Today’s Legal Updates
Wednesday, 13th June 2022
Legal Awareness :- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Part – V THE UNION
CHAPTER- I THE EXECUTIVE (The President and Vice-President)
Article – 61 Procedure for impeachment of the President
- When a President is to be impeached for violation of the Constitution, the charge shall be preferred by either House of Parliament.
- No such charge shall be preferred unless –
- the proposal to prefer such charge is contained in a resolution which has been moved after at least fourteen days’ notice in writing signed by not less than one-fourth of the total number of members of the House has been given of their intention to move the resolution, and
- such resolution has been passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House.
- When a charge has been so preferred by either House of Parliament, the other House shall investigate the charge or cause the charge to be investigated and the President shall have the right to appear and to be represented at such investigation.
- If as a result of the investigation a resolution is passed by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House by which the charge was investigated or caused to be investigated, declaring that the charge preferred against the President has been sustained, such resolution shall have the effect of removing the President from his office as from the date on which
the resolution is so passed.
Today’s Legal Updates :-
- The Supreme Court will hear next week the appeals filed against the Hijab verdict of Karnataka High Court, which had upheld the right of educational institutions to ban wearing of hijab in college campus.
- The matter was before Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana by advocate Prashant Bhushan on behalf of the appellants who have challenged the High Court verdict.
- Bhushan said, The girls are losing out studies. This matter was filed long back.
- the CJI replied, It will be listed some time next week Bhushan.
- A three-judge Bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justices Krishna S Dixit and JM Khazi had held that: –
- Hijab is not a part of essential religious practices of Islam.
- Requirement of uniform is a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a).
- The government has the power to pass the GO; no case is made out for its invalidation.
- On Wednesday the Supreme Court asked imprisoned conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar to reveal the names of Tihar jail officials to whom he made payments amounting to over ₹12.5 crores to secure a lavish lifestyle inside the jail. (Sukash Chandra Shekhar @ Sukesh & Anr. v Union of India & Anr)
- A Bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia said it would not shirk away from entering into details of the allegations before deciding on whether he needs to be moved out Tihar jail, where he is presently lodged.
- the Bench stated in its order, To conclude whether the petitioner was running a syndicate or bribing his way through, it would be key to identify persons who have made the payments. We therefore call on him to submit the names of who [were] paid and to whom the payments were made by the next date of hearing.
- the Bench refused to budge, If you’re running a complete racket using staff, we’d like to know the names of whom you paid as extortion. You’ve ignited the process, very good. Now we’ll try and ensure this doesn’t happen again, we thank you for igniting.
- On Wednesday the Delhi High Court allowed applications seeking impleadment of Union Minister Anurag Thakur, BJP leaders Kapil Mishra and Parvesh Sahib Singh Verma, Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi, AAP’s Manish Sisodia and AIMIM’s Asaduddin Owaisi among others in a petition alleging that their speeches had led to the Delhi riots of 2020.
- the Court noted, The proposed respondents do not oppose the present applications seeking to implead them as party respondents except to the extent that the allegations made against them in the said applications are traverse in toto and the petitioners are put to strict proof thereof.
- On Wednesday the Supreme Court ordered State of Chhattisgarh to pay ₹7.5 lakhs as compensation to a rape convict who was kept in prison beyond the period of sentence awarded to him. (Bhola v. State of Chattishgarh)
- A division bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and CT Ravikumar was hearing a case where the appellant was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment. However, he was made to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years 3 months and 16 days, including remission.
- the supreme Court held, When such a convict is detained beyond the actual release date it would be imprisonment or detention sans sanction of law and would thus, violate not only Article 19(d)but also Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- the apex court said, This kind of levity cannot be viewed with laxity and it is time to consider it on the legit.
- the Court said, We find no reason to accept so-called justification and we will explain the raison d’etre for our disinclination and also for our inclination to grant compensation.
- the bench recorded, In this case, we found that the appellant was kept illegally in prison far in excess of the legally permissible period of incarceration despite coming to know about the appellate judgment of the High Court.
