Today’s Legal Updates

Thursday, 17th February 2022

Legal Awareness :- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

PART III FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

Right to Freedom

Article – 19 Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.

. (1) All citizens shall have the right—
(a) to freedom of speech and expression;
(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;
(c) to form associations or unions 1[or co-operative societies];
(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;
(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India;
(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
(3) Nothing in sub-clause (b) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it
imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause.
(4) Nothing in sub-clause (c) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it
imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause.
(5) Nothing in sub-clauses (d) and (e) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so
far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of any of the rights conferred by the said sub-clauses either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe.
(6) Nothing in sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it
imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause, and, in particular, nothing in the said sub-clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevent the State from making any law relating to,—
(i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or carrying on any occupation, trade or business, or
(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or otherwise.

Today’s Legal Updates:-

  1. A full-bench of the Karnataka High Court will continue hearing a batch of petitions filed by female Muslim students against ban on wearing hijab by certain Karnataka colleges.
    • Banning hijab is tantamount to banning the Quran, a petitioner-in-person argued before the Karnataka High Court in the hijab ban matter.
    • Dr. Vinod Kulkarni told the Bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justices Krishna S Dixit and JM Khazi that the hijab issue is creating mass hysteria and is disturbing the mental health of the poor Muslim girls.
    • Chief Justice Awasthi replied, “For you, hijab and Quran are same thing, Not for me. For entire world. I am a devout Brahmin Hindu. Quran applies to entire Muslim community across the world,”
  2. A week after the Supreme Court ordered the reinstatement of a former Madhya Pradesh district judge who had resigned from service in 2014 alleging sexual harassment by a High Court judge, she has been posted as officer on special duty in the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
  3. Today Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana reiterated that the top court will consider plea relating to vacancies in various tribunals across the country.
  4. Today the Supreme Court set aside an order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court staying the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020, which grants 75 per cent reservation in private sector jobs to persons domiciled in Haryana.  (State of Haryana v. Faridabad Industries Association)
  5. The Supreme Court held that if the prosecution has failed to prove the basic facts alleged against the accused, the burden of proof cannot then be shifted to the accused by resorting to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. (Satye Singh and another v. State of Uttarakhand)
  6. Yesterday the Supreme Court set aside an order of the Karnataka High Court that dismissed a petition challenging the election of sitting Janata Dal (Secular) Member of Parliament Prajwal Revanna.  (G Devarajegowda v. Prajwal Revanna @ Prajwal R and ors)
  7. Yesterday the Kerala High Court acquitted a mother who had been convicted by a trial court for murdering her only child, a 9-year-old boy.  (Teena v State of Kerala)
  8. A group of banks has approached the Delhi High Court demanding that the ₹6,000 crore that the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) owes Anil Ambani-owned Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL) should come to them.  (Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited v Delhi Metro Rail Corporation)
  9. Yesterday A Mumbai court granted bail to Yes Bank founder Rana Kapoor and Avantha Realty promoter Gautam Thapar in connection with a fraud case of the bank involving a transaction of ₹307 crores with the realty company.
  10. The Tripura High Court recalled an Additional Sessions Judge’s remarks made against lawyers representing the government, against whom he had threatened to initiate contempt proceedings.  (State of Tripura v. Sumit Banik and ors)
  11. Today the Supreme Court said that High Courts while passing orders, should refrain from making sweeping observations which are beyond the contours of the controversy or issues before them.  (Union of India vs Bharat Fritz Werner Limited & Another)
  12. Today the Karnataka High Court directed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to lodge an FIR against against M/s Simplex Infrastructures Ltd for misappropriation of funds in the construction of a flyover at Koramangala.  (Mr. Adinarayan Shetty v. State of Karnataka and Ors)
  13. Today the Supreme Court issued notice in a petition challenging an order of the Madras High Court quashing criminal proceedings against four persons including V Senthil Balaji, current Tamil Nadu Minister of Electricity. (P Dharamaraj v. Shanmugam)
  14. The Madras High Court warned candidates of the upcoming Tamil Nadu local body elections not to affix posters on private and public property without permission. (P Arumugam v. Tamil Nadu State Election Commissioner)
  15. The Kerala government has told the Supreme Court that the 2014 judgment of the top court allowing water level in the Mullaperiyar dam’s reservoir to reach 142 feet, should be reviewed by a larger bench of the top court.  (Dr. Joe Joseph v. State of Tamil Nadu)
  16. Yesterday the Kerala High Court observed that it is the duty of courts to protect and safeguard properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation.
  17. Today the Karnataka High Court set aside the conviction of a person accused of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), as the counsel representing the accused failed to appear during the trial.  (Somashekara v. State of Karnataka)
  18. The Delhi High Court will hear tomorrow Vikram Sampath’s plea against three historians, Audrey Truschke, Ananya Chakravarti and Rohit Chopra, who have accused him of plagiarism.  (Dr. Vikram Sampath v Dr. Audrey Truschke and Ors)
  19. The Central government has cleared appointment of chairpersons to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) a day after the Supreme Court expressed its displeasure stating that the bureaucracy was taking the issue of tribunal appointments very lightly. The Appointments Committee of the Cabinet approved the proposal of the Department of Financial Services to appoint the following persons as chairpersons to the DRATs.
    • DRAT Allahabad: Justice Rajesh Dayal Khare, former judge of Allahabad High Court.
    • DRAT Chennai: Justice S Ravi Kumar, former judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court & former chairperson of DRAT Mumbai.
    • DRAT Delhi: Justice Brijesh Sethi, former judge of Delhi High Court.
    • DRAT Kolkata: Justice Anil Kumar Srivastava, former judge of Allahabad High Court.
    • DRAT Mumbai: Justice Ashok Menon, former judge of Kerala High Court.
  20. Today Historian and VD Savarkar’s biographer, Vikram Sampath, has approached the Delhi High Court seeking ₹2 crores in damages from three historians who have accused him of plagiarism.  (Dr. Vikram Sampath v Dr. Audrey Truschke and Ors)
  21. Today the Madhya Pradesh High Court issued notice in a petition by Bharatiya Janata Party lawmaker Jalam Singh Patel, seeking a gag order against publication of news mentioning his name when reporting on his son’s marital dispute. (Jalam Singh Patel Vs Union Of India)
  22. The Executive Committee of the New Delhi Bar Association has written to Principle and District Sessions Judge Dinesh Kumar Sharma seeking creation of more Sessions Courts within the Patiala House court complex.
  23. On Monday the Bombay High Court quashed a show-cause notice issued in 2005 to Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited by the Central Excise authorities.  (Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of CGST)

Legal Prudent Fraternity