v Lt Governor of NCT of Delhi)
    • Chief Justice Sharma remarked, How many innocent people lost their lives? They are still bleeding, the nation is still bleeding.
  19. On Monday the Supreme Court refused to hear a plea seeking directions to the Central government to introduce an alcohol prevention policy at the national level. (Viniyog Parivar Trust v. UOI)
    • the Bench said, There is a revenue aspect to it and if something is done in some cases, you will block their revenue. This revenue is used for social causes. This plea is like directing the government to have a policy, it is not our domain.
    • the Court clarified while dismissing the plea, These kind of matters you entertain but it goes another way. You can do what you want. We will not touch this matter.
  20. On Monday the A Varanasi Court held that a suit filed by Hindu parties seeking worship rights inside the Gyanvapi Mosque is maintainable.
    • District Judge Dr AK Vishvesha dismissed the plea filed by the Muslim party, Committee of Management of Anjuman Intezamia Masjid, contesting the maintainability of the suit through an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
  21. On Monday the Supreme Court issued notice in a plea by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) seeking directions on how to use land allocated to it for building lawyers’ chambers.  (Supreme Court Bar Association vs Ministry of Urban Development and ors)
    • the CJI said, Your demands are ever increasing. It is a fact that these chambers cannot be forever with a lawyer. It cannot be passed down generations. It is a public property.
    • Justice Bhat also pointed out, Did me and CJI Lalit have chambers?
    • The CJI responded, I never had a chamber. Your demands cannot be ever increasing.
    • the Chief Justice added, You will have this 1.33 acres you can build as many chambers as you want.
  22. On Monday the Delhi High Court stayed the Lokpal of India’s proceedings against Jharkhand Mukti Morch (JMM) chief and Rajya Sabha MP Shibu Soren in a disproportionate assets case.  (Shibu Soren v Lokpal of India & Anr)
    • the plea said, No instance of even a single specific purported act of corruption is alleged in the Complaint. The Complaint is devoid of any particulars whatsoever and is a rambling yarn spun by the Respondent No.2, (Nishikant Dubey) a disgruntled and unsuccessful political opponent of the Petitioner and his party which has formed the Government in the State of Jharkhand pursuant to the Assembly elections held in 2019.
  23. On Monday the Supreme Court refused to allow the plea by the father of Amir Magrey – one of the four persons killed in last year’s encounter at Hyderpora in Srinagar – who sought the exhumation of his son’s body to perform last rites. (Mohd Latief Magrey v. UT of Jammu and Kashmir)
    • Right to dignity is also available to a dead for his body. We expressed sentiments of appellant. Court of law cannot decide such cases keeping in mind sentiments but only rule of law.
    • Sanctity of grave should be maintained. Court will not order disinter unless it is in interest of justice.
    • the apex court said, As a result this appeal fails. Respondents to comply with directions of High Court such as compensation and allow prayers at grave site.
  24. On Saturday Supreme Court judge Justice Abhay Oka said Instead of felicitating Chief Justice of India (CJI) UU Lalit with bouquets and mementos, the Maharashtra government should felicitate him by allocating land for the new Bombay High Court complex and that would be his actual felicitation.
    • Justice Oka said, I believe that giving bouquets and mementos would not be the actual felicitation for the CJI. I have been issuing writs against the government and issued several while here in Bombay but today since the Chief Minister is present in this event, I would not issue a writ but would request and inform him that if the state wishes to felicitate Justice Lalit in true sense, then it should allot a land for constructing a new Bombay High Court complex.
    • the judge opined, The State should invite our CJI for the Bhoomi Poojan of that land before November 8. This would be the actual felicitation of CJI Lalit.
    • Justice Oka stated, I would like to tell the state government that it will get more such instances to felicitate CJI, who would be from this State. In fact, by May 2025, when it would be felicitating another son of this soil as a CJI, the State must ensure that he (Justice Gavai) inaugurates the new High Court complex).
      • We have held meetings and I would assure you all that soon a decision would be taken (for allotting a land parcel). I would like to point out that we will do this for the citizens and that there is no personal interest in this cause.
    • In my meetings with CJ Datta, he has highlighted the condition of court infrastructure and has suggested we make some budgetary allocation for the same. I can assure you that soon a decision would be taken on the suggestion to use at least 1 per cent of the budget on court infrastructure,

Legal Prudent Fraternity