- On Wednesday the Bombay High Court issued notice to the Maharashtra government on a plea challenging the ‘blanket ban’ imposed on medical officers, prohibiting them from practicing in private clinics or hospitals after their duty hours at a public hospital or health center. (Dr Anil Shankar Rathod vs State of Maharashtra)
- A division bench of Justices Sanjay Gangapurwala and Shreeram Modak issued notice to the State authorities and asked them to file their response by the next date of hearing on August 7.
- the plea said, After duty hours he is doing private practice. The Medical Officers like the petitioner while in government service do the private practice and the authorities are also aware of it. It is stated that, much prior to his entry in the service, a GR dated September 16, 1972 was issued which providing compensatory allowance for loss of private practice.
- the petitioner said, The respondent authorities have without consulting the medical officers has issued the 2012 GR. It ought to have asked us if we want to opt for NPA or continue private practice start duty hours.
- Distinguished enviornment lawyer Sudhir Mishra, Door Tenant at No. 5 Barristers’ Chambers, United Kingdom, Founder & Managing Partner of Trust Legal received the first ever Guardians of Sustainability Award for the year 2022 on the 12th of July 2022. (Info :- Bar and Bench)
- On Wednesday the Founding Partner of Verus Krishnayan Sen will be joining L&L Partners with the intention to merge his firm’s dispute resolution practice with that of the latter’s.
- On Wednesday the Delhi High Court has held that examination authorities should give advance notice of rules requiring candidates wearing a kara (bangle) or kirpan (dagger) to appear at the exam centre one hour before the reporting time. (Mrs Manharleen Kaur v. UOI and Ors)
- On Wednesday A Mumbai court allowed the return of passport and cancellation of bail bond of Aryan Khan, son of Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan which was deposited with the court as a condition for his bail in the cruise ship drug case.
- On Wednesday the Bombay High Court asked the State of Maharashtra under what provision a ban was imposed on the use of sound systems and disco jockey (DJ) systems.
- On Wednesday A division bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal filed by USV Private Limited (USV), owner of SEBAMED soap brand, challenging a single-judge order restraining the brand from broadcasting advertisements in print or electronic media, ridiculing Hindustan Unilever (HUL) and Wipro soap brands.
- On Wednesday the Delhi High Court passed an ex-parte injunction restraining rogue websites from using the registered trademark of electrical company Havells. (Havells India Ltd & Anr v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors)
- On Wednesday the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi VK Saxena has directed the Delhi government to fill up vacancies in fast-track courts dealing with rape cases and cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) cases in the national capital.
- On Wednesday the Delhi High Court allowed Chinese smartphone manufacturer Vivo to operate its bank accounts on the condition that it furnishes a bank guarantee of ₹950 crores and maintains ₹250 crores in its accounts.
- On Wednesday the Bombay High Court directed the special court under the National Investigation Agency Act to submit a report to the High Court on a fortnightly basis regarding the progress of the trial in the Malegaon Blast case. (Sameer Kulkarni v. National Investigation Agency & Ors.)
- On Wednesday Madhya Pradesh Congress leader Dr. Jaya Thakur has moved the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Central government to grant extension of tenure to the current Director of Enforcement Directorate (ED) Sanjay Kumar Mishra.
- On Wednesday the Supreme Court queried whether it can pass an omnibus order in a public interest litigation and, thereby, prevent Uttar Pradesh State authorities from acting against illegal buildings and constructions.
- On Wednesday the Supreme Court agreed to list on July 26, the plea filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy seeking ‘national monument’ status for Ram Setu.
- On Wednesday the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) has filed draft charges before a Mumbai Court in which the agency has arraigned 35 accused for criminal conspiracy to procure, purchase and distribute narcotic drugs to ‘high society and Bollywood’.
- On Tuesday the Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea challenging a Kerala High Court order directing a former Indian Army soldier to undergo DNA test to determine the paternity of a woman who claimed to be his daughter. (Abhilash Nair vs Sreebha PS)
- On Wednesday the Delhi High Court issued notice to the Central and Delhi governments on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Court Fees (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2010 [Amendment Act] by which the Court Fees Act, 1870 was amended in its applicability to the National Capital Territory of Delhi. (Parveen Kumar Aggarwal vs. Union of India & Anr.)